60D users, friends and their random OT B.S. (III)

thanks i will try that. i'll just try to add sepia in PS manually. I added a bit of blue tones on it.

here's a sepia tone Gerry. How is it?

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rAhE​Rt

vinmunoz wrote in post #17501124
The client wanted a black and white of this one.
How was my conversion? C&C are welcome. Thank you.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rC1K​dq Cathy-Thor7BW by timobong, on Flickr

vinmunoz wrote in post #17501149
here's a sepia tone Gerry. How is it?

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rAhE​Rt Cathy-Thor7BWsepia by timobong, on Flickr

I don't know!... It definitely has the 'old photo' feel, but I think I like the B&W better. I am impressed with the sharpness of the photos.

Anyway, what do you think?

I like the tone of this one. Is it tilted a bit to the left or is it me?

Gerry, i usually oversharpen a black and white in post. Yah i like the BW too.

The lens is also sharp i guess. it's the classic nikkor 135mm f2 AI/S

Brenda, i will check it out. thank you.

Not trying to be critical, Vinz. The crate on the left is was caught my eye.

So some might think I've smoked something..... or had one too many drinks..... buuuuut!

My 17-50 2.8 VC has semi-officially retired. The corner softness bothered me quite a bit, so I replaced it. With what you ask?? Well, the kit 18-55 that came with my T1i.... To be honest, the corner sharpness looks improved with the kit lens (the 17-50 VC softness issues occurred stopped down to landscape apertures). Couldn't be happier to an all Canon glass setup. The 50 1.8 does wonders on my 60D, so much so, that I use the lens in a weird 75-ish mm capacity. The 17-50 has no business being as sharp as it is in the center though. The color rendition is awesome, and it carried me through a 2 week vacation before the aperture assembly decided to croak (covered under warranty with FAST turnaround time).

Has anyone kept their 60D plus APS-C lenses alongside a FF upgrade (maybe as a travel option)? I'm pondering the still IQ of the FF, but feel like I should really be going into the video realm. No thanks to a recent C100 mark II plus 16-35 2.8 unboxing.

MrWho wrote in post #17501491
So some might think I've smoked something..... or had one too many drinks..... buuuuut!
...
Has anyone kept their 60D plus APS-C lenses alongside a FF upgrade (maybe as a travel option)? I'm pondering the still IQ of the FF, but feel like I should really be going into the video realm. No thanks to a recent C100 mark II plus 16-35 2.8 unboxing.

The 60D is my travel/UWA kit. The Sigma 8-16 and the EFS 18-200 provide for a very full range. I use it often

A couple more shots from the last week:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rCgL​f7

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rCov​NB

MakisM1 wrote in post #17501493
The 60D is my travel/UWA kit. The Sigma 8-16 and the EFS 18-200 provide for a very full range. I use it often

Sounds like a nice kit! How's the Sigma? Fisheye?

MrWho wrote in post #17501868
Sounds like a nice kit! How's the Sigma? Fisheye?

The lens is stunning! Rectilinear and very very sharp!

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …1024_zpse98d96e​9.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …Ben1_zps710a5f3​3.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …49DT_zps2fijnlh​p.jpg.html

The Sigma 8-16 is nice, for some reason the colors seemed a bit weird to me though and it is soft at the edges. I sold mine once I got my 6D, you could use it on FF with a 1.4x TC, but it made it a really slow lens, f8 I think wide open.

What do you guys think of my lion pic from the other day? Used 70-200 F2.8 IS II with a 1.4x Kenko 300 DGX TC.

I converted to B&W becuase it was pretty much monocrome already, the rocks were brown/orange and the lion is brown/orange.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qXFi​Pk

vertigo235 wrote in post #17502205
The Sigma 8-16 is nice, for some reason the colors seemed a bit weird to me though and it is soft at the edges. I sold mine once I got my 6D, you could use it on FF with a 1.4x TC, but it made it a really slow lens, f8 I think wide open.

You have to be really careful when the sky is in the picture. I had my share of weirdness. I think it has to do with the angle the light enters the camera.

At the absolute corners it is a bit soft, but I don't think that any UWA can do better. It is the nature of the beast. However, at the center of the edge it is still quite remarkable.

This was the original photo (that's how it's done... you throw out what you don't need, you don't try to fill the frame ).

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …cted_zps2eeaf30​2.jpg.html

MakisM1 wrote in post #17501879
The lens is stunning! Rectilinear and very very sharp!

You just have to mind keeping the lens horizontal and understand the perspective distortion.

vertigo235 wrote in post #17502205
The Sigma 8-16 is nice, for some reason the colors seemed a bit weird to me though and it is soft at the edges. I sold mine once I got my 6D, you could use it on FF with a 1.4x TC, but it made it a really slow lens, f8 I think wide open.

Hmmm. Looks like the crop version of a 16-35. Would that be an accurate comparison? Any reason to get the 8-16 over something like the STM 10-18, or the Sigma 10-20? I'm seriously considering the 10-18 myself, just not sure how often the UWA will see use.