model mayhem gallery

Can't wait to hear what you think about it? I have been extremely happy with mine. Sure if I were making lots of money

from photography I would buy l-series but as this is just a hobby for my own personal amusement the Tamron pair is way

beyond good enough.

 

Ps - once you see how good the vc is, for $399 you will also absolutely love the Tamron 70-300 vc. I own l-series lenses

too but just can't believe how good the Tamron vc is for such a low price. The sharpness a low shutter speeds especially

of eyes really stands out. I caught a seagull in flight and the photo was so sharp I could clearly see the birds pupil...

<p>Yes, I use mine to power LED lightpanels for video work. I absolutely love them. Do you know how much it would cost to get battery powed video lights any other way</p>

<p>I have both the Canon 28 1.8 and 50 1.8 and absolutely love the 28 1.8. The build quality and focusing rings are sooo much better and faster. So if the 35 f2.0 is built on the same quality as the 50 1.8 I would definetely get the 28. Also, on crop camera the 35 will be a 50 and the 28 will be a 35. I think you will be happier with 35mm it allows you to see more....</p>

<p>With the money you would save by NOT getting the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II you could by BOTH the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC and the Canon 50 1.8. This is what I use and I am quite happy with the pair. Thier are times when I want to shoot at night or want to be more descrete and don't want to go out with a big ole 24-70 F2.8.<br>

I shoot with a Canon 5D Mark II and althougth I do have lots of primes including the 85 1.2L, 50 1.8, 28 1.8 none of these get as much use as my Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC and Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6 VC great pair.<br>

Here are samples of their quality <a href="http://patrickwheaton.com/windmills">http://patrickwheaton.com/windmills</a><br>

It's not the lens or the camera that makes good photos its the photographer. There is really no comparison between the wide usage of a zoom and the very specific usage of a prime.</p>

I find the lens itself makes a big difference when getting clear eyes. I use the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 vc and Tamron 70-300

vc. The vibration control helps a lot. Otherwise, use a tripod this will help increase sharpness.

 

Actually focus on the eyes with smaller aperture like f8. Large apertures may not get two peoples eyes all in focus.

 

Good quality lighting.

<p>I have done several weddings and always set the flash as the main light source. The primary reason is acuract colors. I always set my camera to manual ISO 100 - 400, 1/200, F2.8 - F8 and set the Canon 580 EXII to ETTL. If neded I use exposure compensatino from 5D 11 to increase or decrease flash output. I never touch the flash itself at all the camera will control all settings. <br>

I would not recommend High Speed Sync even outdoors It sucks and is very inconsistent and will drastically reduce your flashes power and duration. I also set my camera to portrait and single shot mode so that the flash power has a consistent focus point to meter. If camera is in AI server and fast shutter speed you can shoot faster than flash can recyle and you will get hit and miss results with camera power. In other words it could adjust power due to a white wall behind you rather than forground object. So becaus ef this I use spot metering.<br>

The 580 EX has plug for external power pack I would strongly recommend this if the shooting distance is far away or shooting group shots where greater dof is required. For group shots you may be around F8 or higher so more flash power is needed. An omnibounce or stofen will soften harsh shaodows but will also drain batteries faster as well. thus exposuer compensation or +1.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you already have a 24-105 then picking up an 85 1.8 makes perfect sense. There will be times when you are shooting with flash at a wedding and need a zoom. But there will be other times when you are shooting at night with no flash and the 85 1.8 will be the better choice.<br>

However, for studio work I definetely prefer my 24-70 over my 85 1.2L. for two reasons; 1. the zoom gives me much more room to work I can fram shot exactly how I want it without having to move back so far. 2. I can't shoot at F1.2 in studio anyways, studion strobes can only sync at 1/250 max and I generally shoot at around F8. At F8, 1/250 I can't tell the difference between the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 and the Canon 85 1.2L. Yes, if I really look at the colors or the flare around lights in photo I can tell but that is if you know what to look for.<br>

Even outdoors depending on the situation I have to determine will shooting wide open say 1.2 or 1.8 give me better results or shooting at F4 with Image stablization. No one answer fits all situations. <br>

