|
What are my options for getting a lens repaired that I bought used? My 100L is all of the sudden rendering a bunch of noise and distortion, like an element is whacked out of place.
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I went out shooting two days ago and the problem was gone. I think it'll sell like crazy among the pro sports/nature crowd. This isn't something for the hobbyist or even the dentist enthusiast, but for someone who is hired to shoot high-profile games and waits out in a blind for days hoping to catch 30 seconds of some rare triple-horned duck or whatever. Being able to hit the Turbo Boost button and swing in a teleconverter in seconds without having to detach lenses has got to be a godsend for sports photographers. As for value, it saves them from having to carry a second body and/or lens.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:If I could get one for zero dollars I'd say it's worth it too! Did you read that article?
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Just a friendly reminder that the Canon 40mm STM pancake lens is loving baller. I originally brought it out the other night just to get behind-the-scenes shots, but it worked out just as well for live shots. This is one of my favorites.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
When you say that formatting the card didn't work, do you mean that it wouldn't format, or that it formatted and didn't make a difference?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I mostly use my hood to protect the front element. The flair reduction is just a bonus. I use Gimp. I mean, sure Photoshop has a lot more features, but sometimes you don't need all those bells and whistles. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
the_lion posted:I'm planning on buying some filters for my 5D Mark II. I have 3 lenses: Any idea what kind of filters you're looking to get? Is it just for protection, or are you looking to shape the image, like with a circular polarizer or colored filter? Personally, I really like experimenting with filters. Yeah, with the flexibility you have in RAW editing, you can fake a lot of it in post, but if you come to like the effect of one particular filter, there's no reason to use that as a starting point before you start subtracting in post. For nature/landscape shots, the Hoya Intensifier really makes colors pop, especially with flowers and around autumn. The Tiffen 81C has also been helpful in balancing skin tones with outdoor shoots. With your 50mm f/1.2L, you might want to get a 3-stop ND filter so you can shoot wide open on bright days, but if you haven't run into a shutter speed limitation before, then it might not be an issue. Like evil_bunnY said, you usually can't put on a lens hood over step-down adapters, which may be a deal-breaker if you're shooting in situations where flare from the side or unexpected bumps are an issue. All the filters I have are 77mm, and I use adapters, though if you thought a regular exposed front element was a dust/fingerprint magnet before, an oversized filter hanging off the front is much worse. Usually I'll get the shots I want and then switch back to a hood if I want to use a filter for a few shots.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Some people don't like using computers, or want to know that their pictures will look exactly the same when they get home as they did on the back of the camera. No amount of explaining how a baby picture is formed will dissuade them... JPEG is better than RAW because they tried it once and couldn't figure it out once and it looked different.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
As much use as I get out of my 17-40L, about the only thing I ever shoot with it is landscapes and cityscapes, where it would be very advantageous to have some sort of control over perspective. I'd like to thank/blame this thread for fueling my thoughts of selling the 17-40 to fund a tilt-shift lens of some sort. Anybody been able to get their hands on the Samyang 24mm?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:The-Digital-Picture posted their review a week or so ago. They weren't terribly impressed with it. Wow... those samples are atrocious. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Got my EOS-M with the 22mm STM today. Haven't bought a P&S in ages, but wanted something I could bring on hikes, bike rides and other occasions where I want to get good shots without being That Guy. Image quality is loving fantastic. AF is still a bit slow and deliberate, even with the newest firmware, but it almost always locks onto its target on the first pass. Screen is massive, body is solid but with tiny grips right where they need to be. Trying to use it as a manual camera is frustrating, with its lack of proper dials, but I'd imagine that's not its intended usage. In the Scene Intelligent Auto mode, it constantly assesses lighting conditions and subjects to pick the right modes. So far, I've only used it around the house taking pictures of the dog, but I'm going to take it in town tomorrow and see how it deals with backlit subjects and fun stuff like that. Definitely a powerful piece of kit for $299.