lmwalker
-
Posts
667 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by lmwalker
-
-
<p>I prefer to stick with Canon L glass when possible, but as a hobbyist it is difficult to justify the cost of some of Canon's newest Mark II releases. Specifically the 24-70/2.8L, 70-200/2.8L and 100-400/4.5-5.6L upgrades. I have the 24-105/4L IS, 70-200/2.8L IS (Mk I), 70-200/4L IS and the 28-300/3.5-5.6L IS. When the Mk IIs came out for the 24-70/2.8L and the 100-400/4.5-5.6L, I decided to jump ship and go with Tamron's SP line. I bought the SP 24-70/2.8, which has image stabilization where Canon's Mk II does not. I also bought the Tamron SP 150-600/5-6.3. Both are just over half the price of the equivalent Canon lenses. While the IQ for the SP line may not be technically quite as good as the latest Canon L models, it is extremely close. And the build quality is right up there as well. I have not used any Sigma lenses lately, but from the reviews I have read, Sigma have also stepped up their game with their Art and Sport lines. I don't think there is as much distance between Canon and Tamron and Sigma as there used to be, except in price. And as a hobbyist, I find it really hard to justify the huge price difference for such relatively minor improvements in quality.</p>
-
<p>I have a 5DII with the 24-105 f/4 and an EM-1 with the 12-40 f/2.8. My impression is that the Olympus stabilization is at least equal to Canon's, but I have not performed any scientific tests to confirm. One thing to keep in mind is that the DOF at f/2.8 on M43 is approximately the same DOF as f/4 with full frame (or f/5.6 versus f/8), and so allows a shutter speed that is twice as fast for the same composition. Basically, the M43 image stabilization only has to work half as hard.</p>
-
<p>I agree with Mr. Rammell on every point except DOF. I purchased my OM-D E-M1 for its smaller size and weight for travel photography, and I am extremely impressed with the camera in every respect. But for good DOF control and especially for portraiture, my 5D2 with 100mm f/2 or 70-200L IS f/2.8 lenses are still my go to kit.</p>
-
<p>I rented the 100-400 for a trip to Kruger in 2010.</p>
<p>http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/travel_south_africa_kruger_national_park_2010</p>
<p>The 100-400 is a great lens and I got excellent results. I thought about buying one, but figured a Mark II would be released fairly soon and so I rented the Mark I for that trip. When the Mark II was announced with the huge price increase, I decided to buy the Tamron 150-600 instead. I have not used the Tamron a lot yet, but I would say it is pretty comparable to the 100-400 Mark I, but with 50% more reach. I have not used a 100-400 Mark II, so I can't make a comparison to the Mark II.</p>
<p>No problems with AF at f/6.3 on a 5DII with the Tamron. The Tamron is a bit heavy though. So is the 100-400 Mark I fully extended. Your arm will be tired by the end of the day with either lens. </p>
-
<p>The E-M1 has a sleep option that is described in the manual as: "The camera will enter sleep (energy saving) mode if no operations are performed for the selected period. The camera can be reactivated by pressing the shutter button halfway."</p>
<p align="LEFT">The E-M1 has a separate auto power off option as well. I believe that pressing the shutter button halfway also turns the camera back on, but I'm not certain on this.</p>
<p align="LEFT">I have not used continuous AF very much, but my impression is that as most Internet reviews indicate, it is not in the same league as most DSLRs.</p>
<p align="LEFT">I bought my E-M1 in December and I have not used it a lot as of yet. I principally purchased it to have a really good travel kit that is lighter than my 5DMkII + 5DMkI + lenses and accessories. I also purchased a LUMIX DMC-LX100 as my backup, so the total kit with lenses and accessories is less than a quarter of the weight of my DSLR kit. For travel photography (landscape, cityscape, architecture), both of these M43 cameras will give results comparable to my 5DMkII. For portraiture, sports and wildlife, IMHO, not so much.</p>
-
<p>I purchased the Tamron a few weeks ago and I have only had limited time to try it out. I am generally very pleased with my results, except that I seem to be missing focus just slightly on a fairly high number of shots. This appears to be either operator error or the lens is slightly front focusing. <br /> All of these shots were taken at f/2.8 or f/4, with just the center AF point selected. The f/4 shots mostly seem okay.</p>
<p>These shots are all slightly out of focus...</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/image/143623504">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/image/143623504</a><br /> <a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/image/143623505">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/image/143623505</a><br /> <a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/image/143623506">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/image/143623506</a></p>
<p>From the 3rd shot, you can see that either my focus point was on her forehead or the lens is slightly front focusing. Hopefully, if it is front focusing, I can resolve using the micro-adjustment feature.</p>
<p>When the focus is correct, the shots seem quite sharp to me. The focus is fast, although not quite as fast as most of my L HSM glass. Overall, I am happy with the IQ. I have seen a number of comments about bokeh issues, but it seems okay to me. The build quality is excellent, and operation is fast, silent and very smooth. Overall, I would rate this lens very near Canon L quality. My biggest complaint is that the zoom function is backwards to Canon lenses, which makes the lens somewhat awkard to use until you get used to it (which I have not yet).</p>