And of course the 85 1.2L when shot at F1.2 has a look no other lens has, but extremely hard to focus at F1.2 \1.8 must use manual focus and object has to be stationary if focal plane moves forwards or backwards an inch your focus point will either change or become out of focus.<br>

Long story short get both.</p>

<p>Alright Alexandru, I agree I don't particularly care for HDR either although I am capable of making it look so natural you won't be able to tell it is HDR. As for the clouds moving it actually adds a nice affect, It is like dragging the shutter when shooting moving water.<br>

I think you might really like what I think to be the best landscape lens, The Canon 17-40 F4L. This lens is about $600 but has great coatings and colors. Some say it is the most reasonable priced L-seriees lens in terms of bang for the buck.<br>

Anyway good luck...</p>

<p>Whow, don't know what happended here with al lthe extra stuff.</p>

<p><a href="http://patrickwheaton.com/windmills/h54e8f950#h54e8f950">http://patrickwheaton.com/windmills/h54e8f950#h54e8f950</a><br /> <a href="http://patrickwheaton.com/windmills/h54e8f950#h54e8f9bc">http://patrickwheaton.com/windmills/h54e8f950#h54e8f9bc</a><br /> I guess it is all just a matter of style. I don't like doing post editing so I am more likely to control highlights more than shadows so I get a richer color when shooting open sky. I guess a carry over from my film days I like blacks to be just that really black. However, I also shoot with strobes on sunny days so my techniques may differ from standards.<br /> Have you considered using HDR techniques? This technique would give you the best of all worlds shooting a mulitple shots -2, 0, +2 and then combining them to create the contrast you want.<br>

<br /> PS - These where shot with a cheap $399 Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6 VC lens, handheld and no post editing has been done at all straight from the camera.<br>

You can easiliy see the diffeence from where the shots were exposed at 0 and the shots which where at -1 compensation. I think underexposed is the wrong word. I exposed corectly for the sky with rather than the windmill.</p>

 

<p><a href="http://patrickwheaton.com/windmills/h54e8f90c#h54e8f9bc">http://patrickwheaton.com/windmills/h54e8f90c#h54e8f9bc</a><br /> <a href="http://patrickwheaton.com/windmills/h54e8f90c#h54e8f950">http://patrickwheaton.com/windmills/h54e8f90c#h54e8f950</a><br /> On a 5D Mark II I absolutely love my Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6 VC. I purchased this for $399 has VC is fairly light has really fast silent focusing and is water resistant. Absolutely the best lens I have ever purchased espeacially when considering the cost. I also shoot with Canon 85 1.2L, Canon 17-40 F4L and Sigma 70-200 F2.8 DX.<br /> I liked this lens so much I also purchased the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC and IMOP the Tamron 70-300 is sharper than the Tamron 24-70 F2.8. Tamron has now also released a Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC. <br /> The links above were shot with the Tamron 70-300 VC but others in the same group were shot with the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC.<br>

<br /> PS - those images are directly out of the camera no sharpening or post editing has been done at all.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In college we had to shoot and develope our own plux-x and tri-x film. Film can handle highlights better so you can push it probably two stops before it starts to blowout. However, Digital can blowout at half a stop or less. So for digital to preserve highlights and not get noisy darks I will often shoot half stop under. However, when I am shooting film and I want to ensure I blowout a white background in a high key shoot I will push at least 1 stop maybe more depending on film. I can always fix in development process easy to get exact with chemicals. <br>

This is why "to me" shootinng digital and film is NOT the same. You have to be more aware and pay more attention to detail when shooting film. Digital you can shoot look at the screen see teh light in the background flaring and shim it. Can't do that with film. You have to see the end product without really seeing the end product.</p>

<p>Sounds like you are on the right path to better photos. I definetley unerstand about keeping it fun. This is exactly why I stopped shooting film. However, i can say that shooting film made me a better photographer as it made me look at what will make a good picture and how to get it right in the camera not relying ong post editing.<br>

Good luck and hope I was able to help...</p>

<p>Sorry you question was directed at Sarah but I think i can help a little. For the type of photography I see you doing these items may help. This is assuming you are shooting full manual. Also, RAW will not be a crisp out of camera as jpegs. PS - I also used a 30D for years. Now I shoot with Canon 5D Mark II and Tamron VR lenses. You can see some of my my work at http://patrickwheaton.com</p>

