Roberto's at Mission Beach

Chris Dodkin

Chris Dodkin

West Coast Correspondent
Took a ride down to Mission Beach this evening - hoping for a good sunset behind the huge wooden roller coaster - which didn't materialize! :mad:

However, there was a rather wonderful looking Mexican restaurant - Roberto's - on the corner of Mission Blvd and W Mission Bay Dr.

web.jpg


5D2 - Canon 15mm f2.8 Fisheye - ISO200 - f3 - 1/25


web.jpg


web.jpg


5D2 - Canon 28-70 f2.8L - ISO100

(First shots with the newly calibrated lenses BTW)

Roberto's do a rather good California Burrito :) :)
 
Last edited:
Wonderful Chris! I love the first photo, the detail and colors are wonderful, I think you have just convinced me to invest in the Canon 15mm Fisheye :-)
 
wow brilliant set chris, i like them all, NO 1 is my favourite. This is MY type of photography
 
Pete Askew said:
And I'm not sure why as they are quite narrow wavelength so it must be the intensity. Sort of like a long point source if you see what I mean. So what you see is 'leakage' to adjacent photo-sites. What do you think?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking it may be diffraction based - the fisheye shot was at f3, the longer focal length shots at f22.

Maybe I'll try some different apertures from the same location next time, and see what the effect on the neon is.
 
Hard to pick a favorite here. They are all good. I especially like that you made these shots while there was still some light in the sky. While the sky is not the subject, the clouds add to the drama of these photos. This is especially so in the first photo. If I had to pick a fav it would be #1. Thanks for posting these.

Since these were the first photos with the new calibration on your lens how do you feel that effort worked out, especially with the 28-70?

Hmmm! Canon 28-70 f2.8L eh? I too have this lens and really like it. Bought mine back in the mid 90s I think when I was shooting film with a Canon Elan IIe. The lens continues to perform for me on my newer camera. I did send it to Canon back in 2007 to have it checked out and they supposedly returned it to new specs. It's my primary lens now.
 
Rudi Venter said:
Wonderful Chris! I love the first photo, the detail and colors are wonderful, I think you have just convinced me to invest in the Canon 15mm Fisheye :-)
Click to expand...

Rudi - I've had great success with the 15mm from Canon - a bargain compared to the 14mm L Fisheye - I throw it into the mix now and again to get that different perspective.
 
Ralph Thornton said:
Since these were the first photos with the new calibration on your lens how do you feel that effort worked out, especially with the 28-70?

Hmmm! Canon 28-70 f2.8L eh? I too have this lens and really like it. Bought mine back in the mid 90s I think when I was shooting film with a Canon Elan IIe. The lens continues to perform for me on my newer camera. I did send it to Canon back in 2007 to have it checked out and they supposedly returned it to new specs. It's my primary lens now.
Click to expand...

Ralph - so far I very happy with the calibration - although I want to shoot some more standard daylight stuff to really take a peek at the pixels and be 100% sure.

I too bought by 28-70 mid-90's - it's been a fabulous lens and has withstood the test of time - love the image quality you can get from it, and really can't see a reason to move to a more recent model.

It has really come back into being my primary lens since going full frame with the 5D2 - prior to that, my 1D and 1D2 crop sensors meant that I was using the 17-35 f2.8L as the walk around lens (definitely not as good as the 28-70).
 
I have a friend that uses a 17-35 f2.8L as his walk around lens on a crop camera. I also have this lens, another purchase back in the 90s, and carry it with me most of the time. Comes in handy but I prefer the 28-70 for most of my landscape work.
 
Pete Askew said:
Good thinking. That would explain shots 2 and 3 I guess. You can see some haze around the tubes in 1 though. What does it look like on the full size image?
Click to expand...

Pete - here's a crop from #1

web.jpg
 
Ralph Thornton said:
I have a friend that uses a 17-35 f2.8L as his walk around lens on a crop camera. I also have this lens, another purchase back in the 90s, and carry it with me most of the time. Comes in handy but I prefer the 28-70 for most of my landscape work.
Click to expand...

I always figured that the 17-35 was a knee-jerk reaction from Canon, when they went digital, and realized that the 28-70 wasn't wide enough any more.

They rushed the lens to market to meet the need, but then replaced it pretty quickly with a 'better' model - most L lenses last decades before being upgraded, but the 17-35 only lasted from '96 till 2001.

Still like it though - warts and all :)

Cost me $250 this year to have it repaired after I dropped it - so now it's back to original spec (I hope) - and $250 was still ay cheaper than buying the new version!!!
 
Pete Askew said:
Good thinking. That would explain shots 2 and 3 I guess. You can see some haze around the tubes in 1 though. What does it look like on the full size image?
Click to expand...

Pete - just fond this info whilst doing online research - "The size of the aperture has some effect on the bleeding or "halation" of the neon glow, so take a few test exposures and see if you like the glow. As you change apertures you will probably see the spread of the glow change. "

Looks like I'm onto something...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top