|
bisticles posted:Did you read that article?
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:About this Magic Lantern stuff, is it an alternative firmware? Is it worthwhile to be installed? --edit: Awww, no 6D branch yet. I have it on my 7D, and in my case it's just a layer of software I run on top by pressing a few buttons. It's just files on the CF-card. It's really good for using my MP-E 65mm macro lens because of the focus assists.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
bisticles posted:Did you read that article? He can take nice pictures but he's a crazy bad writer.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:If I could get one for zero dollars I'd say it's worth it too! Your argument doesn't make any sense. It's 100% relative. If you shoot nothing but wide-angle images, then no kidding, it's horrible value. If you're a nature photographer for whom this lens fills exactly the range you needed and perhaps replaces several primes and allows you to get shots you couldn't before, then the value is probably tremendous. For me? It's a terrible value, but to say it's not exactly what was needed (and asked for) by a large group of photographers is completely asinine.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:to say it's not exactly what was needed (and asked for) by a large group of photographers is completely asinine.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
Canon lenses would be good values if there wasn't almost always an option from a different manufacture with equal or better performance for a fraction of the cost.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Canon lenses would be good values if there wasn't almost always an option from a different manufacture with equal or better performance for a fraction of the cost. Paragon8 posted:He can take nice pictures but he's a crazy bad writer.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
fivre posted:The Canon EF-S 15-85mm IS? It's apparently decent and within your price range if you get it used. I'd recommend this lens to anyone. Very good IQ.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
casa de mi padre posted:Is there a list of the "better than Canon" lens options? It feels like a list that somebody would make. I'd love to see a list along this line.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:I'm surprised no one posted this yet. It's pretty huge news. So how does this work with a 10/12 bit display? Does the "Deep Color" option work?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 18:44
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
casa de mi padre posted:Is there a list of the "better than Canon" lens options? It feels like a list that somebody would make. The list doesn't exist because there aren't any 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:The list doesn't exist because there aren't any List_of_Zeiss_lenses.xhtml
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:List_of_Zeiss_lenses.xhtml I'd like to point out that the Zeiss ZE lenses are all manual focus. For the 99.9% of us for whom autofocus is a requirement, the Canon L lenses are the crème de la crème. InternetJunky posted:Yes. It doesn't change the fact it's horrible value. You're clearly not the target market.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:The list doesn't exist because there aren't any But K-rock said... Of course, he also thinks the 35L is better than the Sigma because it's made of metal. Much like the Sigma.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
Damit Canon, stop making hte most useful glass more expensive. At this rate I'll probably never sell my 24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/4.0. Okay maybe the 70-200 to upgrade to the f/4.0 IS. But still.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:So how does this work with a 10/12 bit display? Does the "Deep Color" option work? The point to having 14 bit raw is that you'll have a lot more latitude to grade your image - your output is probably going to end up as a lossy 8-bit h264 web video anyways but you'll have finer control over white balance, color, and exposure.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:56
|
|
|
Fred Miranda Jr posted:I'd like to point out that the Zeiss ZE lenses are all manual focus. For the 99.9% of us for whom autofocus is a requirement, the Canon L lenses are the crème de la crème. I don't think Reichstag was limiting the selection to ZE lenses.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 14:01
|
|
|
Every lens is a compromise. "Better" is different for everyone. A good example is the new Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. Nearly equals the new Canon 24-70L II optically, yet adds VC and a cheaper build for half the price. For some, this lens is better than the Canon. The Sigma 35F1.4~ART~ is the poster child for "better than Canon" lenses; It's worth noting that if you're into manual focus, the Samyang 35mm f1.4 is also as good if not better than the Canon 35L optically. However both have cheaper builds and I hear the Sigma's AF is slower? Anyways, horses for courses etc etc
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Could everyone just take a second to note that the instigator of Canon lenses not being good is the OP of the Nikon thread. #justsayin
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Could everyone just take a second to note that the instigator of Canon lenses not being good is the OP of the Nikon thread. Don't worry, I don't shoot nikon anymore either. e. I just remembered I have a d7000 for work but I hate it. Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 19:14 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
