Your current GAS list? (1 Viewer)

[Patrick Sun]

Speaking of examples of GAS, last year for some reason I picked up the old Canon 100mm F/2.0 lens (not the F/2.8 macro version) just for giggles, and it was relatively cheap, and shot it a bunch at an old Hollywood style shoot, and, yes, another black-n-white photo with this lens: Mind you, I have the Sigma 85mm F/1.4 already in my bag, so I wasn't really gaining all that much more than a cheap back-up portrait lens for the most part.

SP_12074 by Patcave, on Flickr

 

[Mike Frezon]

Pardon me, but...

Va-va-va-voom!

 

[Patrick Sun]

Just for Mike, one more... (same 100mm F/2 lens):

SP_12149-2 by Patcave, on Flickr

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Wow! Pat, that series looks great! Both the B&W and color versions work in their own ways... although the color versions do take a bit getting used to at first, but I think they do what you probably intended -- they look like they belong in a live action graphic novel or the like -- though might not be everyone's cup of tea of course... And both have a sort of noire look to them...

_Man_

 

[Patrick Sun]

Thanks! It was more of the old Hollywood lighting look we were going for, though I think we may have used some softboxes for the 2 shots above, a lot of the other shots were more of the constant lights mounted high for high contrasty look, not that real soft wrap-around lighting you see nowadays with big modifiers. It was a good learning experience.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Here are a few shots with my new Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS lens from Alaska. I didn't get anything spectacular, but that is only because most of the subject matter required something other than an ultra wide angle lens.

 

[Mike Frezon]

It was nice of them to "wet down" that wooden bridge for you in that last shot!

 

[Scott Merryfield]

It was nice of them to "wet down" that wooden bridge for you in that last shot!

I wish that was the case, Mike. Unfortunately, it was the beginning of several days of rainy, foggy weather. However, we came prepared with rain gear, so the weather never stopped us from any of our plans. I can attest to the usefulness of Opteck rain sleeves for my cameras -- at under $7 for a two-pack, they are the best "bang for your buck" accessory for an expensive hobby.

It did clear up when we left Juneau for Ketchikan, and I was able to capture this wide angle shot with the new 16-35 f/4 lens:

 

[Patrick Sun]

Neil van Niekerk really likes the sharpness of the 16-35mm F/4 IS lens.

http://neilvn.com/tangents/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f4/

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Adobe just released an update to Lightroom 5 that includes a lens profile for my new 16-35mmL f/4 IS. I was not able to apply any lens corrections with LR on the images I posted. Hopefully I will have time to download the update and try out the corrections this weekend.

 

[JohnRice]

I continue to go around in circles. I had posted in my thread that I decided to take the leap to FX, but as I looked at it, I realized that isn't what I want. Cost is obvious, but as I realized the increase in size and weight of what I would be lugging around, I decided to upgrade some lenses instead. Let's face it, nothing I have is coming close to taking advantage of the D7100.

So, I ordered the Sigma 18-35 1.8. I've been using a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and while it is quite good, I want to see how much better it can be. I realized I haven't taken a single shot (seriously, not one) in the missing 36-50mm range. Maybe it is my shooting style, but once I moved beyond around 30mm, I jumped past 50mm. Besides, I want to see if the remarkable image claims about the 18-35 are true.

BTW, this absolutely comical "Review" of the Sigma from Ken You-know-who just can't be missed. To distill it, this lens is "Silly", exceptional optical and build quality is for losers, and best of all, anyone who uses this lens is likely to be suspected of being a pervert. I didn't make that up. It's all in there.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

That's a bizarre review by Rockwell, but certainly not unexpected from that clown. This quote makes little sense:

Optically this lens is extraordinary — but it's too big and heavy, has a silly zoom range, and I have little confidence that this lens will work with whatever camera I'm using ten years from now.

Does he expect a zoom lens with a f/1.8 maximum aperture to be small and light? And why is this a silly zoom range? While it's a little short for a general walk on a crop body at 35mm, it's not that bad -- especially considering it's fast aperture. Finally, I think Sigma has come a long way in addressing camera compatibility concerns with their dock that allows users to upgrade lens firmware themselves. Rockwell can be such a moron sometimes.

I've read lots of good things about the Canon-mount version of that lens, John, so I'm sure it will be terrific on your Nikon. If I was still using my Canon 7D crop camera for more than just wildlife shooting, I would have one.

 

[JohnRice]

He actually comes off as just a little insane in that review. He belittles the Sigma for the exact reasons (construction and sharpness) he raves about the Nikon 16-35 and 14-24. I realize those are FX lenses, but still. The "pervert" comment is truly bizarre. The Nikon 16-35 is about the same size and the 14-24 is twice as long as the Sigma, but I guess nobody will confuse them for teles.