<p>I had been waiting for the Mark II of the Canon 24-70, but when it came out with a huge price increase and no IS, I decided to give the Tamron a try. Once I resolve the focusing issue, I'm thinking I am going to be very happy with it.</p>
-
-
<p>FWIW, I shoot mostly landscape/cityscape and the the two most frequently used lenses on my 5D2 are the 24-105L and the 17-40L. Covers 90% of what I do.</p>
-
<p>I have to clean my 5D at least monthly and I only occassionally use it as a second body to minimize changing lenses. My primary body is a 5DII which I have had for over a year and the sensor is still pristine. I haven't cleaned it once. So, I think you will be pleased in this respect when you upgrade.</p>
-
<p>I've been thinking about the 100mm macro for my 5D, but I have limited experience with macro, so I will be interested to see everyone's responses here as well.</p>
-
<p>I have to respectfully disagree with Ty, I think the original 5D was and is still an excellent camera for landscape, and especially in the price range of a used 5D Classic. There most likely are better values for street, wildlife and sports. Any APS-C body from the 40D and later, might be more capable in certain situations. But not for landscape.</p>
-
<p>If it fits your budget, I doubt you can get better IQ for the money than a used 5Dc. I have both the 5Dc and the 5D2, and as long as you are not planning to print extremely large and don't need to shoot over 1600 ISO, there is little difference that I can tell between the 2 cameras image quality. Over 1600 ISO, the 5D2 is clearly superior, and of course 21MPS will give much better quality at large print sizes. I think the 5Dc shutter is rated to 100K uses but it is not an extremely expensive replacement, and there is a mirror falling off issue that is covered by Canon, which I am pretty sure is extended to non-original owners and has no expiration. I have not had any problem with the mirror on mine and I have never had it replaced. The 5D2 also has slightly better AF and a bigger image buffer for faster shooting, but the 5Dc is not deficient in either area. I think the biggest issue affecting the 5Dc compared to the 5D2 is the lack of sensor cleaning. The 5Dc is a dust magnet which requires regular sensor cleanings, and the 5D2 does not. The 5Dc's LCD is, as noted above, not great, but I never really noticed it was lacking until I bought the 5D2.</p>
-
<p>My copy of this lens does have some vignetting, but probably not as much as your example shots. Nevertheless, using CS5 lens profiles in Bridge or Lightroom easily corrects this with a single click, so it causes me no grief.</p>
-
<p>My wife and I did a two week trip to South Africa and Zimbabwe last September where we had 4 internal flights inside South Africa. On virtually every one of these flights our checked luggage was broken into and more than once we had items stolen. Our South African hosts explained that the SA airports have cameras that thoroughly monitor baggage handling areas, but the workers are adept at breaking locks or zip ties and quickly searching through luggage without being detected by the monitors. So, you must carry on all high value items, unless it is your intention to dontate these items to the airport workers.</p>
<p>I always carry computer and camera equipment onboard with me in a backpack. My largest backpack which carries a notebook computer, two bodies, two long lenses and two-three smaller lenses, plus all accessories is difficult to stow in the overhead of smaller short-range aircraft, but I managed on this trip by removing the computer and a couple of other items and keeping them in the seat with me.</p>
-
<p>I think the main issue with this lens is corner sharpness at anything less than f/11. And for me there was a learning curve for how to use it correctly, especially regarding the extreme perspective distortion you get at 12mm. I now tend to use my 17-40 and shoot panos if 17mm isn't wide enough when shooting landscapes. But its hard to beat this lens for architecture and especially indoor architecture.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/sigma_12_24_hires">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/sigma_12_24_hires</a></p>
-
<p>I am in Atlanta. About 4 years ago I received a visitor at our offices from the local FBI office investigating a report that a couple of "suspicious" men had been observed by the Atlanta PD taking pictures downtown and then getting into a car registered to our company. This report turned out to be true. We had some VIPS visiting from Saudi Arabia on legitmate business and on their last day they requested that I supply them with a car and driver so they could do some tourist stuff. The FBI agent made copies of their business cards and I never heard anymore of the incident.</p>
<p>Anyway, I know the area you were shooting from and I would not consider it a very safe area to be shooting in, especially after dark. And especially if you were flashing anything more expensive than a point and shoot. So you might want to keep this in mind when you return.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/downtown_atlanta">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/downtown_atlanta</a></p>
-
<p>I am visiting Grand Teton National Park next week, and I was wondering if anyone has any useful tips for getting the most out of photography there during the winter? I have previously purchased and read "Photographer's Guide to Yellowstone and the Tetons", but only a couple of pages are devoted to winter. I have Googled the subject, but also with limited results. Any tips or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.</p>
-
<blockquote>
<p>To Mus and G Dan (and anyone else with both): how does the 5Dii's sensor autocleaning stand up, is it effective?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What G Dan said, exactly. I always had to clean my 5D at least once a month, and while I have only had the 5DII for a few months, I haven't had to clean it once.</p>
