New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Canon Thread - Page 140

post #2086 of 2662
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

  http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/30mm-f14.htm

Looking at this side by side comparison would you strongly not recommend the Sigma? Friend says I should definitely spend 50 more for the canon 28mm f1.8 over the Sigma 30mm 1.4.....or even the canon 35mm f2.0... That the Sigma will be too soft... The Sigma is aps-C sensor only, bit I don't really plan on upgrading for a long time to a ff... At least 5 maybe 10 years maybe never

See for yourself with The Digital Picture's resolution chart comparisons... Honestly, I wouldn't worry about wide open performance. Even at f/2.8, I'd worry about center performance only. I only start to worry about corner sharpness from f/8-11

Thanks. I agree but I'm at least guessing that I'll be using 1.4 a lot. Otherwise why am I getting it when I have a 2.8 17-50mm?
post #2087 of 2662
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

Thanks. I agree but I'm at least guessing that I'll be using 1.4 a lot. Otherwise why am I getting it when I have a 2.8 17-50mm?

 

No one ever uses 1.4 a lot. I shoot a lot of low light stuff, and I never go under 2.2. Honestly, the biggest benefit of a prime is to give you better discipline in choosing framing, zooming with your feet, etc. It's not about IQ. Yes, primes have 'better' IQ than zooms, but the benefits aren't going to take your photography to the next level. It's the way you shoot that will.


Edited by tomscy2000 - 5/25/12 at 9:47am
post #2088 of 2662
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftnose View Post


If you ever want to attempt an exercise in futility, try hand holding a modern DSLR and MF a high magnification shot.  You can't see the focus through the viewfinder so that leaves live view.  You can't focus with live view unless you zoom in and then you can't compose properly.  Not fun.  I think I see a tripod like a Manfrotto 055XPOB with a tilting center column in my future.

 

I've acquired my gear slowly over the last 15 years and I've always gone original Canon.  When I first started, 15 years ago, the big complaint about third party lenses was AF speed/accuracy.  Part of the reason why I went Canon over Nikon was for the improved AF--at the time, Nikon still only had AF motors in the body--so I've sort of stuck with Canon lenses ever since.

 

On MF, what you say is true with the stock viewfinder screen. However, there are tricks, e.g. DOF is so thin that you can observe the DOF on the platform that the subject is on (if any). If a butterfly is on a leaf, for example, you can clearly see the DOF on the leaf. Or, if the camera supports interchangable screens, the high precision ones work very well (Eg-S on 5D II, for example).

 

On tripod, I have the older 055 ProB (where the center column is not automatic, it takes a few extra steps to make it horizontal) and I don't think it is good enough for high magnification macro work. There's a lot of play in the center column when extend it horizontally. For tripod macro work, I'm eyeing one of the Gitzo models that don't have center column, but can extend really low -- and add a dedicated horizontal column separately.

post #2089 of 2662
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

 

No one ever uses 1.4 a lot. I shoot a lot of low light stuff, and I never go under 2.2. Honestly, the biggest benefit of a prime is to give you better discipline in choosing framing, zooming with your feet, etc. It's not about IQ. Yes, primes have 'better' IQ than zooms, but the benefits aren't going to take your photography to the next level. It's the way you shoot that will.

I don't know if I agree with that first part.  Tons of photogs shoot at f/1.4 or even f/1.2 frequently, especially for people shots with subject in the middle of the frame and a nice background that's melted away by the wide aperture.  I do agree that for landscapes, architecture, etc, stopping down is the norm.  