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Haggins posted:I haven't used a 135, but I did have a Sigma 150 macro for awhile. It was a great lens but, I found using a longer prime more restricting. For shorter primes (like your 24, 35, and 50, even an 85), you don't have to "zoom with your feet" too much to get the composition you want. With something longer, sometimes you want to step 20 feet back and can't do it because somethings in the way. Seriously, the 70-200s are all so fantastic that they kind of negate the need for long range primes. I recently did an outdoor shoot where I switched between the 70-200 f/4L and 100L and the results are pretty close across the board. Thinking of selling/trading the 100L macro, actually, to pick up something I might use more.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Haggins posted:If you do get rid of your 100 macro and still want to retain your macro abilities, I'd highly suggest picking up a close up lens if you can find one. Canon makes an excellent 77mm called the 500D Close up Lens. I'm not sure if they make a 67mm for the F/4 but the one I use is just about as good as having a real macro lens. The only thing you lose is infinity focus, which is really a small inconvenience. That's pretty cool, never knew such a thing existed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:I'm a 135/2 fanboy and I love that it's pretty small/light/unobtrusive and the wider aperture reduces the need for IS. That and the price relative to the 70-200/2.8 IS are what make me like it at the expense of focal length flexibility. No doubt, the 135 prime is magic. There is something rewarding about setting up a shot with a focal length in mind and working your composition around that, too. Who am I kidding, I'll have my 100L forever, and I'll prolly end up with the 135 next time it shows up on the refurb page 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:I don't think most people understand that the lens affects anything other than "zoom". They'll end up complaining "my camera doesn't take good action or low-light shots" instead of trying to get a lens with a wider aperture. This has been my experience as well. I saw someone get all angry that their "brand new camera that cost a lot of money" wouldn't take good pictures indoors without a flash. I mentioned that fast prime lenses are really the only way to go for low-light situations without a flash, but she just fixated on the belief that obviously her camera sucked and she needed to get a Nikon.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:There was a fellow here earlier in the thread saying his Canon camera was perma-stuck being really slow to wake from sleep after they installed Magic Lantern - even after he wiped ML off his memory card and was back to a Canon firmware. somnambulist posted:It was me. Still doing it Posting because there still is no way of clearing the bootflag option on the 5d3. This is a minor inconvenience if you're using an SD card, but recently I found that the camera will completely lock up and drain the battery if using an EyeFi card. The only way I was able to get it to work so far has been to power it on with no SD card, then quickly switch it off, insert the SD card, and switch it back on. Seems like 1 out of every 3 times it works, but I have to keep the camera set to not automatically power off, otherwise you have to do the dance all over again. There doesn't seem to be a way of just leaving the MagicLantern files on the EyeFi card, either and dealing with the slower bootup, it just won't allow the camera to start. So let this be a cautionary tale to 5D3 owners: Experiment with MagicLantern at your own risk, and consider manually loading ML when you need it rather than using the bootflag.fir file to make a permanent (for now) change to your camera's firmware.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2013 05:26
|
|
I have a 5d mark 3, i'll look around that page to see if there's a solution for it yet.
|
Binary Badger posted:Hope no one minds, but I got this shot from an EOS-M I got at the $329 price point from Amazon, with the standard 18-55mm lens just this weekend.. no filters installed. Love my EOS-M, though mine is with the 22MM STM. I carry it in my Camelbak when biking and snap pictures like this:  (filters used)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
There's also this:
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2013 13:04
|
|
|
That looks an awful lot like what my 100L was doing when the focusing rail broke. Can you take clear shots at all focal lengths without the IS?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
