[Poseidon]

Hey Gene, the A.perideraion is pretty soft, almost OOF. but the color looks just like I remember that fish. The Cromis pic is actually cool, except for the blown highlight on the gill plate. Looks like you had turned the flash down for a "fill effect" since the background is not completely black. Your Coral Beauty is a HAM!! Cute shot, I was trying to get that with ANY of my fish, if only she had put her nose down a little, it would be better. Scopas is cool, a little dark, but I don;t know what else you could do, that fish IS dark! Very sharp too, I think that is the best of the fish pictures myself. Your coral work is exemplory as usual, the first was handheld right? The others must have required longer exposures to get the DOF they have. I think the corals are getting easier for both of us, it is the darn fish that we need work on now.

As far as that lens goes, I have not looked into it, other then just tonight. My first question is why not get the Canon 28-135 IS? It is the lens I have been using mostly over the last 5 years or so. Good sharpness and the IS, well ROCKS! I could easily handhold down to 1/15, even 1/8 sometimes up to about 50 mm 1/30 was the best I could do at the tele side. Lately I had been using that lens for reception pictures, sillouetting the B&G in front of the DJ lights using 3200 ISO and a pretty fast shutter. I have read some reviews that said the Canon was "soft" but I have made 11x14's and TONS of 8x10's and I never had a complaint. Here is the one I used, http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=1 , but I ordered a 24-70 2.8L today! Hopefully that shows up Friday. I ordered it from www.digitalfotoclub.com , Both B&H and Adorama were back ordered, and these guys had a good price (about the same as B&H) I read some mixed reviews on them more good then bad, so I have my fingers crossed!

Here is a review of the Sigma: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=37&page=2 looks pretty close to the Canon, just a little more range, and better minimum apetures. I am sure if you don't like it, you can unload it easy, plus as a replacement for the kit lens you really can't go wrong!

You could always just get this one and cover everything: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=3 I'll bet that thing would require an assistant to hold up my arms by the end of the night!

By the way have you seen the new 60 mm EF-S lens? I came acrossed that and wondered WHY??? Seems Canon could have developed something, heck almost anything else other then that!

oh ya, prime lens refers to a fixed focal length like your 50, or 105 Sigma. My 70-200 and incoming 24-70 are not primes, though they ALMOST match prime quality for a LOT less cost. I think you meant to say "L" instead of "prime", just a guess and no biggie anyway!

[zhenya]

Hi Mike,

Originally Posted by Poseidon

oh ya, prime lens refers to a fixed focal length like your 50, or 105 Sigma. My 70-200 and incoming 24-70 are not primes, though they ALMOST match prime quality for a LOT less cost. I think you meant to say "L" instead of "prime", just a guess and no biggie anyway!

Actually, I did mean prime. I was thinking of the 135mm f2L lens as a prime lens, for around nine hundred dollars it sounds like a real good compromise for a non pro photographer.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...112539&is=GREY

That 28-135mm f2.8 IS lens from Canon, is that an "L" lens or isn't? I think I saw one for much less that what fmiranda shows in their review. I wonder if I am thinking about the same lens or I am looking at something else?

I agree on the clowhfish shot, it is a bit soft but I sorta like it this way, plus it was hand held shot and that 105mm lens start to wear on you after about 15-20 shots.

PS. I haven't seen that 60mm from Canon in person but I've seen some images taken with it. Looks really nice and from what I;ve read it is the same quality as their 100mm Macro lens( it cost the same too ).
Don't know what to say or why would someone buy shorter lens for the same money that longer lens costs?

[Poseidon]

The 28-135 is not an "L" it is however their USM. Canon makes 3 lines, non USM (consumer lens), USM (Pro-sumer lens, better quality faster focusing), and of course L!!! Which is USM, with the best glass possible. Also this 28-135 lens is not 2.8, I think it is 3.5 at 28mm, about a 1/2 stop slower then the Sigma you linked to. As far as cost goes you may be thinking of the 28-105 from Canon, it is much cheaper!

The 135 f2L is on my WISH LIST!!! That is a very highly regaurded lens. Some say it is one of the best Canon has ever made!

I guess if I would have thought about it, 60*1.6 crop factor= 96mm That maybe why they went that way with it.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

The 28-135 is not an "L" it is however their USM. Canon makes 3 lines, non USM (consumer lens), USM (Pro-sumer lens, better quality faster focusing), and of course L!!! Which is USM, with the best glass possible. Also this 28-135 lens is not 2.8, I think it is 3.5 at 28mm, about a 1/2 stop slower then the Sigma you linked to. As far as cost goes you may be thinking of the 28-105 from Canon, it is much cheaper!