<ol>

<li>Circular polarizer and UV filter (Hoya or B+W). These may help your contrast issues. As you said some lenses have better coatings and less diffraction than others. A good ND\UV filter can help than and a polarizer will make the colors richer and also create more contrasty photos.</li>

<li>As mentioned before a tripod. Landscape shots are very hard to get sharp a tripod should help. This will also allow you to set your lens to F8 or smaller for more DOF and slower shutter speeds without bounce.</li>

<li>Exposure by Alien Skin. It is a program which makes your digital photos look like film. I like rich film like Kodak Vivid color of fuji Velvia 50.</li>

<li>Try real film. Get yourself a cheap film camera and shoot the same scenery with both your film and digital camera using the same lens. If the picts look good on film but bad on digital this would point to the camera or post editing issues rather than the lens.</li>

<li>Adjust digital camera settings to look more like your film shots. I.E. under expose by half a stop or more to increase saturation. Adjust Picture Styles if your camera has this feature. I would reduce post editing sharpening and learn to get the look you want directly from the camera and lens combination.</li>

<li>Finally pick shots which have high contrast to your eye from the beginning. If a shot looks flat and uninteresting to the eye will be hard to make it look great in camera unless you are doing heavy HDR type editing.</li>

</ol>

<p>Yes, I agree 5D Mark II will automatically shut off after 4GB even if you have a 32GB card. the other thing to consider is the 5D Mark II will also not follow focus like a regular video camera and has a very narrow DOF. Even a cheap video camera will focus better of objects which may not stand at exactly the same spot. When I use the 5D Mark II to make videos I mask the floor with X's (which are my focus spots) I mark these spots on my cameras third party focusing knob with colored tape to match the ones on the floor so I can move quickly to focus points using only manual focus.</p>

<p>I have shot video with both of these and although I don't have a side by side comparison I can tell you that in a well lit studio environment lit with 1000 watt or greater ARRI lights and LED panels. I could not tell the difference when putting scenes shot from different cameras into a movie in Adobe Premiere Pro.<br>

However, the lens selections I had for the Canon 5D Mark III was superior. The 85 1.2L, 35 1.2L and the Zeiss primes for shooting video on the 5D Mark III was out of this world in how clear the video was. <br>

I know this sounds backwards, but I would pick the lenses you will shoot video with first. For video the larger the aperture the better. 1.2 and 1.8 gives you supper shallow DOF and requires a lot less power for you lights especially if you are shooting on location with battery powered LED panels. <br>

Manual focus is fine for video lenses but speed and clarity is vital. Pore quality lenses will be more noticeable and harder to fix in post than the differences in bodies. In good light it is very hard to tell the differences at all it is definitely more of a preference of which you like better.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think at a minimum you will need at least two lights. (Main and fill) or two lights and a reflector. Main reflector for fill and background.<br>

I shoot with Alien Bees AB800 and White Lightning X1600 and they have servers me well. Now I also do a lot of video and have added LED panels to my kit. LED panels or hot lights are not as sharp as strobes, but give you ability to shoot low light stuff at wide apertures like F1.2 which you want be able to do with strobes as they are just too bright.<br>

If I were to do it a gain I would have purchased Einsteins. I have beat my gear up traveling a lot and goping in and out of studio and wish i have purchased hard cases or strobes which were a little more sturdy. Powere wise the AB's are great. I don't like the sub-mini jacks required for the remote triggers. They stop working if you let triggers hang from plug.</p>

<p>This seems strange to me as a polarize gel will change the colors in the art. I would think you would want true-color or neutral. If you are just trying to kill specular reflections a shoot through reflector or bounce reflector might be a good idea. I would be real careful with Lowell Tota's around art as they get very very hot. I would keep them as far away from art as possible and reflect them off some white surface I.E. ceiling, wall, large cheese cloth (at a good distance from light of course) or even art board....</p>