 

It's also the case that we often tend not to shoot f/1.4 lenses at f/1.4 due to most (all?) having poor performance fully wide open.  I tend to prefer shooting my f/1.2-1.4 lenses stopped down just a tiny bit at around f/1.6-1.8 to preserve the bokeh (mostly) yet gain a little better IQ.

post #2090 of 2662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon L View Post  I don't know if I agree with that first part.  Tons of photogs shoot at f/1.4 or even f/1.2 frequently, especially for people shots with subject in the middle of the frame and a nice background that's melted away by the wide aperture.  I do agree that for landscapes, architecture, etc, stopping down is the norm. It's also the case that we often tend not to shoot f/1.4 lenses at f/1.4 due to most (all?) having poor performance fully wide open.  I tend to prefer shooting my f/1.2-1.4 lenses stopped down just a tiny bit at around f/1.6-1.8 to preserve the bokeh (mostly) yet gain a little better IQ.

 

I'd say that only happens when someone has a 50L, 85L, 135L, or whatever, and I would not say they shoot at that aperture 'frequently', especially if you compare it to all of the f/2.8 or f/8, f/11 shots they have. The number of f/1.2-f/1.4 shots is probably 1% of that... Yes, I stop down to 2.2 because the performance at 1.4 isn't what I like; the only two EF lenses I know of that have no (read: very minor) issues with wide open performance are already mentioned: the 85L and 135L.

 

My real point was that hyogen shouldn't expect the 30/1.4 to be any sort of 'massive' boost in IQ over the 17-50/2.8, because it's really not. Yes, there are definitely noticeable benefits, and having the option to shoot at 1.4 is nice, but is it going to be a day and night difference, no. I have a 17-50; it's no 24-70L, but it's plenty adequate, even for pros. So what is a 30/1.4 going to provide? Well, the prime 'mentality', for one. Ever since I've been shooting with primes, I even shoot my zooms like primes. The last thing is that the 30/1.4 has massive coma flare wide open ---- probably its Achilles' heel.

post #2091 of 2662
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon L View Post  I don't know if I agree with that first part.  Tons of photogs shoot at f/1.4 or even f/1.2 frequently, especially for people shots with subject in the middle of the frame and a nice background that's melted away by the wide aperture.  I do agree that for landscapes, architecture, etc, stopping down is the norm. It's also the case that we often tend not to shoot f/1.4 lenses at f/1.4 due to most (all?) having poor performance fully wide open.  I tend to prefer shooting my f/1.2-1.4 lenses stopped down just a tiny bit at around f/1.6-1.8 to preserve the bokeh (mostly) yet gain a little better IQ.

 

I'd say that only happens when someone has a 50L, 85L, 135L, or whatever, and I would not say they shoot at that aperture 'frequently', especially if you compare it to all of the f/2.8 or f/8, f/11 shots they have. The number of f/1.2-f/1.4 shots is probably 1% of that... Yes, I stop down to 2.2 because the performance at 1.4 isn't what I like; the only two EF lenses I know of that have no (read: very minor) issues with wide open performance are already mentioned: the 85L and 135L.

 

My real point was that hyogen shouldn't expect the 30/1.4 to be any sort of 'massive' boost in IQ over the 17-50/2.8, because it's really not. Yes, there are definitely noticeable benefits, and having the option to shoot at 1.4 is nice, but is it going to be a day and night difference, no. I have a 17-50; it's no 24-70L, but it's plenty adequate, even for pros. So what is a 30/1.4 going to provide? Well, the prime 'mentality', for one. Ever since I've been shooting with primes, I even shoot my zooms like primes. The last thing is that the 30/1.4 has massive coma flare wide open ---- probably its Achilles' heel.

 

Well you've given me something to think about.  What in your opinion do you think I can benefit the most from?  the 17-50 f2.8 is super versatile...  my wife uses it a lot for indoor shots--taking pictures of the cat and other household items..  The bokeh is really nice actually, especially when zoomed in.  My thought for this 30mm f/1.4 was for more clear shots and much more blurry backgrounds.  Whether I take portraits or pictures of audio gear or other toys indoors or even outdoor shots.  I know I'll most likely have to step back a little to get the framing I want--I'm not a complete beginner at framing and such--I've been a bit of an enthusiast (not SLR) all my life and take more pics than anyone else I know.  I don't think i really need a prime to teach me how to frame shots..  Before I was into SLR photography i was into waterproof cameras and slow-motion (high speed cameras) and a lot of video.

