|
Whirlwind Jones posted:Describe "grainy". Yeah maybe I'm using the wrong word! Here is a section of the image at 100%, unretouched in Lightroom.:  I just dunno if I did something wrong, or if this is just how images look at 100%? Again, sorry if this is a dumb question, but I figured I would ask. Edit: If it matters, EXIF settings say 1/320 sec at 4.0 , 24 mm, 400 ISO.
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
You need to apply Sharpness to Raw files in Lightroom. If your slider is set to 0, that could be part of the problem.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
It's a mix of slight motion blur, aberrations, and ISO noise. What camera are you using?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:It's a mix of slight motion blur, aberrations, and ISO noise. What camera are you using? And yes, my sharpness slider was set to 0... I'll see if tinkering with that helps! Thanks for your advice, I'm still figuring all this out.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I'm using a t3i.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:That's 3 years old, and probably why you think your ISO400 is too noisy. The other problems can be solved with post correction (and better glass) and better technique. Any tips on what post correction could help, besides sharpening? Right now my workflow is importing the shots into Lightroom, applying Lens Correction, and then tinkering with the basic exposure and white balance until I get something I like. Also, does anyone have a suggestion for a good "general full body portrait" lens? My 50mm does the trick when I have room to work with, but sometimes space is too tight for it. I can move these questions to another thread if this isn't the right place for it, like the general photography thread.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
If you've applied lens correction on that, what appears to be CA on her hand might actually be over-correction. I really like the canon 35/2IS but not so much its price. You can't really go much wider before perspective starts making people look unnatural.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
It looks like a slight missed focus as well. Notice the wall near her hand compared with the eyelashes.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
bisticles posted:It looks like a slight missed focus as well. Notice the wall near her hand compared with the eyelashes. You know, I think you're right. That's something I always battle with, getting the right focus. Comes with practice I guess. For this kind of portrait stuff I generally use One Shot with a single center AF point. Does that sound right? And yeah, getting a 35mm looks like a good next step, I just need to suck it up and spend the money haha. Debating between getting the 35mm prime or maybe a better zoom lens. I don't want to necessarily invest in a ton of lenses for a t3i, I'm sure I'll want to upgrade to a full frame camera down the line if I keep up this hobby.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:You know, I think you're right. That's something I always battle with, getting the right focus. Comes with practice I guess. triplexpac posted:And yeah, getting a 35mm looks like a good next step, I just need to suck it up and spend the money haha. Debating between getting the 35mm prime or maybe a better zoom lens. I don't want to necessarily invest in a ton of lenses for a t3i, I'm sure I'll want to upgrade to a full frame camera down the line if I keep up this hobby.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
I have a manual focus 35mm f/1.4 for sale if you're interested. Not as light as the 35mm f/2 IS but a good deal cheaper, just as sharp and you get an extra stop.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:You know, I think you're right. That's something I always battle with, getting the right focus. Comes with practice I guess. Go for the Sigma 35mm/1.4 Art, or if you wanna be slightly cheaper about it, the Sigma 30mm/1.4.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
550/600/650D + the 30mm 1.4 is a pro move.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:I have a manual focus 35mm f/1.4 for sale if you're interested. Not as light as the 35mm f/2 IS but a good deal cheaper, just as sharp and you get an extra stop.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Live view, yo.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Live view, yo. Live view really kinda sucks for focusing manual lenses, though. It works OK if you're shooting a stationary target off a tripod but it's hard to nail focus on a moving target and handheld there's a lot of shaking at high magnifications. Focus confirmation is a joke, it doesn't work worth a drat at high apertures. It's better than nothing but I didn't find it reliably accurate at all. I really recommend a focus aid of some kind. Either optical (replacement focus screen with a split prism) or digital (focus peaking or an XT-1 style split prism). The lack of user-changeable focus screens is a big reason to prefer a used prosumer body to a used consumer body. More than just the technical specs, there's lots of those little technical niceties that have been stripped out. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:43 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Then again, the 5D3 doesn't change interchangeable screens anymore, either.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Live view really kinda sucks for focusing manual lenses, though. It works OK if you're shooting a stationary target off a tripod but it's hard to nail focus on a moving target and handheld there's a lot of shaking at high magnifications. Focus confirmation is a joke, it doesn't work worth a drat at high apertures. It's better than nothing but I didn't find it reliably accurate at all. I use a T2i and a 50mm 1.8 for most of my shots, with just the center AF point for confirmation. I haven't done the testing to see if I have more OOF photos at 1.8 versus 3.6 or something, but is there anything I can do with those two elements, plus a tripod, to improve focus? I seem to get it right somewhere between 10-20% of the time. Would just going with a smaller aperture improve my chances in situations like parties, etc?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Shoot 2.5+. You'll have a much wider focus plane and won't be missing so often.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
