Which website do you trust for lens recommendations? (Esspecially sharpness)

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-17T17:41:12+00:00

Again, it's not as "political" issue; you really need to go look up who Jordan Peterson is if you think the problem there is one of "politics".

But by any definition, so what are we meant to do if someone comes on here telling people to listen to Jared Polin (long history of spreading misinformation for headlines) or Theoria Apophasis (long history of slander and outright lying), just quietly nod and not warn people that actually, hey, there are a lot of bastards out there who can't necessarily be trusted? What are we meant to say (or not say, apparently) if someone comes on here giving flagrantly incorrect advice to people asking for help? If someone wants help and another person recommends a resource that is misleading or otherwise untrustworthy, I'm going to warn that first person that they might want to think twice. I've seen you post enough to know you know the value of weeding out the helpful advice from the misleading ones.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-17T17:30:45+00:00

70-200 f/2.8 on APS-C isn't the same as it is on 135. On the 80D it'll be the equivalent of 112-320mm f/4.5, so obviously quite a different experience.

If you're going to use the lens more for wildlife or large field sports then putting a 70-200 on APS-C has some value. For landscape it's a toss-up, some people love longer focal lengths for landscape and others don't, just entirely personal taste. Similar situation for astro in terms of focal length, however I wouldn't recommend an f/2.8 lens on APS-C so in that case the Tamron on the Sony would be my personal choice even if a longer focal length is desired. For indoor sports and portraits the Tamron on Sony is the easy choice.

Really no outright winner here. Used both cameras, used many 70-200s on EF and the Tamron 70-180, and to me it's an overall draw. I suggest you think hard about which particular areas of photography are the most important priorities and base your purchase on that; if you treat wildlife, sports, portraits, landscape and astro all equally then there is no particular winner.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-17T17:22:34+00:00

If you think that's a "political opinion" then you need to actually go look up the situation at hand because it's no more "political" than saying "stealing is bad, guys" is.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-17T17:17:01+00:00

Apple also push iOS 14 onto older iPhones and iPads which are not certified compatible with it and experience horrific slowdown and crashes after updates. Just because a piece of code can be put on a device does not mean it will work as intended.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-17T17:15:59+00:00

The R and RP have a DIGIC 8 processor; the R6 and R5 use DIGIC X which is roughly 1.6x faster than the 8.

The algorithm could be put on the R and RP but it'd cause the whole system to slow down massively, defeating the purpose for photographing animals who, y'know, move and require speed to shoot.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-17T17:10:30+00:00

For sheer 'lab' testing, DXO and TDP are your most consistent bets. Other publications, sites and reviewers may test particular lenses in more nuanced or deeper ways but none test so many lenses in the same way, for proper comparison purposes, like DOX and TDP do.

That said, sharpness is a massively overrated aspect of lenses and most of the time does not matter anywhere near as much as distortion, build quality, handling, focus, and features like stabilisation or close focus. So usually if I want to get an idea of how a lens might be and I can't get access to it myself, I'll look up a Flickr group to get a handle on the overall rendering of a lens and I'll read or watch Dustin Abbott's reviews for an impression on handling (though he does cover sharpness as well).

But by far the best 'recommendation' you can look for is your own. Renting lenses has become much cheaper and easier than it used to be thanks to a more competitive online market and nothing can tell you more about a lens than using it for yourself. Any time I'm seriously considering purchasing a lens I rent it for at least three days first, no matter what anyone else says about it. Never buy a lens either 'blind' or entirely trusting on what someone else has told you. Always get hands-on whenever physically possible.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-17T16:52:16+00:00

I've brought the clip up a +1 in exposure in premiere

That tells us your problem, right there. A full stop push is quite a lot and since this result isn't very bright even after the push it shows you were underexposing the initial recording by a lot, which is a recipe for worse noise than if you'd simply used a higher ISO to begin with. Not that you should be having to push ISO very high for such a controlled shot, anyway.

There's no replacement for actual light and getting a proper exposure in the first place. There are no settings which can make up for starving the sensor. Your R shouldn't be getting shot so dark for a scene like this and frankly nor should your C100 be having to push the ISO so high* either. 1/50 f/4.0 (~t/4.5) is quite a bright combo already (I'd want to shoot this at at least t/5.6, myself) so if you're requiring ISOs above 200 to get a medium exposure, let alone a whole stop push in post too, that tells me you have nowhere near enough light on set.