 

But anyway, just wanting to get the best bang for my buck right now.  I think I've ruled out the super wide angle 10-22mm because I don't travel that often and don't take too many shots of architecture or wide landscapes..  If I have a baby in the next couple years--I probably don't want to HAVE to buy another lens/camera...  so perhaps the 30mm is for me...or maybe slightly better quality 28mm f/1.8 Canon lens.. 

 

Do any of you think I should keep my other lens, which I just acquired-- Tamron 18-200mm f3.5-6.3       That takes really sharp pics as does my 17-50...but of course can't really do bokeh unless zoomed in quite a bit.  I've noticed it's hard to keep steady when fully zoomed and needs a tripod (which I rarely take around). 

 

I'll try to post some sample shots and maybe you'll get a feel for how I shoot--I'm open to improvement/advice!! 

post #2092 of 2662
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

 

No one ever uses 1.4 a lot. I shoot a lot of low light stuff, and I never go under 2.2. Honestly, the biggest benefit of a prime is to give you better discipline in choosing framing, zooming with your feet, etc. It's not about IQ. Yes, primes have 'better' IQ than zooms, but the benefits aren't going to take your photography to the next level. It's the way you shoot that will.

 

I shoot almost exclusively at 1.2, but that's because I am both a bokeh whore and love very selective DOF.

 

I do use a filter in really bright daylight though, so I can stay at 1.2.

post #2093 of 2662

I've been messing around with time-lapse on a few terraces at my office.

 


 

post #2094 of 2662
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

 

My thought for this 30mm f/1.4 was for more clear shots and much more blurry backgrounds.  

 

 

If you are willing to fiddle with manual focus, I think the Samyang(Rokinon) 35mm f/1.4 lens is a tremendous bargain at $500.  MF is not so tricky with wider lenses like 35mm.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/655-samyang35f14eosapsc

 

On the other hand, if really creamy background bokeh with portraits is what you want, and especially if you want autofocus, then you might want to consider something like the Canon 85 mm f/1.8, which can be had for around $380 new.  It's pretty sharp at f/1.8, and no 35mm lens is going to do bokeh like fast 85mm.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/164-canon-ef-85mm-f18-usm-test-report--review

post #2095 of 2662
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

My thought for this 30mm f/1.4 was for more clear shots and much more blurry backgrounds.

 

Unless you're quite close to your subject with the background a fair distance away, you're not going to get much bokeh with a wide angle lens, especially on a crop body.

 

Buy a prime lens for the discipline it will force onto you (someone mentioned this earlier).  That discipline will teach you to take better photos.  Don't expect to snap on a prime lens and turn into Weston.

 

It's fresh on my mind because I just bought one but have you thought about a macro?  The 60mm EFS macro isn't super expensive and I understand it makes for a good walk around lens as well as a good macro lens.  It is pretty long but it would make a good portrait lens and macro lenses are always good baby lenses.

post #2096 of 2662
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

...My thought for this 30mm f/1.4 was for more clear shots and much more blurry backgrounds.  Whether I take portraits or pictures of audio gear or other toys indoors or even outdoor shots... 

 

I've always loved the standard 50mm f/1.4 thing, and when I picked up my first DSLR (a crop sensor Canon), I wanted to get as close to 50mm f/1.4 as I could. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 was as close as I saw (48mm equivalent).

 

I think you'll be able to get the blur (bokeh) you want with it. Here are some shots from when I first picked it up (I'm not presenting these as examples of high artistry, but as examples of blurred background):

 

 

2611695018_91774c3f4e_b.jpg

f/1.4

 

 

2809723122_be721a0b8e_b.jpg

f/1.4

 

I later switched to Nikon, but loved the 30mm f/1.4 so much that it was one of the first lenses I picked up for Nikon, too. The following two shots were just test shots I took to test focus (both my Canon and Nikon 30mm f/1.4 Sigmas focused well), and the first photo shows some background and foreground blur.