The 135 f2L is on my WISH LIST!!! That is a very highly regaurded lens. Some say it is one of the best Canon has ever made!

I guess if I would have thought about it, 60*1.6 crop factor= 96mm That maybe why they went that way with it.

Mike,

Help me out here, is this the lens you are talking about?http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=149629&is=USA

Yes, this one is f3.5 at its widest and I made the mistake in my post by saying it was f2.8( thinking of Sigma ). Incidentally, the lens should be here any moment and I hope to try it out and post some shots with different f numbers.

I looked at the review by fmiranda and price tag they had there was over a grand, hence why I am a bit confused. I always thought that USM stood for Ultra Sonic Motor as well, is this something that has to do with glass or the motor of the AF?

On the 135 f2L, I think I'll make this choice and make it my prime lens for a while, untill I graduate in my skill to something better that is.

Originally Posted by Poseidon

I guess if I would have thought about it, 60*1.6 crop factor= 96mm That maybe why they went that way with it.

I guess it makes sense if/when you put it that way...

[zhenya]

Well, as I was typing doorbell rang....
Here's a couple shots with quick and dirty editing in PS. I already figured out that this is the heaviest lens I have and shooting free hand is almost impossible for me. You'll see what i mean in the pics I'll add. Both shots were taken at f5.6 and 1/20 shutter speed, ISO 400.

PS. As far as I can tell the chromatic aberation is in full force...despite what they tell you in the ad for this lens. Maybe it is the fact that I didn't use tripod and fish moved?

[Poseidon]

YUP!!! That is the lens!

Yup, USM stands for Ultrasonic Motor, it is strictly for focusing. Faster, quieter.

That lens, the 135 f2 would be an excellent choice for a prime, itis pretty heavy too though I think.

What you have there is definately motion blur, on your part . Remember this for a rule of thumb, no shutter speeds LOWER then 1/60 for handheld work. So maybe that same shot at f 4.0, ISO 1600, and 1/60 would have given a better result. More noise for sure but at web resolutions no one could really tell anyway. The motion blur is the reason I suggested the lens with IS, you can hand hold it at a MUCH slower shutter speed, at least 2 stops. Sometimes I could get away with 1/15!!! The IS is the next best thing to f2.8, unless your subject is moving too, then it is a moot point.

As far as the CA, I think at least part of that is due to the motion of you, the fish, or both. I am sure it would be toned down with a faster shutter.

Maybe on your next trip into the store try out a lens with IS, and shoot some shots on YOUR compact flash card, take them home and view the results on your computer. I'll bet it would help you out a bunch!

[zhenya]

Thanks, Mike, for the tips.

I shot a whole bunch of pix yesterday but none really came out very good. As I mentioned before, I'm trying to shoot all manual and so far it had been a trial and error for the most part. Most pics came out pretty darn dark( underexposed), the same settings on the kit lens worked really well so I have to just continue shooting untill I get the feel for this lens.
As far as this lens goes, it's not as sharp as I thought it may be( perhaps it;s the user;s fault ) but I'll keep trying to get better with it.
Here's couple of images I shot with it, actinics of all things for the lighting... I managed to take one shot that I think was exposed close to what it should be with the halides on. Give me your opinion when you got a chance.

[Poseidon]

Your right Gene, those pictures are not as sharp as your others. Actually I think those are on par with the kit lens.

I have had Sigma glass before, and I even considered one recently (24-70) but I think the best part about shooting Canon is they have the best lenses. Some of the 3rd party stuff is really good, some of it is not. I can think of Sigma's 120-300 2.8, some say that lens is as sharp as Canon's 300 2.8!!!

With that lens I don't think it is you, I think it is a bum copy maybe. Where did you get it? Can you exchange for another copy of the same lens to compare? Or maybe throw another $50 at it and try the Canon 28-135. If mine didn't have a piece of crap stuck in it, I would send it to you to try!



EWWWW!!!!

[zhenya]

Mike, thanks for your critiques, it helps alot.

I think it was the user though, to be more exact I think it was my selections of aperture and coresponding shutter speeds to the lighting that I had.
I took the lens outside and shot some images with aperture mode and manual.
I'm attaching few images so that you can look and compare to the ones I posted earlier. Maybe I should split this thread and move this particular portion of the thread to your forum?
well, here they are...post your judgement.