<p>Unlike G Dan, I have not really mastered sensor cleaning, as it usually takes me 2, 3 or 10 attempts to end up with a sensor that I can say with certainity is cleaner than when I started. So the effectiveness of the sensor cleaning mechanism may be my favorite feature on the 5DII.</p>
-
<p>I bought the 28-300mm f/3.5-5-6 L IS as a walk around lens for a full frame 5D. I had read the many complaints about it being heavy, but I thought 4 pounds, what's the big deal. After toting this rig around Europe for 2 weeks I learned that 4 pounds really is a big deal after about 3 hours. Its a really great lens, and I still use it when I know that I will need to repeatedly go back and forth between wide and long, but only if I know that I won't be shooting and/or carrying it around for more than a couple of hours at a time.</p>
<p>Also, I don't think you will fully realize the benefit of this lens on an APS-C camera. 28 just isn't wide enough wint 1.6 crop. Since you already have the 17-55/2.8 IS, I think Yakim's recommendation for one of the 70-200s makes very good sense.</p>
-
<p>I don't do a lot of wildlife photography, so I haven't invested in any long telephoto lenses. I am going on a trip to Kruger National Park in September/October, 2010 and my longest lens is the Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS. I also own a Tamron SP AF 2X TC. I have read all posts on Photo.Net related to using TCs going as far back as 2001, and there seems to be two general viewpoints regarding TCs: 1) No serious photographer would ever use one, and 2) you can obtain decent results when used in combination with a high quality fast lens.</p>
<p>I have done some test shots with the TC and the 70-200/2.8 (sample images here: <a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/canon_ef_70_200_2_8_hires_w2xtc">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/canon_ef_70_200_2_8_hires_w2xtc</a>) and AF works well, especially in good light, and at F8, the results seem reasonably sharp. October is the end of the dry season in Kruger, and the weather should be bright and sunny, so worst case is F8 at 400 or 800 ISO should give more than adequate shutter speed for handheld shooting on game drives.</p>
<p>The alternative, I think, is to buy a 100-400 L IS. I can justify the expense if I can expect substantially better results, but I would rather hang on to my money if the difference in the results will be marginal. So, my first question is, does anyone have any experience using a 2X TC with the 70-200/2.8 versus the 100-400? (One additional consideration is that the dry season in Kruger is very dusty, and I know from experience with other lenses that the push/pull design of the 100-400 tends to pull a lot of dust into the camera. My bodies are the 5D (MKI) and 30D, so neither have the sensor cleaning mechanism.)</p>
<p>My second question concerns the Canon 2X TC versus the Tamron 2X TC (SP - pro version). Has anyone compared the two current versions of these TC's, and if so, how much better is the Canon than the Tamron? The existing posts tend to have mixed opinions and/or are outdated (not the current versions of these items).</p>
<p>Thanks in advance for your input.</p>
-
<p>5D (MK I) and 50/1.4.<br>
An example of very low light results:<br>
-
<p>Yes, all superzooms absolutely suck... <a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/sigma_hires">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/sigma_hires</a></p>
-
<p>I have used a 30D and 5D combination for a couple of years now and find that breaking this duo is one of my considerations for not upgrading to the 5DMKII (yet). While most of my shooting is on the full frame 5D, sports and wildlife benefit significantly from the 1.6x crop on the 30D. As noted above, the 30D and 5D have virtually identical controls, menus and "feel", and use the same batteries and memory cards. Switching between them requires very little thought, and allows me to carry fewer batteries and chargers.</p>
<p>I don't know if it is a function of FF, a quirk of the particular design, or just my copy, but one of the biggest problems I have with the 5DMKI is it is a huge dust magnet. While I haven't performed any controlled tests, subjectively it seems to attract at least 2 to 3 times more dust than the 30D, and the 10D I had previously.</p>
-
<p>For full frame, the 24-70 is the best all around wedding lens IMO, with one of the 50mm primes as a backup for extreme low-light shooting. The 24-105 is excellent for outdoor weddings with adequate lighting conditions. On any of the 1.6x crop cameras, including the Rebel XT 350D, the 17-55 f2.8 is probably the best choice, but I have never used this lens myself since I mostly shoot with a 5D.</p>
Midrange zoom to pair with Canon 5D
in Canon EOS Mount
Posted
<p>I use both the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC USD and the Canon 24-105/4 IS USM. The 24-105 is a good walk around lens, light and slightly longer reach for when F/2.8 isn't needed. I mostly wanted the 24-70/2.8 to shoot handheld and with indoor ambient lighting so the VC was a deciding factor for me. That and the price difference. While the Tamron isn't quite as sharp as the Canon 24-70 Mark II, it is very, very good. Which makes it really hard for a hobbyist like myself to justify the price difference between the Tamron and the Canon Mark II.</p>
<p>Samples:<br /> Tamron:<br /> <a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/family_pictures_christmas_2014">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/family_pictures_christmas_2014</a><br /> <a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/family_pictures_layne_bday_6">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/family_pictures_layne_bday_6</a>:<br /> Canon:<br /> http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/family_hawaii_07_2014</p>