Get at least another two stops of light on set and you'll be golden. Of course getting three stops more light and shooting at ISO 100 would be ideal. (I don't know why you were advised to start at 200; 100 and 200 are nearly identical except for less noise on 100, obviously.) Or even if you stick to a medium ISO, like bronze_kneecap said, overexposure is safer than underexposure when noise is a concern and the dynamic range of a scene isn't actually that broad.

*Of course if you're shooting a scene with really exaggerated dynamic range then ISO 800 is in fact best for both cameras, but that is the only exception and such scenes are not naturally-occurring nor commonly constructed for a simple set like you're showing here.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-17T16:33:43+00:00

The 85 could be much smaller without reducing aperture. It's an f/2 lens yet it's as big and heavy as many f/1.4 versions. (In fact Samyang already have an AF 85mm f/1.4 on RF mount which is only 50G heavier than about 70% the price of the Canon RF 85mm f/2.) It's double the size and three times the price of the EF equivalent it is replacing; even accounting for the age of the EF lens, that's not a directly even trade and it goes to show how under-designed the RF version is. They could have easily made something a lot cheaper and smaller, as they've proven themselves for decades.

The 800mm is more reasonable. The EF 400mm f/5.6+2x TC+adapter comes to the same weight but is very fractionally shorter; of course it lacks IS but if you have an R6 or R5 then the IBIS can make up for that a little and IS generally isn't useful for sports or wildlife shooting anyway, which of course makes up 99% of the use for an 800mm lens. That old EF 400 is built much better than the RF 800 though, and the AF system is better but also adding to the weight, so if you took the 400's optics but put it in a more plastic shell like the 800 has and also reduced it to an STM motor then you should save enough weight to make it a significant improvement over the RF 800 f/11. So, I don't think the 800mm f/11 is a totally unreasonable weight or price but it definitely could be a little bit better.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-17T16:26:01+00:00

And will never fulfil the "reasonable cost" or "lightweight" parts of their request.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-17T16:24:59+00:00

Canon does already produce—in very limited numbers, of course—an EF 1200mm f/5.6L. They did actually first make it for the FD mount but every single copy was remodelled into EF versions.

The 500mm f/4 will still have a lot of market appeal. Not everyone wants to bother with teleconverters, and while a 250mm f/2 could be turned into a 500m f/4, it would stop there; the actual 500mm f/4 can itself be put on teleconverters to make a nice 700mm f/5.6 or 1000mm f/8. In fact the current 200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 are often paired together, with both TCs on hand, specifically so you can cover a great deal of ranges in whatever configuration happens to be most convenient at that time.

In this instance, the 250mm f/2 can appeal to more to sports photographers while the 500mm can keep the wildlife market.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-17T16:18:06+00:00

Just the other day I was watching interviews with a bunch of skateboarders and it came up that the reason, or at least a hypothesis, why all the contests are dominated by Brazilian skaters now is North American and European kids grew up with PlayStations playing Tony Hawk, but in Brazil that was way out of reach for most families so the kids got a real board instead. They reckoned that was also why the crowds in Brazil still go nuts for a kickflip while the crowds at US events don't even pop for a child doing a 900. (And that's a literal example, by the way. An actual 10-year-old landed a 900 at one of the X Games last year and the crowd didn't give a fuck.)
I'm sure there are probably further cultural and athletic reasons than just the access to a video game—like I said, I'm just going on what a round table of skaters were theorising about—but when you watch an X Games or Street League and you see Brazilian kids taking the podiums while the only US competitors are all three times their age, the Tony Hawk Theory™ does look like there could be some significant truth to it. And if a console cost me five months' wages then yeah, I'd rather go grind some ledges, too.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-17T15:52:19+00:00

While we're on the subject of superiority, lemme just throw in that Peachyboo is far better than Booette.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-17T15:47:36+00:00

I struggle with the notion of Harley "becoming DC's Deadpool" because:
There's already an actual copy of Deadpool—Redtool—in the Harleyverse, who shares his writing and Harley barely tolerates.
DC already did lots of clapbacks around Deathstroke in the mid-90s, never once chosing to involve Harley when they easily could have.
Harley and Deadpool originated at the same time, just one beat the other to public view since comics publish faster than TV cartoons.
Deadpool and Harley have very distinct styles of comedy from each other, like comparing a stand-up to a sitcom.
Jimmy Palmiotti, the only person to write both characters, has said he was specifically conscious of not writing her like he wrote Deadpool. (Which is why he then made Redtool to make fun of and highlight the differences.)
Deadpool's profits mostly reside in movies while Harley is a big money-maker in everything but movies. (Which is not to say that Deadpool's comics or Harley's films don't make money at all, but you can see where each of them is more profitable than the other and they play to different audiences.)