PS. I certainly agree on the Canon's glass and should've looked at the 28-135 lens like yours.However, I looked at the price tag in that fmiranda link and thought it was an "L" lens, than I looked in B&H and saw that it was only 400 bucks but it was too late as I already ordered that Sigma from them.

Oh, well... that one will be on my list to get soon.

PPS. Well, reduced images lost alot of pop and look pretty crappy. Full size pix look much nicer and crisper too but they are pretty huge.

[Poseidon]

Yup I think you are right Gene! That lens looks very good outside! That flower pic has a BEAUTIFUL bokeh, and it is pretty sharp even at web resolution. Do you re-sharpen your pics after downsizing them? It makes a VERY big difference. I use USM @ 50% 1 pixel and 1 level. Try it you'll like it!

By the way I think these last few pages do make more sense in "Photo Lab"

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

Yup I think you are right Gene! That lens looks very good outside! That flower pic has a BEAUTIFUL bokeh, and it is pretty sharp even at web resolution. Do you re-sharpen your pics after downsizing them? It makes a VERY big difference. I use USM @ 50% 1 pixel and 1 level. Try it you'll like it!

By the way I think these last few pages do make more sense in "Photo Lab"

Hi Mike,

No, I didn't sharpen them after resizing, I always forget to do that.

I'm thinking that with some more practice i can probably make this lens work for me. I;ve got couple more images that came out pretty good in aperture priority mode. Some highlights were blown on one petal where the little fly sat(you'll see it in the image that I;ll attach). The full image of my granddaughter had bery nice bokeh as well, the fence behind her is blurred perfectly, I thought.

[Poseidon]

Yup those are nice! You are right about the fence, it is blurred, but still recognizeable as a fence... SO almost, but not quite, perfect. I think of a bokeh as completely seperating the subject from the background by blurring the background to the point where you can't tell what anything else is, other then the subject. The first flower in the above post, the one with the bug, has a great bokeh, the background is green, and you know it is plants, but you can distinguish ANY details...

[zhenya]

Thanks,Mike. I see what you mean about the bokeh... I guess a larger aperture would've worked better for that shot of my granddaughter. She struck a great pose and I didn't have time to check on my settings...

[Poseidon]

Hehe... Thats why I shoot Av mode when I want a nice Bokeh! Set it for the minimum Apeture, and even when you zoom in and out it will stay at the minimum. Like my 28-135, I would set it to 3.5 @ 28mm then as I zoomed in and out, it would go up to 5.6 then back down to 3.5!!!

With my new lenses they will just stay @ 2.8!!!

Next lens on my list, 17-40 f4L, unless I find someone giving away a 16-35 f2.8L somewhere!

[Poseidon]

Oh.... And I found out why the average price paid for the 28-135 Canon was so high... Some bonehead posted this:

Review Date: May 22, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $39,000.00 | Rating: 10
Pros: Good Sharp, Fast Focus, IS, Excellent construction Cons: Weight, The colors could be better a little, 72mm filter (77mm would be the ideal)
A great lens, in spite of not having the quality of a lens L it is able very well to be used by a professional without depreciating the quality of your work, highly recommended so that it looks for a great lens without needing to invest a lot of money.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

Oh.... And I found out why the average price paid for the 28-135 Canon was so high... Some bonehead posted this:

Review Date: May 22, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $39,000.00 | Rating: 10
Pros: Good Sharp, Fast Focus, IS, Excellent construction Cons: Weight, The colors could be better a little, 72mm filter (77mm would be the ideal)
A great lens, in spite of not having the quality of a lens L it is able very well to be used by a professional without depreciating the quality of your work, highly recommended so that it looks for a great lens without needing to invest a lot of money.

39K for a lens... what an idiot. Just by looking at the review I'd say it was probably a kid...."color could be better a little..." so much information in that one frase....

[Poseidon]

Ya... I tried to get the mods over at FM to edit that cost, they never responded. Anymore tank pics with the new lens?

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

Ya... I tried to get the mods over at FM to edit that cost, they never responded. Anymore tank pics with the new lens?

No, I haven't tried anymore but I do have couple that I took the first day I got it.
Full tank shot and one shot of my granddaughter becouse she insisted that I take the picture of her first.
ISO 400, f5.6 and 1/40s shutter speed.

[zhenya]

Mike,

What do you think of this pix? Taken with the same 24-135 lens and I used buid-in flash with this as well.


This one looks a tad soft to me but overall colors seem true to my eye.


This one I thought came out pretty decent, of you consider that it is orange and pink and very light on color. I thought that the lens handled it well.