A COMPUTER GUY posted:Go for the Sigma 35mm/1.4 Art, or if you wanna be slightly cheaper about it, the Sigma 30mm/1.4. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:I use a T2i and a 50mm 1.8 for most of my shots, with just the center AF point for confirmation. I haven't done the testing to see if I have more OOF photos at 1.8 versus 3.6 or something, but is there anything I can do with those two elements, plus a tripod, to improve focus? I seem to get it right somewhere between 10-20% of the time. Would just going with a smaller aperture improve my chances in situations like parties, etc? Yeah, this: Whirlwind Jones posted:Shoot 2.5+. You'll have a much wider focus plane and won't be missing so often. Focus wide open, then stop down, which will give you a bit more wiggle room. Really though 50mm is just too long for indoors. Canon's greatest weakness is their lack of a 35mm f/1.8 DX equivalent. The Sigma 30/1.4 is decent enough but it's still too expensive to really fill that niche. The 40/2.8 is the most reasonable substitute but it's still a bit long especially with Canon's higher 1.6x crop versus the normal 1.5x. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:10 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
The 30mm ART is out of stock loving everywhere where I am. It seems pretty popular.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
I'm planning a month long family vacation to Hawaii and I'm thinking about picking up an ultrawide lens. I want to shoot:
Relevant gear: I shoot a 5DIII, and the widest glass I currently have is a 24-105. When I shot crop I had a Tamron 11-16 and found that I didn't use it much. I do want to have something in my kit for the astro pics and occasional landscape use. I'm thinking about the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8. It's cheap and allegedly super sharp. It's as cheap to buy as renting a nicer lens for a month. I'm also considering a canon 17-40 f/4. Given that I'm not that into wide angle shooting I'd prefer to buy something under $1000, or rent something for under $250 just for the trip. The Zeiss 18 mm seem well liked, and is reasonably priced to rent for a month. Is there anything else people think I should be considering?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
The Rokinon 14 is sharp for the price. Also be aware that it has hecka mustache distortion, so using it for anything other than astro timelapses and such might require heavy post-correction. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/samyang/14mm-f28.htm
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Is lens distortion like that still a major issue anymore? Lightroom does a fantastic job with their lens profile feature.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
deck posted:The Rokinon 14 is sharp for the price. Other than KRock, the reviews I've read have said that it's a remarkably sharp lens. http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff?start=1 http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Samyang/14mm-F2.8-IF-ED-MC-Aspherical-Canon-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__795 Of course I completely believe that they could have quality control issues and have bad copies out there though, especially at this price point. I also agree with rcman, in that I assume that the distortion can be fully corrected in post. Has anyone found that not to be the case?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:Other than KRock, the reviews I've read have said that it's a remarkably sharp lens. Moustache distortion is just harder than straight barrel or pincushion to correct, because it's a combo of them. You'll also lose more fidelity in correcting in than you would with a "normal" distortion pattern, that's all.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
sildargod posted:It was indeed, the only that stopped me snapping it up there and then was the extra $600 which I couldn't justify (yet). It seems to be absolutely fantastic, better even than my Tamron 24-70VC which was my go-to lens for everything for a long while. I'm considering sucking it up and getting it at the end of may though. Have you noticed any softness wide open at the long end? Most of the reviews I saw mentioned strong haloing and loss of contrast, but I didn't notice anything in my 10 minutes faffing around at the shop. I haven't done anything like extensive brick wall sharpness tests, but for my uses (which have mainly been portraits birds and live music with this lens, oh and cats) I have found it extremely sharp all around. No haloing, loss of contrast worth noting either but there is some noticeable vignetting wide open, but that it easily fixable in post and I honestly like the look of it most of the time anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
I have a lens profile for LR somewhere that corrects the Samyang 14mm well enough (Rokinon is a third party brand name). --edit: There. Forgot where I found it. Just to clarify, the actual LR profile format has way more correctional parameters than the sliders it offers you in the UI. http://mario.goebbels.be/eos_ff_samyang14.zip --edit2: Here's the source with some actual examples: http://ip-networx.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=91 Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 20:46 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
The EF 40mm f/2.8 is in stock on Canon's refurbished site with an additional 30% off: http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/c...stm-refurbished It ends up being $112.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
I just ordered the 40mm 2.8 a day before the price dropped  . I am pleased with the build quality on such a tiny lens. Something I had read about but didn't fully appreciate is that even manual focusing with the lens requires the camera to be powered and the light meter active. I guess manual focus is electrically driven? Anyway, at $112 it's a steal and everyone should have one. Maybe someday I'll get a STM body.     
