Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Carnevale 2012 part four
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:04 pm    Post subject: Carnevale 2012 part four Reply with quote

The photos here have been taken with an old Canon EF 24-85 which I found used in a local shop for a ridiculously low price.
It had a little break in the plastic Rolling Eyes filter ring which does not prevent filter use but allowed for the bargain price.
Not having any short focal AF lens, I decided to take it, just in case of need. And I tested it at the Carnevale.
I have to say that I feared it to be much worse optically than what it actually is.
I also have to say that I always shoot it well stopped down in order to avoid the Cazwecs (Canon zoom's weak corners syndrome).
The results are fine I think, although I had to adjust parameters in Lightroom for twice the time that I need with my manual lenses.
What is really bleah is the autofocus, it is so slow and errand that at some point I just turned it off and shoot the lens manually, LOL!
Thanks for watching Smile


#1



#2



#3



#4



#5



#6



#7



#8



#9



#10



#11



#12



#13



#14



#15



#16



#17



#18



#19



#20


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the 24-85 was considered quite good at his time, I even thinking of buying it
#19 at 28mm is poor (definition, distortion, bokeh) , longer focal are better, quite good after 50mm like #1#2


PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:
the 24-85 was considered quite good at his time, I even thinking of buying it
#19 at 28mm is poor (definition, distortion, bokeh) , longer focal are better, quite good after 50mm like #1#2


yes distortion is awful Laughing
#19 is also a bad photo because of motion blur (I included it because it's the only one that shows the motor horse Laughing )
if you look at #7 it's the same FL (wide) but it is better, at least for definition.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I used th have that lens as well as a standard lens for my former 350D. And I really liked it!
I think those shot show that it is a good lens.

BTW, look at #11, those are the shots I like the most, when something is captured just like "en passant".


PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:

BTW, look at #11, those are the shots I like the most, when something is captured just like "en passant".


I see what you mean.
You know? It's really difficult to take photos of these band members. Firstly, because they march quite fast.
Secondly, because they are not used to be photographed, in fact they always look strangely at me because I photograph them.
I think they expect that people do only photograph the girls. They always have this gaze, like "Why are you taking a picture of me?"
Or in the worst cases, like "get lost!" Laughing
A lot of photos are like this, and I have to get rid of most of them because they do not look so friendly. Laughing
Girls instead are used to be photographed and most of them are ok with that or even happy Very Happy