As far as it being a silly zoom range, he's so thinkheaded that he refuses to see that HE is the exact person the lens is aimed at. He loves to state that he ONLY uses the 35mm 1.8G DX lens on crop cameras due to its resolution. So, with this lens, he has 18-35mm rather than just 35mm

I have a feeling Sigma might be forcing Canon and Nikon to take their crop sensor customers more seriously. Who would have guessed such a seemingly specialty lens as the 18-35 would be this popular. In fact, if they had maybe made it 16-35 and reduced it to f/2.0, it would have been absolutely ideal for me. Since Nikon has moved to a mimimum 24MP on their crop cameras, they need to up the ante on their lenses.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I generally do not read Rockwell's site unless someone posts a link online when he writes something stupid. However, that means I've read quite a few of his articles, because he writes a LOT of stupid things.

Well, I was able to upgrade Lightroom last night, but my Seagate USB 3.0 external hard drive where all my photos were stored failed. So, I have to wait until the new one I ordered from Amazon arrives and I restore my data before I can try out the 16-35 f/4 IS lens profile. Fortunately, being an IT person means I'm good about backups - I have two local backups and a 3rd "offsite" via CrashPlan's cloud service. Plus, I still have not deleted the original photos of our recent Alaska trip from the compact flash cards yet.

 

[JohnRice]

It's good to back up, for sure.

I take it a step beyond that. I also refresh the drives by doing a base level reformat (complete overwrite) once or twice a year. I will do the backup drive, then a fresh restore from the main drive, then do the same with the main drive. I usually stagger them, as in, I don't do one then the other. I do them a couple months apart. I do this because I started realizing that files which aren't re-written over long periods of time seem to "fade" and sometimes become unreadable. This usually takes a couple years or more. I also completely overwrite a new drive 2-3 times before I put it into service. Finally, I have resorted to using only external HD enclosures which are fan cooled. I know a lot of people say it isn't necessary, but since I've started doing these things, I've never had a failure.

 

[JohnRice]

I guess I lost my mind a little this week. Before I ordered the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, I had already found a great deal on a Sigma 30mm f/1.4. The zoom will probably eliminate the need for the 30mm, but, oh well. There has been extremely inconsistent feedback on the 30mm, so I took it right outside just to do a few test shots specifically to check its sharpness and focus accuracy. I don't know about other people, or how it will do with real photos, but what I found was astounding. Below are sections of un-sharpened, 100% magnification images from the D7100.

This first one is two consecutive shots showing the focus accuracy and consistency. The focus between the two is slightly different, by maybe 1mm, so that is entirely within the margin of hand holding. These are f/1.4, ISO 100, 1/5000s.

And here's one at f/4, 1/500s, also a 100% resolution, un-sharpened section.

With that out of the way, I can take some real pictures.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I received a new hard drive and restored my data, so finally had a chance to try out the Lightroom lens profile for my new 16-35 f/4L IS.. It helped with vignetting and distortion, as LR profiles usually do with my settings. Here are a couple I posted above with the profile applied.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I had compiled some Amazon gift cards, so decided to buy myself something fun. I've been thinking about a mirrorless camera, so I ordered a Canon EOS M with a 22mm f/2 pancake lens. My out of pocket cost was about $100, including a spare battery.

While this certainly isn't the best mirrorless camera on the market, it is pretty inexpensive (about $300 street price with the lens), and it's big advantage for me is it uses my existing Canon Speedlite flashes. I can also use my other Canon lenses if I buy an adapter, but I'll probably hold off on that for awhile. I could see using my 40mm pancake on this, too, for a little more reach, but cannot see the point in using my full sized dSLR lenses. If I can lug those around, I'll just bring the full size dSLR, too.

I have been using my wife's Canon S100 point & shoot as a "pocketable" camera, but have never been thrilled with the quality -- especially in lower light. This should be a big improvement with its 18MP APS-C sensor, and at $100 cost to me, I will not feel like I've wasted a lot of money if I do not use it much. But there are times now where I just do not feel like carrying a dSLR, so this should fill that need better than the S100. One of my Speedlights is a compact 270EX, which I bought for travel, and it should be a good size for this compact camera.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I shoot with the EOS M for my night-time convention shooting when I'm tired, and don't want to lug my 2 behemoths around. If you aren't using any flash, the CA (Creative Auto) mode ain't too bad.

I still shoot in manual most of the time, but if I just want a point-n-shoot, it's a nice option to have. It's still mainly for portraits. Don't even think about trying to shoot shots featuring motion in them. The AF will be more hit-or-miss.

I also have the EF-M adapter, but rarely put other Canon lenses on it, just don't want to mess with wondering if the AF will have a high hit rate or not. Plus, most EF or EF-S lenses are bulky when you slap it on the EOS M's body anyway, so it just looks and feels awkward.

I wish I could find a cheap used EF-M 11-22 lens, though....

 

[Citizen87645]

Supposedly the 7D ii is to be announced next week.