My take on the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM A1 on my 7D. Take all my opinions with a bit of a grain of salt, though, because I'm not that experienced with lenses, especially primes. - Excellent build quality for the price. The lens feels solid, snaps on my camera snugger than my Canon or Tokina lenses, the focus ring is smooth and well damped. Even the lens hood has a rubber-finish grip around it. (though it is just normal plastic on the inside of the hood, not felt) - This is useless for a review, but the lens simply LOOKS good. Sigma paid attention to the actual visual design of the lens, right down to the markings that line up the lens hood to the lens, and the materials complement each other and look right at home on my 7D. - Great picture quality at f/1.8 through f/8. Sharp in the centre, pretty good in the corners. Won't win awards for it, but it's quite good. This is probably the lens' biggest downfall if you already have a fast prime; pixel peeping it seems like my Canon 17-55 f/2.8 can compete on sharpness, which just feels wrong for a prime lens. - Lack of barrel distortion. (as any prime should have) - Autofocus is quiet but quite slow compared to Canon's. I may have microAF adjustments to do with mine as I was shooting tonight at a party with it open around f/1.8 and a lot of people came in soft looking, even if they weren't moving. I wasn't having those issues in the similar situations the night before at f/1.4, strangely. - Depth of field effects are great, backgrounds are very well blurred out and bright spots come in as tidy circles. 9-blade rounded apertures, yay! - At f/1.4 you get the usual wide-open-aperture issues: --- Vignetting (though I find it manageable for this) --- Very prone to flares --- Almost disturbing amounts of purple fringing if bright spots are anywhere near in-focus (disappears at f/1.8) Overall, I'd recommend this to... me. Because I was looking for a fast prime (for background blurring mostly) that was about equivalent to 50mm on a full frame. It came down to the full-frame Sigma 35mm f/1.4, the Canon EF 28mm f/2, or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC. I'm not going to be upgrading to full frame, I'm on a budget, the sharpness doesn't matter to me too much (my photos only wind up on the web really, it's a hobby not a profession), and the weight and size savings mattered to me quite a lot. The crop-sensor 30mm hit the middle of the road sweet spot for me. If up-front money, weight, or size are less of an issue to people though, I'd imagine it's difficult to consider this lens over the 35mm full-frame Sigma. If people want more photos in addition to what was posted in this thread earlier, I'll have to post those later. LiquidRain fucked around with this message at 19:07 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
1st AD posted:The point to having 14 bit raw is that you'll have a lot more latitude to grade your image - your output is probably going to end up as a lossy 8-bit h264 web video anyways but you'll have finer control over white balance, color, and exposure. drat. I just want to see some deep color content. It gives the video depth. Would have been nice to test it out.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
I just lucked out and picked up a Canon 50mm 1.4 for what I hope will end up costing me -$5 - $50, after I sell off everything else it came with. I'm super excited because when I had a crop body the Sigma 30mm 1.4 was one of my favorite lenses. So far the Canon doesn't impress me that much - it's soft until f2 and noisy, but I think it will do the job, especially for the price. With that said, I'm "eagerly" awaiting the hypothesized new Canon 50mm 1.4 IS with an MSRP of $649.99. 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
Is there any reason why Canon cameras don't just do AF confirmation on mechanical lenses via the firmware? I was wondering, because I've ordered a Samyang and it's apparently possible to get confirmation by essentially glueing a third party chip to the mount. So I'm wondering why this isn't supported by firmware and needs a nonsense hack.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 13:32
|
|
|
Are there any options on a Canon that will influence the JPEG output to make them unreadable on certain devices? I have been using a 60D for over a year now, but since a few weeks my Lacinema Classic mediaplayer suddenly won't play the images anymore. They work fine on my phone, computer, tablet, etc. It says the filetype is unknown, but they are the exact same straight-from-camera JPEG files that I used before. After I take those forwhite balancing and cropping or whatever editing I do it still won't play them, so it seems something in the file itself makes it unreadable. I can't think of anything I changed since it started, neither device had a firmware update and Google isn't helping. Edit: Apparantly it DOES show images straight from the camera, but after editing in Gimp it suddenly cannot display them anymore. Guess it is a Gimp issue, not Canon. Edit 2: Figured it was the Exif data since clearing that (which included info on how Gimp was the origin) made the first file work, but other 160+ are still not showing. No idea what is causing this issue. BioTech fucked around with this message at 14:52 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 13:32