<p>I DO NOT think using a digital camera as a light meter for film works well. I shoot with both a Canopn 5D Mark II and a Canon ELAN 7NE. When I use both in studion with the same lens if I use 5D Mark II as refernce the film photos will be any where from a stop to a stop and a half too dark. Not sure if this jives with the above ISO chart. However, I shoot film about 1/2 stop over exposed to get more pop. However, Digital I shoot 1/2 stop under exposed to preserver highlights espeacially if I anm shooting someone with blonde or grey hair.<br>

So I would say get a light meter. Meter each of your strobes individually, unsderstand your light ratio's and get yourself a book which your record your camera and light settings. Once you get your film back compare it to your notes. This will give you a better base to adjust your film shots the next time to dial your studio in exactly. <br>

Trying to record your digital camera settings as a guide for your film camera shots will be hard to document and build upon. It will also be dificult to recreate the shot later on as you don't have a measurment for each individual light which is a lot more important with film than digital.</p>

<p>I agree with Marcus I put a third party grip on My Canon 5D mark II and and oem on my Canon 30D. The third party grip didn't fit flush and left a small gap betwwen the camera and the grip which made it wobble. I gave it to a friend and purchased the Canon grip . Big difference, the texture was better the fit was perfect and the battery door didn't open by accident like the third party grip.</p>

<p>I know I will be stoned here in this forum for what I will say next. IMOP, anyone who is using autofocus with a lens aperture of F1.2 is most likely not going to get very many good shots.<br>

I shot with the Canon 85 1.2L and I can tell you this lens does not autofocus well at all. Yes, it will autofocus on something at F1.2 and will autofocus on items well in very low light. <br>

The problem is it will not automatically focus on what you expect it to. With this lens I can focus on your right eye and your left eye can be out of focus. To get good shots at F1.2 I generally first need a tripod. Second I need a static object. Third I have to use my eye not autofocus. Liveview with 100% zoom is great for low light focusing at F1.2.<br>

But yes, in theory a F2.8 or faster lens will autofocus better in low light than a slower lens. </p>

<p>I think what will help the most fo rthese types of photos is a tripod. I shoot hair photography and although I can handhold at 1/250 (using studio strobes) things like individual strands of hair will not be as sharp as when I use a tripod.<br>

a lot of lack of sharpness comes from the slight bounce your hand does when clicking the shutter.</p>

<p>If you are primary shooting portrait and fashion I don't think you will tell a differwence between 5DII and 5DIII. Better lenes ie Canon 24-70 F2.8II and Canon 70-200 F2.8 II or adding\ upgrading studio strobes would make more of a difference than upgrading camera body. In studio I am shooting at F8 center , focus, at a fairly static object 10 feet away. Don't need much in terms of autofocus precesion with bright modeling lights in studio or on runways.</p>

<p>Hello Ling<br>

Best bang for the buck. I used a Tamron 28-75 F2.8 on my 30D for years and it was great. sharp edge to edge and on 30D was just as sharp for half the price of a Canon 24-70 F2.8 I.<br>

However, that all changed when I went full frame. For a Canon 5D II and espeacially a Canon 5D III, I would prefer to have the 24-70 F2.8 II because the camera body has such high resolution it shows the weakness in the lens more.<br>

I always knew I was going to upgrade my 30D to a full frame camera so I didn't invest in any EFS lenses. Since i don't make a lot of money from photography I tool a more cost effective approach and purchased the Tamrom 24-70 F2.8 VR which I absolutely love. However, I have no doubts the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II is the referrence lens for 2013 for those who have that kind of money to spend.</p>

<p>If you are talking about a Canon 5D Mark III or other hig end Mark III camera I don't think any modifications to the camera are needed. I agree that shooting at a higher ISO will reduce contrast but may also reduce sharpness. If you simply want the shadows brighter expose for the shadow using spot meter and then recompose the shot. The best way to boost shadows is to use a flash. The Canon 580 EX i9s excellent start for Weddings and will drastically lower contrast than not using a flash. Most photographers who shoot with high end camera's like Mark III do shoot RAW and edit in post. I use lightroom and Alienskin exposure pluggin. You can't think like a film photographer with a digital camera. You can get close shooting JPEG but you might as well get a point and shoot camera and shooting on full auto. To get film like look with digital you have to master one of many ways to enhance your digital files with several choices of digital editing software.</p>