pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Well that was money well spent  (Read 5541 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 28, 2008, 21:45 »
0
Just had my first batch of photos taken with my new 24-105mm f4 IS L Canon lens and the new Sekonic light meter rejected.

Taken at 100 ISO.

"Noise and artifacts and poor lighting".


« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2008, 06:30 »
0
Litifeta  I read some very good reviews on Canon 24-105mm f4 IS L can you show some of those rejected images?

lisafx

« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2008, 09:50 »
0
Noise and artifacts aren't a fuction of a lens.  It is from underexposure.  I would suspect your light meter is the culprit.  Probably you just need to expose up a stop or two from what it tells you. 

I have the 24-105 L and it's a good lens.  Super sharp.  It does give me more chromatic abberation than the 24-70 2.8 L though.  If I had to choose only one lens it would be the 24-70 hands down. 

« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2008, 14:36 »
0
Lisa's right about the exposure. What was your subject? Models against white, studio still life? Just curious.

« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2008, 14:53 »
0
hard to pick it in this. i cannot see anything at full size either


« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2008, 15:40 »
0
Hard to tell at small size, but this one does look a little dodgey. They face of the meter looks to be in the shadow. My quick opinion is "not well lit"

« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2008, 17:21 »
0
the face of the meter is in the shadow, it is always in the shadow, it is under a cover

« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2008, 17:37 »
0
Maybe the reflection got this one bounced back.

Xalanx

« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2008, 07:44 »
0
Distracting background (what is that red thing on the left? and the things in the back?), reflection (use a polarizer).
Maybe also noise in the shadows, I can't tell from this size.
Re-shot this: move to the left, take a much lower position and choose your background, shoot at the max. focal length and as close as you can to fill up the frame with this object, a f/5.6 or f/4 will allow you to have the clock sharp and the background in blur.

« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2008, 08:28 »
0
When using a Zoom you always get CA ...the more you zoom in on a subject, the more CA you get; so don't use a zoom at all if you don't need to - take a real Macro, for example instead.

« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2008, 08:44 »
0
the face of the meter is in the shadow, it is always in the shadow, it is under a cover

Then I guess you have to find some way of lighting it. A few strategically-placed reflectors? With a polarising filter to reduce reflections?

shank_ali

« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2008, 06:48 »
0
Just had my first batch of photos taken with my new 24-105mm f4 IS L Canon lens and the new Sekonic light meter rejected.

Taken at 100 ISO.

"Noise and artifacts and poor lighting".
This lense never leaves my camera.It has been welded onto my 450D and let any person try to remove it is dead meat ;D.
That's how much i love this peachy reliable lense for landscapes to close up work.The best  680 i ever spent!

dbvirago

« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2008, 12:24 »
0
Shank, How long have you had the lens. I'm having Err01 with my 17-55 IS. Trying to decide if any future lens will have IS. Only had it about a year. Cleaning contacts hasn't helped.

shank_ali

« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2008, 13:31 »
0
Shank, How long have you had the lens. I'm having Err01 with my 17-55 IS. Trying to decide if any future lens will have IS. Only had it about a year. Cleaning contacts hasn't helped.
Bought it january 2008.The image stabiliser is superb.You just need to hold the camera steady for a couple of seconds after taking a shot and you can hear the stabliser 'kick in '.

CCK

« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2008, 13:50 »
0

hali

« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2008, 14:35 »
0
litifeta, nothing you spend on photography is wasted money.
i just invested in a new14MP dslr,  and have to get all new accessories.
my hardy old 7MP dslr with full accesories is now retired to give away maybe as a gift to a loved one.
if i based its worth on micro stock, i would consider it a total waste of money, as i earn like 10 bucks monthly, on my tiny portfolio.
but there more money to be made in photography outside of micro stock.
life does not begin and end with micro stock  ;)
 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
3246 Views
Last post May 09, 2007, 17:24
by madelaide
2 Replies
2072 Views
Last post December 08, 2008, 10:40
by scrappinstacy
3 Replies
3447 Views
Last post April 20, 2010, 23:11
by RH
5 Replies
2216 Views
Last post July 12, 2011, 04:49
by IsaacFx
8 Replies
1515 Views
Last post July 02, 2019, 06:55
by Brightontl

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results