[Generic.Handle]

May 14, 2012 at 9:53 am

Love your style Peter.

Your images have a unique look, they seem to have really good processing that takes the edge off of those strong colours that are often unavoidable at gigs. I love the skin tones too. I don’t suppose you’d care to share any processing tips? Your images also seem to have that “zeiss” look, do you achieve that in post or do you shoot with zeiss glass?

[Generic.Handle]

April 18, 2012 at 9:42 pm

I changed the focusing screen on my Canon 1V and 5D to the manual focus style screen. For the 1V you can get an old fashioned split image diopter which sadly is not available for the 5D. It did certainly seem to help, not a huge amount, but a noticeable improvement in low light. I now keep them in my camera’s at all times, though they cause lenses with maximum apertures slower than 2.8 to appear dimmer in the viewfinder. This again is only noticeable in low light. I’d recommend trying the focusing screens offered by Nikon before you shell out for the KatzEye, they might just do the trick. As a side note, though the 5D MkII and 1V both have 100% viewfinders to the best of my knowledge, the 1V just “seems” nicer, can’t explain it.

[Generic.Handle]

March 5, 2012 at 5:54 pm

This seems like a pretty good price. Mind if I ask why you are selling?

[Generic.Handle]

February 20, 2012 at 7:09 pm

Do you have any prices for them?

[Generic.Handle]

February 18, 2012 at 3:32 pm

I’ve got the 24-105 and used it for event work in dark clubs with flash. It’s a great lens but I think it suffers at the wide angle, say from 28 or so to 24. This is in comparison to a 28mm F1.8. I’ve also heard that the 24-70 performs better at wide angles too. But hey, it’s a great all round lens. I think you would be covered most of the time at the afters and even during the ceremony with that lens, switching to a prime now and then when things slow down, and if you aren’t allowed on to the the altar, the 70-200. Now that’s assuming you use flash, if you are an available light shooter you will have to compromise with high iso’s as you know.

[Generic.Handle]

February 15, 2012 at 2:43 pm

Maybe rent a 24-105 of 24-70 from Conns just for the wedding? If you have the money it’s worth waiting just to see what the price will be, then making a decision.

[Generic.Handle]

February 15, 2012 at 2:41 pm

You could also try Tiffen filters. They are big heavy chunks of glass, used in the motion picture industry for years. They are not cheap, but by many cinematographers they are seen as the best. The build quality of Cokin compared to them is nonexistent. You can get them in a whole host of different sizes and also as screw in. I compared them to Lee myself. I’ve heard that stacking Cokin filters will cause a colour cast, but have only heard good things about Lee.

[Generic.Handle]

February 14, 2012 at 4:08 pm

My bad, I was working from memory, looks like the 35mm F2 will cost about 300-320 new according to ebay. If you have the patience to save another little while, I’d still go for it, if not i’m sure you’ll be very happy with the 50mm 1.8 also.

[Generic.Handle]

February 13, 2012 at 7:23 pm

I’ve had the 50mm 1.8 and now the 50mm 1.4. I loved both, though the build quality of the 50mm 1.8 is poor, that’s and slightly better autofocus were what made me trade up. One thing to consider is that on your 60D which has an APS-C sized sensor if memory serves me correctly, the 50mm will give an equivalent field of view of approximately 70mm. Canon also make a relatively inexpensive 35mm prime, which opens to F2. This will be about a 48mm field of view on an APS-C camera. Traditionally in photography courses, tutors recommend starting out with a 50mm prime, which is why is called a “standard” focal length. If you close field of view to the human eye. A 50mm lens on your 60D will be a bit tight, perfect for portraits and headshots but not so much general photography, whereas the 35mm, (giving an effective focal length of 50mm) will be a great all-rounder lens. I’ve seen fairly well promo videos comparing the 35mm F2, which costs about €200, to the 35mm F1.4L, at over €1000, and they concluded that unless you need maximum sharpness at F1.4 and tank-like build quality, there isn’t much point going for the L lens. I started out using a 50mm field of view and it is still my favourite focal length. If I had to pick a “desert island” lens, it would be my 50mm, so I would have to recommend going for a 35mm, (again 50mm on your system) and building from there.

[Generic.Handle]

August 15, 2011 at 5:03 pm

Hi there. Is the 150mm still available? If so, is it the later version? Thanks.

[Generic.Handle]

August 15, 2011 at 5:01 pm

I stumbled on to this thread quite late. Just wondering is the 20mm 2.8 still available? Thanks.

[Generic.Handle]

August 15, 2011 at 5:00 pm

I stumblesd on to this thread quite late. Just wondering is the 20mm 2.8 still available? Thanks.

[Generic.Handle]

April 6, 2011 at 12:59 am

I had this lens but sold it as I didn’t use it enough. For an L lens it’s wonderfully compact. I can compare it to the 24-105 F4 L lens that I also own, my particular copy is soft in the corners on the wide side, fine for press I suppose but certainly not landscape printed to any respectable size. On the other hand I don’t really have any complaints about the 20-35 in terms of optical quality. It is not a lens that you would be shooting action with however, there is no full time manual focus and the copy that I purchased sounded painful to pull focus on, like it was worn inside. It worked perfectly, but it sounded that way. I have no way of telling if this is the kind of sound that normal lens of this type, with no full manual focus that is, would sound like. Overall if you can get it for a price in the range of 400-500 I would snap it up.

[Generic.Handle]

October 12, 2010 at 12:06 pm

I realise that giving images away is damaging the industry. Though I am part of the hated “semi-pro” category I want to be part of the solution rather than the problem, so I won’t be giving away images any longer. However what about a scenario in which I’m shooting for a client and they send in photos to the paper, and one of them makes the front page. This happened recently when I did a small job for small pay, but the photo got front page. If I had sent the photo in myself I may have earned more than what the client paid me, but obviously it was sent for promotional purposes and so was submitted as a free image. It stung though. Would I have any right to invoice the paper or would that just be plain silly?

[Generic.Handle]

October 12, 2010 at 11:34 am

That’s interesting. For a certain local paper I know for a fact that they ask for files to be under 1mb, but the requirement seems to be different for nationals, higher standard I suppose. They also claim they don’t have the budgets to pay photographers, but it seems they just don’t have the budget to pay you if you are not established and they know you will submit it just to see it in print. What are peoples thoughts on the “unfortunately we can’t afford to pay for these shots, is a credit ok?” method? Am I being conned or is it more important to have them print my photo and know that I am somehow on their radar or should I hold tough and insist on some form of payment if they want to use an image? I know local papers are really struggling but at the same time if they can’t pay it’s cheeky to ask for the image for free.