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Is there any reason why Canon cameras don't just do AF confirmation on mechanical lenses via the firmware? I was wondering, because I've ordered a Samyang and it's apparently possible to get confirmation by essentially glueing a third party chip to the mount. So I'm wondering why this isn't supported by firmware and needs a nonsense hack. because Canon want you to buy Canon lenses not Samyang lenses.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:- Autofocus is quiet but quite slow compared to Canon's. I may have microAF adjustments to do with mine as I was shooting tonight at a party with it open around f/1.8 and a lot of people came in soft looking, even if they weren't moving. I wasn't having those issues in the similar situations the night before at f/1.4, strangely. At least on my copy. Don't get me wrong -- I still get a lot of tight, in focus photos. But I'd get more if the AF was more perfect.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:My take on the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM A1 on my 7D. I'm interested in comparing this lens to the Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM. I'm shooting on a 60D, and have a 50/1.8 and 85 /1.8, as well my 18-55 Rebel kit lens.I'd like to improve quality in the wider spectrum and I'm thinking of the 28, but have been starting also looking at some of the zooms in that area (the EF-S 10-22, 17-55, and the Tamron 17-50). Just looked at the Canon refurb site, and the 10-22 is available, and on 15% off sale. Obviously, the gods want me to get that one.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Ok, I've narrowed it down to either 24-105 or 100 2.8 macro and 40 2.8. To go with my 550d and 50 1.8. Anyone have a strong opinion either way?? edit: Forgot to mention, I'd be buying all of these second hand which makes them fairly equivalent price-wise. Waarg fucked around with this message at 22:22 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
I'd personally go for the 24-105 just based on the fact that even 40mm is pretty tight on a 550d. You might have an easier, more enjoyable time with a single zoom lens than with a bunch of primes. The 24-105 L is a pretty drat nice lens.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:drat. I just want to see some deep color content. It gives the video depth. Would have been nice to test it out. I'm not sure what you mean by "deep color." I doubt the image looks any better or has more depth if I have a 14-bit display. Here's a raw DNG frame from straight off the Blackmagic Cinema Camera (converted to TIFF in Photoshop):  Blackmagic Cinema Camera_1_2013-03-06_1629_C0000_000106 by chazaraz, on Flickr edit: welp it looks like there's no way to get the raw onto flickr without squashing it down to 8-bits. 1st AD fucked around with this message at 01:57 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Waarg posted:Ok, I've narrowed it down to either 24-105 or 100 2.8 macro and 40 2.8. To go with my 550d and 50 1.8. Anyone have a strong opinion either way?? The 40 mm pancake and 50 f/1.8 are kind of redundant. I have the 50 f/1.4 and the pancake, and often I basically toss a coin when choosing which one to bring. This is on full‐frame, though. On 1.6× I’d use the 50 mm as a portrait lens, and I’d want something wider for a walkaround. I have the 24–105 and it’s fine, but I wouldn’t buy it again in a world in which the Tamron 24–70 VC exists. Unfortunately, Tamron’s lens is far too new to find used. You should pick up a 100 mm macro either way eventually because it’s fantastic.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:
I agree with this and I haven't even taken a single macro photo yet. It's sharp and focuses fast.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Does anybody recall how often the Canon refurb bodies go on sale and what kind of discount is typical during the sale? I'm thinking about a 7d.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
CrushedWill posted:Does anybody recall how often the Canon refurb bodies go on sale and what kind of discount is typical during the sale? I'm thinking about a 7d. http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_260463_-1?WT.mc_id=C126149 In stock, 15% off normal refurb price, $1019. Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 06:01 on May 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:They've been on sale for over a week: Thanks, I'm on a mobile and canons site looks like rear end.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 06:00
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:They've been on sale for over a week: noooo I just saw they have the 40mm f/2.8 for 80 bucks and it's sold out!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
I just saw a Canon 85 1.8 on slickdeals for $319 shipped. Pretty good deal for a great lens.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
The OP has nothing about the TS-E lenses. I might make some words and sentences about it if I have time. Also, I'm thinking of selling my 17-40/4L and getting that Sigma 35/1.4. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
Do you have something else filling the UWA role or just don't need one? I'm contemplating selling my 17-40/4L as well since I find myself shooting around 24mm anyway, and I could just as well use my 24-70 for that and probably get better results. edit: Or a 24mm TS-E II 
Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 00:17 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 00:14
|
|