geeves posted:I bought the 70-200L (non IS) last summer ($1300ish) and it's a great lens though it struggles in lowlight and makes me wish I had saved and gotten the latest IS version. You're damned right about the 135mm. Finally got a chance to do a portrait session with it this weekend and was really happy with the color & contrast rendering, plus just the magic that it does with people's faces. I hadn't heard about the 70-200 f/2.8 being a dog in low light. Are you talking about AF, or just getting a steady shot in general?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Can't you set fec to the 'set' button? I can on my 70d , and it doesn't do anything else anyway Weird, this sounds like a great idea and it doesn't seem to be an option on the 5D3. Anyone know a way, or if it has been added in the latest firmware?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Ooooh, it shares the ISO button. Good to know! I routinely use a 600EX-RT in ETTL mode for fast-paced on-location shoots, and while the menus on the new Canon flashes are great, it's still a fair amount of hassle adjusting the FEC level on the fly. Thanks guys.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Huxley posted:My wife's boss gave me some OLD EF lenses this week, as in the last time she shot them were on a film EOS. One is a 35-80 that feels cheap as hell, and the other is a zoom she couldn't remember the numbers for, but I assume it's probably the 80-200 from the early 90s also (maybe?). I've been curious about those 80-200 lenses. Let me know if it doesn't work out and you're looking to sell it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Found a good deal on a Canon 80-200 f/2.8 "magic drainpipe" and just couldn't help myself. It's ridiculous, I love it. The AF is loud and moves with a bit of momentum, and it's just about as ugly as it is heavy, but damned if it doesn't turn out some impressive shots. Going to drag it to the studio tomorrow for a quick test during a portrait session. Hopefully this lasts me a while, because from what I hear, Canon won't even touch it for repairs, seeing as it's a minimum 20 years old.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
I'll add that it's not the focal length that causes the weird distortion, but the relative distance between the lens and the person. Let's say you're shooting someone at 40mm on a full frame (~25mm on crop). You only need to be a few feet away to get a full body shot, but because you're so close, there's big differences relative to the camera distance. That's how you end up with one eye looking WAY bigger than the other, a model's hands looking gigantic, unnaturally large noses, etc. Compared with if you're shooting at 85mm from 12 feet back, the difference in distance between the left eye and right eye is still the same, but now it's based on an overall distance of 12' rather than 4', so that difference is much less dramatic. Shorter focal lengths are good for exaggerated facial expressions and hardcore band shots, but it can be really hard to set up and execute a standard portrait with people up real close.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Huxley posted:At what point does that stop being true? If 85 is more flattering than 50, and 50 is more flattering than 28, is 200 even better? It stops being something to worry about when it's not a problem any more. Fashion photographers generally shoot with the longest lenses they can, though it's not possible or even preferable for typical lifestyle portraiture. I messed up in packing my kit for a photobooth gig one night, and shot the whole thing with a 17-40mm pegged at the long end the whole night. More than a few times, I had to recompose group shots so we didn't wind up with a giant forearm in the front, or one person looking twice as large as the person 2 feet behind them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Only reason I'd suggest a 5D2 over a 6D would be if you needed dual memory cards. I had a failure ONCE and it's still enough to make me paranoid. 5DC is an amazing camera if you have lots of light, but others are right that it starts to shows its age above ISO400, or when you need magicfocus. Still, nothing that some creative editing and planning your shots can't help with. Concert photographers swore by it until the 5D2 came along, and even then, many saw no need to upgrade. rio posted:Also, what lenses would you recommend if you were starting from scratch and going to spend a couple grand or so on lenses? I have been reading constantly for days - my eyes are going to fall out - there are so many differing opinions on the same lenses. You'll be able to use a 24-105L for damned near anything, though it doesn't really excel in any particular area. I'd almost certainly look into Tamron/Sigma offerings for an all-purpose lens. I'd take a look through your favorite shots and see what ranges you like shooting at before settling on a prime or two, especially with moving to a full frame platform. For portraiture, the 85mm f/1.8 is stellar. If you plan on shooting a lot of events, like wedding receptions and parties, you'll want something wider, like a 35 or 50mm prime with quick AF. The 50mm f/1.8 is good for an I'm-just-taking-pictures-of-my-own-kids type of situation, but when you need it to perform in high-pressure situations, you'll spend a lot of time watching it hunt for focus, which is no good.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
Whoa, really? Well then I'm left with zero reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 17:38
|
|
the 5D2 has one CF slot and zero SD slots.