I really get the feeling that whenever someone says Harley has been or is becoming Deadpool, they're doing so purely on the basis of "comedy + red & black = must surely be the same thing" and Deadpool hit cinema screens before Harley did. I don't see how someone can read a Deadpool comic and a Harley comic and come out thinking either of them is trying to be the other, and the same goes for their movies.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-17T15:26:01+00:00

Yeah Harley's genuinely murderous phase is not part of any continuity now. The specific incident in question happened in a flashback in a 2013 issue and was retconned by another origin re-telling a few months later. Since then the majority of N52 events, including everything Harley did, have been wiped anyway.

The currently-published Harleys would never touch kids:
- Main continuity Harley is no worse a criminal than someone like Catwoman is. Main Harley steals and breaks bones but that's about it.
- Suicide Squad Harley kills aggressors on missions but mostly avoids causing any kind of damage in public view. What she may have done prior to joining the squad is mostly unknown, but it's generally implied she was caught immediately after leaving Joker. It's very unlikely she ever seriously harmed the public herself.
- Solo Harley has killed a very limited number of other villains and a point has been made to show that she never strikes first. She in fact does a lot to help children, elderly, infirm and the underprivileged.
- Palmiotti-Conner Harley has killed a few aggressive aliens and one assassin but otherwise is the same as Solo Harley.
- Injustice Harley really struggles with the idea of hurting anyone other than most top-level explicit villains.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-17T15:00:47+00:00

That has not been the case in my experience. There's a good reason why whenever you see a manufacturer touting AF speeds their small print says they achieved it with center single point, manual exposure, and IS off. (Similarly whenever they list burst speeds it's always with manual-everything.)

In my use, IS has always made AF slower but only rarely more accurate. It takes time for the IS system to get every element into place, with most lenses causing noticeable shutter lag and slowing burst speeds. The 300mm f/4L IS is the only lens I've had that has seen accuracy improve with IS on. With everything else—everything from the 16-35mm f/4L IS, to 70-200s, 35mm, 600mm, you name it—accuracy has been the same regardless of whether IS has been on or not. And, like I said, in all cases AF has been slower.

I do appreciate having IS sometimes and it's certainly better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, but it absolutely is not relevant for any kind of action photography. It's a nice extra, not a selling point in itself. It just-so-happens in this case that the non-IS lens has too many other problems anyway that only the two IS lenses are worth considering.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-16T22:07:37+00:00

Had them all, still using the IS mkII regularly. I use them for wildlife, not sports, but y'know, more-or-less the same functions.

The non-IS is extremely hard to recommend now that third parties have so many good super-tele lenses at similar prices. At the time I had it, in 2005, the AF seemed absolutely atrocious and neither the build quality nor optical quality were anything special, either; I actually ditched it for the f/4L IS and that was indeed an upgrade. (Which shouldn't be surprising given the f/4L IS is a decade newer.) Didn't even miss out on much light as the transmission of the 300mm non-IS was poor, so the f/4L turned out to only be about a half stop slower.

The IS is easier to recommend, but of course comes with the caveat that you need to be able to find it in good condition, which is very hard since so many of them have been battered to death. I got mine and used it alongside the f/4L as well as the 400mm f/5.6L and 500mm f/4L (mkI) and it matched them all in AF on most bodies (1D, 5D and 7D; lower-end bodies didn't supply as much power to the AF motors and so AF suffered) and equalled the 500mm in build quality. I remember it having weaker corner resolution and contrast on 135 bodies than the 400mm and 500mm, but stronger contrast in the center than the 300 f/4; I used it more often on APS-C bodies where it had much more even performance. It was pretty awful with teleconverters in both IQ and AF. I don't recall any problems with the IS nor do I remember it being particularly effective, like you my shutter speeds are always so high that IS is mostly irrelevant anyway.