 

2945334718_b713fdefc8_b.jpg

f/1.4 (Nikon version of Sigma 30mm f/1.4)

 

2945335514_aa63c0a6f9_b.jpg

f/2.2 (Nikon version of Sigma 30mm f/1.4)

 

And sometimes, in real life, the big aperture comes in handy. A whole bunch of us went on a fall camping trip some years ago, and I took this photo (again with the Nikon mount version):

 

4157049071_199d1bc728_b.jpg

f/1.8 (Nikon version of Sigma 30mm f/1.4)

 

The only light was from the fire and embers (and that glow-in-the-dark necklace around the girl's neck). I tried using an f/2.8 lens, but it just didn't work in that little light--it was very dark outside of that fire, as we were well away from any city lights. (I know it's noisy, but I'll take that over what a flash would've done to that shot.)

 

So, again, I don't expect my photos to convince you, but I love shooting with that lens. It might be safe to say I had more fun with that lens on two different Canons, and then a Nikon D300, than any other lens.

 

Now that I moved to a full-frame sensor, I picked up a Nikon 50mm f/1.4G lens. Also, the increased high-ISO ability of the newer full-frame camera (relative to my previous cameras) does allow me to use f/2.8 when I'd previously have to turn to the f/1.4.

post #2097 of 2662

hmm all your advice has given me something to think about.  the 35mm f/1.4 will at least give me a blurrier background than shooting with my 17-50mm f/2.8mm for most purposes outside--mostly portraits, I'm guessing.  full body and head/shoulder-like. 

 

I didn't realize that wide apertures are not gonna give me as much bokeh, but I should've figured since you can make zoom lenses bokeh really well. 

 

I think 85mm is way too narrow for me, because a big reason I want the 30mm 1.4 is for indoor pictures of just stuff--my wife has a blog--I like to take shots of audio gear, and we both like taking pics of our cat.  Eventually we'll have a baby.  Remember, I'm on a crop sensor also, so 85mm is gonna be like a zoom lens for me -_-

 

Tried out the 18-200mm today..........I probably captured the best photograph (most interesting) ever today with the help of my cat bird watching outside my back window. 

 

Definitely couldn't have gotten this close with the 17-50..  This is at 200mm (320mm on my camera) handheld.  These are some of the most sharp out of many shots I rapidly took: 

 

Pictures were taking insanely long to upload, so I downloaded the smaller pics from facebook and uploaded those.

 

181302_10150973318938638_658243637_11884675_1351927242_n.jpg538329_10150973318873638_658243637_11884674_1141071392_n.jpg

 

 

I'm going to a Portland Timbers soccer game today, and the zoom lens will definitely come in handy.  Previously I had a 75-300mm cheap Canon lens, which took okay shots...this one seems to be a little higher quality, but I don't need 18-50mm since I have the 17-50 and I don't really mind switching lenses really fast from my bag.  I guess I'll get a prime for my indoor needs, sell this 18-200mm, and look for something like a better 100-300mm or so lens that isn't as crappy as the kit Canon one.  Perhaps teh Ultrasonic version with similar range, which is reviewed to be sharper. 

 

More to come.  why is it so slow uploading even compressed facebook pics!!??

post #2098 of 2662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercuttio View Post  I've been messing around with time-lapse on a few terraces at my office.

 

Were you using a CineSlider of some sort?

post #2099 of 2662
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post

 

Were you using a CineSlider of some sort?

 

Nope, just framing with intent to move the sequence in AE later on.

post #2100 of 2662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercuttio View Post  Nope, just framing with intent to move the sequence in AE later on.

 

Ah okay, I've been thinking about trying to shoot something with a slider synchronized to the rising and setting of the sun, but I can't get my hands on a slider...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home