|
GobiasIndustries posted:Has anyone used the 135mm 2.8 soft focus? I didn't know it even existed before today and based on this link, I'm...curious about what it's really good for: If you're an old guy who shoots in jpeg and has zero access to any sort of image editing software, then it will probably never leave your camera. At least, that's the case of the one guy around here I know who has one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Looks like the 35mm f/1.4 is out of stock... also, have you considered the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART? (Mine comes tomorrow ) edit: ^^ 
an AOL chatroom fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:wisdom I love when people discuss lens construction on these forums. It's so much more interesting than just hearing about subjective qualities ("The boken is at least 1.3 times creamier than the previous version") and marketing non-statements.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If you buy the canon 35/1.4 you are a straight up idiot at this point. Got my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 today. Was too busy to take it out, but here's a dog. I haven't quite figured out a good white balance setting for LED lights yet, so that might look a little off, but it seems like a very capable lens. I definitely want to start shooting wider portrait/lifestyle stuff, so hopefully this will get me some experience with that.  5D3 ISO800 f/1.4 1/40sec 1:1 crop an AOL chatroom fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Apr 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
All that plus 3 Paul Buff Einstein E640 lights, and to go on them, 2 striplights, 1 bigass softbox, and a beauty dish. Plus stands and a cybersync system to fire 'em all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I did some shooting on the weekend, and I was using my 18-55 Canon kit lens for a bit cause the only other lens I have is 50mm. Nope, lenses generally don't introduce grain unless they're... filled with grain. Could you post a crop of the image at 100% Maybe we can help you with what you're seeing.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
It looks like a slight missed focus as well. Notice the wall near her hand compared with the eyelashes.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
I've got a pretty good setup going for event photography with an EyeFi in the SD slot of my 5D3. It's pretty kludgy, but I don't know if the proprietary Canon version is any better. I've got a setup with lights and a background, and my 5D3 recording fullsize RAW to the CF and small RAW to SD. When I get a good picture, I mark it "protect" which tells the card to upload it to my computer. Laptop is running Lightroom and the EyeFi software, which downloads pictures to a certain directory. When Lightroom sees a new file in that directory, it auto-imports it, runs the adjustments that I have preset for that event. People look at the pictures, and if they want, I send it off to the pool of 4x6" dye-sub printers sitting there, complete with watermark text along the bottom to remind people that they got their picture taken at Billy's Bangin' BBQ Bonanza, home of the Radical Ribs or whatever. Sometimes I piggyback off of the venue's wifi, but usually I just do a direct Ad hoc connection between laptop and EyeFi, since that's going to be the fastest. Works out pretty well, though I really wish there were some sort of automated printing option that I could control from the camera, like if a photo is rated 5 stars, it'd print out 5 copies or something.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
caberham posted:Sounds pretty awesome! How do you light your venue? I guess you set up some lights for doorway entrances? Receptions? Or something? Thanks, usually it's just a corner of a club, and I'll set up with one Paul C Buff E640 inside a Westcott 50" Apollo softbox. Since it has a bounce design (rather than frontward-firing), it balances nicer, and I can back it up against a wall to get more distance. Keeping my poo poo safe from drunk people takes precedence over getting the best lighting. For floor stuff, I'll hand-hold an LED video light with a CTS gel over the front, to help balance with ambient light. I just ordered a Lowel video light, though, which I'm hoping will be a little better at that sort of thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
mrlego posted:That sounds really nice! Do you have an example shot from this setup? I usually roll with one or two 43" Westcott umbrellas and it works out ok, but I'd like to take the time to setup our softbox (it's a bit of a pain in the rear end to setup). The 50" Westcott is great because it directs *all* of its light forward, and it's big enough that it can handle fairly large groups. Here's a few samples from this last weekend's event, a record release party for a local hip-hop artist.     The place was packed, so I had to set up in a back hallway, and most of the group shots ran out of background, but... who cares an AOL chatroom fucked around with this message at 16:21 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't think anyone will argue that the Canon 35mm is lovely by any means, it's just that the Sigma version has come along and edged it out in just about every measurable way. On a full-frame camera, 35mm is great for catching your subject and their surroundings. I started saving pennies to buy the Canon after using a photojournalist friend's, and then the reviews of the Sigma started coming in. I haven't had a chance to test them head-to-head, but I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, plus I got a newer design and saved a couple hundred bucks. Since then, used it for lots of events, weddings, parties, concerts... it's a fantastic piece of equipment.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:For weddings mostly. Bubbacub posted:Sigma 35 1.4. You'll need the aperture. Just shot a wedding this weekend, admittedly one of my first "not just doing a favor for a friend" weddings. For reception/cocktail hour type stuff, the Sigma 35 f/1.4 ART absolutely kills. I was able to pick out groups of people, get them to watch the birdie for two quick shots, and have them back enjoying themselves without holding things up. The AF is a tad slower than most USM lenses I've used, but I feel like learning about the various focusing methods, finding out what works where, and knowing how to quickly switch between them will really allow any photographer to get more hits, whether in the studio or covering events.  evil_bunnY posted:Just get a used canon 85/1.8 Seriously, the f/1.8 is so freaking good. The f/1.2 has slightly better color, gives you two stops, and has *that* look, but if you're shooting for portrait sessions, the f/1.8 always delivers. I'm always happy when I get to use it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2014 15:37
|
|