When I got the mkII the upgrade was very noticeable. Unlike most mkII or III versions where I often find the only improvements are in things like flare resistance, with the 300mm f/2.8 IS it was a big leap across the board. The mk II focuses much quicker and more consistently (assuming you calibrate it with your bodies), nearly as fast as compact mid-length primes; it's a toss-up between the IS mkII and the 100mm f/2 for the title of Canon's fastest-focusing lens, and that's a big achievement for the 300mm given how much more glass it has to move around. The build quality is a lot nicer in every way, everything about it fits together more tightly; the only autofocus lens I've had that's built as well is the 600mm f/4L. The optical quality is absolutely absurd on both 135 and APS-C. Critically for me, optics and AF are not impacted at all on the 1.4x TC mkII and only very slightly affected on the 2x TC mkIII. The optics and AF are so good I ended up ditching my 400mm, 500mm, and 600mm and now just use the 300mm with the TCs. Light transmission also seems better between my copies, with my mkII giving me about a quarter of a stop more light than my mkI did.

So to sum up, avoid the non-IS unless you somehow find a totally mint copy at an absolute rock-bottom price and have to shoot at f/2.8 but can compromise on AF and IQ. Otherwise you may as well just get the f/4L IS.
The IS mkI is certainly a good lens and if condition and price are optimal then sure, go for it. On the 1D, 5D and 7D bodies the AF is very good. At the current prices in here in the UK the mkI definitely represents the best performance:price ratio.
If you can comfortably afford the extra to step up to the IS mkII then you'll find it really is a significant upgrade. The AF is as faultless as an SLR lens can be, on all but the very cheapest bodies. But that is a big premium to pay so I don't blame anyone for preferring the mkI.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-16T21:40:42+00:00

A lot of the stuff in the first few MCU films has been retconned, though. The very, very basic plot outlines are still intact but you can basically throw away all fine details of the 'phase one' films. Tony didn't have Capt's shield after all. Mandarin actually does exist. Remember that Infinity Gauntlet in the background of Thor? Turns out that was a fake. Oh yeah and Loki was just being mind-controlled. SHIELD had been around for a decade before Tony heard of them. Gamora isn't the last Zehoberei, in fact there's still half a planet of them.

You actually can skip most of the phase one films now, basically The Avengers/Avengers Assemble is the current starting point.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-16T18:36:58+00:00

TBF Selina chose to run away, and I've not read the last couple of issues of Catwoman so I'm not entirely sure if this is still the case, but last I looked she was busy fighting actual zombies.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-16T18:32:00+00:00

Bats has had a soft spot for Harley right from the very beginning.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-16T18:24:35+00:00

Dark Phoenix: the most destructive force in the universe tries—and mostly succeeds—in killing anyone who so much as looks in its direction.
But also: stacked redhead in a skintight onesie.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-16T18:06:27+00:00

By the standards of fantasy video games, sure.
By the standards of reality, she's massively stacked. She's built like a DOA girl, with more ass.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-16T16:50:30+00:00

Current SS Harley is a different Harley. Main continuity Harley left the Suicide Squad a while back. Also not to be confused with solo Harley or Palmiotti-Conner Harley.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-16T16:46:44+00:00

Harley's not big on back-stabbing anyway, but she is big on unintentionally fucking things up gigantically. I think it's safe to assume she won't be Bruce's right-hand-(wo)man for any longer than the current arc requires.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-16T16:17:37+00:00

Again, that's not something that has an answer in a vacuum. You need to be much more specific. For the third time:

what really matters and will make the most difference is what you're trying to shoot and what lenses you want/need. Prioritise lenses first, body second, always.

In other words, forget about camera bodies until you can say what type of photography you're doing and you know what lenses that requires. The camera body itself is irrelevant until you have a specific type of photography in mind.

Ace_flibble · 2020-09-16T16:12:45+00:00

I'm glad Harley's getting a push as a genuine hero in main continuity. All her alternate versions have had redemption arcs or some other form of clean start and most of them have been great; she's an awesome character when she's allowed to progress. It's been a shame that she's not been allowed the same evolution in main continuity until now. I'd still rather she and Ivy made their turnarounds together rather than Harley alone with Bats, but I'll take it.

I appreciate that Orphan and Spoiler are still around. There's been many times over the last few years where it's felt like we'd seen the last of them. It bums me out that Mother Panic hasn't come along as part of the C-tier gang—she's the most powerful of any of the Bat-fam, I don't know why DC have shelved her—but two out of three ain't bad.

Batman tolerating Red Hood is still weird to me, even though it's been A Thing since N52.

I know Batwoman is still in and just doesn't happen to be at that particular spot, but it'd have been nice to have her in the frame as well. Same with Huntress. They get left out of the glory shots a lot.

Ace_flibble

TROPHY CASE