p.3 #2 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."
skibum5 wrote:
It's possible that only a small subset of 24-105L do really well and most of the other copies are much worse. Never seen another lens so often trashed to bits by some and praised by others.
Obviously you haven't spent much time over at DPReview.
p.3 #3 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."
dwerther wrote:
Obviously you haven't spent much time over at DPReview.
@ skibum:
I sold mine because my friends one is much more crisp then mine was. I will buy a new one and hope it is like his (at my body). Anyway I was happy with the results, before I could compare to his lens. I guess itīs like with the 50mm 1.4. I tested 7 from one charge (at my dealers place). Two where worthless, two where nice, but hit AF in 50-60%, One was (nearly) without cf, accurte and fastest AF (70%-80). That one I bought. And I used it one year. MF was a pain. I tested 5 Sigmas and (we) purchased two under the permition to give it back, if Sigma would not be able to correct the 20mm fromt focus.
I guess, that pros and contras do not mean anything. One has to find out him/herselve with any lens at any body.
p.3 #5 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."
@ Ed:
congratulations to you. For your wife. And of course for the decission.
5D MK II is an outstanding camera. The 24-105 is great,too, if you got a good copy.
I guess you will have and I wish you really much pleasure with that gear.
@ PetKal:
Pros came first, right? I can not tell you anything about the Pros. I have never been in Nepal, too. But I know much about the middle ages. I saw "Lord of the Rings and stayd a couple of times in BAVARIA. Next to that I do not know anything about the young stone age. I dreamed about - but have never been in Canada.
p.3 #6 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."
Ralph Conway wrote:
@ PetKal:
Pros came first, right? I can not tell you anything about the Pros. I have never been in Nepal, too. But I know much about the middle ages. I saw "Lord of the Rings and stayd a couple of times in BAVARIA. Next to that I do not know anything about the young stone age. I dreamed about - but have never been in Canada.
OK, I guess Bavarian beer hall crowds could be as dangerous as the Contras.
p.3 #13 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."
misternikko wrote:
I love the improved DOF!
It's not improved; it's just different. Not everybody shoots the way you do. Some people dislike the reduced DoF because their work benefits from deep depth of field.
John--G wrote:
Even when shooting wide-open with full-frame vs. 1.3X I don't really see much of a DOF difference (even with my 200/2.0).
It's only about 2/3 stop between full-frame and 1.3x crop factor.
Invertalon wrote:
Moving from XSi -> T1i -> 7D -> 7D + 5Dc -> 5D2... I never really saw the difference in DOF
It's about 1 1/3 stops between full-frame and 1.6x crop factor.
Kirivon wrote:
The notion that FF has greater DoF is a misnomer IMO. The primary characteristic that controls DoF is the diameter of the pupil; the greater the diameter the shallower the DoF. If the If an 85mm lens at f/2 has a pupil diameter of 42.5mm, it's still going to be 42.5mm regardless of whether or not you use it on FF or APS-C. The differentiating factor is that if you use an 50mm at f/2 instead on APS-C your pupil diameter is going to be 25mm. Thus, you'd need to use a 50mm at f/1.2 to get roughly the equivalent DoF as an 85mm at f/2.
However, the inherent amount of DoF here is the same. Granted lens design variation means that the pupil diameter won't strictly be the focal length divided by the f-stop, but the principle stands. FF doesn't change the amount of DoF you get from your lenses--you're simply using longer lenses and the longer the lens shallower the DoF.
In practice, yes, full frame effectively has DoF that is 1 stop shallower than APS-C at an equivalent field of view. But, I think it's important to understand why this is the case. If you were to crop all your FF images to match the APS-C framing, you'd find that the results will be identical....Show more →
p.3 #15 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."
I did a test on a 40D with my 50mm 1.4.
Like many others, I was a bit disappointed at full aperture exposure...it looked soft.
But I refined the test down to photographing a length of worn rope at an oblique angle to the camera, and it was clear that individual frayed strands were pin sharp at 1.4...for a depth of maybe 2mm....on the top surface only!