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Having recently sold my 50 1.8 and purchasing a refurb Tamron 60 f/2 macro, should I buy a 40 pancake? I mean I always heard it was awesome and $112 is a crazy good price, but would I even need that anymore? Does it make a strong walkaround lens? The 2 lenses I have now are that 60 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Having recently sold my 50 1.8 and purchasing a refurb Tamron 60 f/2 macro, should I buy a 40 pancake? I mean I always heard it was awesome and $112 is a crazy good price, but would I even need that anymore? Does it make a strong walkaround lens? It's a nice walk around even if only because it's basically a body cap. When I got my Tamron 17-50 the pancake got tossed in the bag for a bit but I went to a dinner party with friends and put the pancake on, and I had totally forgotten how awesome and tiny the 40 is. Personally it's wide enough on crop, fast enough, and focuses well enough to be the "just gonna toss something on for a quick walk" lens. ("Wide enough on crop" considering I kept the thrifty fifty on my camera for a few years. All things are relative).
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Having recently sold my 50 1.8 and purchasing a refurb Tamron 60 f/2 macro, should I buy a 40 pancake? I mean I always heard it was awesome and $112 is a crazy good price, but would I even need that anymore? Does it make a strong walkaround lens? I'd have a hard time buying the 40mm if I had that 17-50 2.8. But I also really like using primes and "zooming" with my feet. If you have not gotten the lens in your hands yet to test, I'd recommend doing that. The manual focus ring particularities take a little getting used to. The auto focus speed is a little slow on my 1Ds mkII. I wouldn't say it hunts on One Shot or Servo, but it takes its time getting there compared to the 85mm 1.8 or 24-105 f/4. I'd be less enthused about the 40mm if I were only shooting on my T3i as 40mm feels a little long on a crop sensor, but on a full frame it feels wide enough to cover a lot of what I like shooting in low light. If you're doing paying jobs and the 17-50 stops working/breaks, the 40mm could really come in handy as a backup lens that weighs nothing and is optically excellent. Lenses break and I'd hate to only have one wide 2.8 on the job. I've been lucky so far but I won't rely on just my 24-105 forever. I figure I can carry a set of 3 primes to cover my rear end if I break an L Zoom. Think of it as cheap insurance.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Having recently sold my 50 1.8 and purchasing a refurb Tamron 60 f/2 macro, should I buy a 40 pancake? I would say yes to getting it if it's not going to impact you greatly financially, it really is a stellar lens, probably the best Canon have made in a long time. Colour rendition and sharpness on it are just incredible.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:The EF 40mm f/2.8 is in stock on Canon's refurbished site with an additional 30% off: Yes! Thanks for this... been lusting after one, but hadn't pulled the trigger. Even used they are in the $140 range so this is nice!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
deck posted:The Rokinon 14 is sharp for the price. Also be aware that it has hecka mustache distortion, so using it for anything other than astro timelapses and such might require heavy post-correction. FWIW I've been using this lens for hyperlapse work for a few months now. For that kind of job, the in-post stabilization required gets really hosed up if you don't do a good job on correcting distortion since it manifests as a moving distortion pattern on the scene. I used the profile and instructions from here: http://www.davidkinghamphotography.com/blog/2013/2/lens-profile-for-rokinon-samyang-14mm-2-8 Works great. The main downside everyone would experience is that when you render the raw file with that lens profile, it takes maybe 2-3 times longer than I get with a lens like the 85mm f/1.8 that has a relatively modest image transformation associated with the distortion correction. A+ for a super sharp lens (in my case) that is chump change compared to the Canon original. Samyang recently put out an in-front-of-the-lens filter holder for this lens as well. Unfortunately, the only ND filter that fits it is a 3 stop Cokin that's majorly overpriced for the optical quality (like $110 on eBay, currently). Kinda bummed about it since I want a good 9-10 stop option. Even with two of those lovely filters stacked, that's $220 for only 6 stops.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 13:10
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:The EF 40mm f/2.8 is in stock on Canon's refurbished site with an additional 30% off: I just received mine - I hopped on this deal a couple of days ago. I couldn't be happier - it's sharp as hell, small and light, it's nothing to carry it along with other lenses.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
mrlego posted:I just ordered the 40mm 2.8 a day before the price dropped Yes, it's focus-by-wire. dpreview.com posted:Autofocus performance is fine - it's not super-fast, probably because the entire optical unit moves back and forward for focusing, but it is very smooth and quiet. The electronically-driven manual focus works very well too, and arguably rather better than the relatively loose mechanically-coupled mechanisms found on many other inexpensive lenses such as the EF 50mm f/1.8 II. One thing to be aware of, though, is that the focus can't be adjusted when the lens is removed from the camera. This means it's entirely possible to find yourself putting the lens in your bag with the optical unit protruding 8mm out of the barrel, making it more vulnerable to damage (and reducing the size advantage too).
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
Noktor's apparently working on a lens for the EF mount. They're the folks that have 35mm and 50mm manual focus lenses at f0.95 for various mounts, including Sony's FE-mount.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:31
|
|