To me, that in an unusable setting for my needs (model shoots)...so what is the DOF on FF at that setting...and how is it useable?
I find (on this lens) that f4 give a pretty nice 'look' to a model...preferably if she has perfect skin however...
I sometimes use the 85mm 1.8 fully open...that seems easier to work with doing headshots.
p.3 #16 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."
Ralph Conway wrote:
@ skibum:
I sold mine because my friends one is much more crisp then mine was. I will buy a new one and hope it is like his (at my body). Anyway I was happy with the results, before I could compare to his lens. I guess itīs like with the 50mm 1.4. I tested 7 from one charge (at my dealers place). Two where worthless, two where nice, but hit AF in 50-60%, One was (nearly) without cf, accurte and fastest AF (70%-80). That one I bought. And I used it one year. MF was a pain. I tested 5 Sigmas and (we) purchased two under the permition to give it back, if Sigma would not be able to correct the 20mm fromt focus.
I guess, that pros and contras do not mean anything. One has to find out him/herselve with any lens at any body. ...Show more →
Sometimes I wonder if maybe I really did have the bad luck to get two nearly identically poor 24-105 copies.
Yeah 50mm 1.4 AF is all over the place, no copies are great, some are beyond awful and the MF ring is very poor, yeah.
p.3 #17 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."
anthonygh wrote:
I did a test on a 40D with my 50mm 1.4.
Like many others, I was a bit disappointed at full aperture exposure...it looked soft.
But I refined the test down to photographing a length of worn rope at an oblique angle to the camera, and it was clear that individual frayed strands were pin sharp at 1.4...for a depth of maybe 2mm....on the top surface only!
To me, that in an unusable setting for my needs (model shoots)...so what is the DOF on FF at that setting...and how is it useable?
It is totally usable, esp. since most people don't shoot a rope at close range. If you stick to head shots or even more, it works just fine. This is a 1Ds3 shot with the 50L wide open. She looks perfectly sharp to me, for the intended goal anyway (Halloween costume) - and regulars around here certainly know me for not loving the 50L for its "sharpness": http://fm.jirman.com/random/0032-b.jpg
p.3 #18 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."
skibum5 wrote:
A 300mm on a FF is pretty nice for soccer since you can shoot it much closer in than with APS-C and of the two cams had the same pixel density you'd get the same reach (granted the aps-c often have a lot more reach, although sometimes motion/tracking blur and such mean it doesn't always 100% come into play).
You must shoot a lot looser thasn I do as I find 300mm way too short for soccer even on a 1.3X body. I normally use a 400/2.8 and even then sometimes a 1.4X converter is required.
p.3 #19 · Seems like all I hear is "Full Frame, Full Frame, Full Frame."
John--G wrote:
You must shoot a lot looser thasn I do as I find 300mm way too short for soccer even on a 1.3X body. I normally use a 400/2.8 and even then sometimes a 1.4X converter is required.
well it depends where you are where they are
if you are near the goal or sideline and they are near then with 400+1.4x on 1.3crop you might get a head for the sideline or upper torso for near goal but yeah you can swap to second body with 70-200 for that stuff true (if you have one, the first season or two I didn't), although sometimes it is nice to get the closer in shots with a prime like that
i shot most of my soccer games with aps-c 1.6 crop
i would toss on the 1.4x TC at times once I got an aps-c body that could focus better than a disaster with the tc on
sometimes i would run up and down the field tracking action closer rather than just sit on the end line the entire game
most of the shooting had been with 20D and 40D and when I tried the 5D2 once it had nearly the same pixel density, so it was looser in frame, but not in pixel on player but also allowed for wider shooting so you could shoot it at 420mm and not have to go to the 70-200 as often
of course cams such as 7D (and also 50D) are out so the 5D2 would be shooting effectively looser than those
anwyay whatever if you were given aps-c and ff with the same density, granted they are often different, then you could use any given lens and get the same reach but also be able to shoot it tighter in when using FF; at some point the density on apsc may not help as much for sports over what ff has reached and the comparison would be clearer
When were you in Nicaragua ?
