Messages

1

Lenses / Re: 16-35 ii on crop

« on: November 27, 2012, 07:18:08 AM »

the 16-35 II is no comparison with the 24-70. It is just not a very good lens relative wise. The image isnt sharp, no where close to the 24-70, even cropped. You use the 26-35II for what it is...ie it is the only thing available for a wide angle zoom Full frame at 2.8. I like it but the image quality is just not relatively good. Best thing is still go FF and take the 24-70L. But it is a bit heavy and not really a walk about lens.

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: T3i vs T4i for first dslr

« on: November 27, 2012, 07:09:34 AM »

As a first dslr, all you need is a 2nd hand 450D or an XSi what you call them over there in the US.

Why? because it is cheap and it has all the things you need to learn about photography.

Then what are the improvements of the 650D over the 450D? Well there is;

1) video: you dont need that for photography

2) higher iso range: They are utterly useless as it is an APS-C sensor, and iso 6400 is just unusable on matter on what camera. you will never need to shoot over ISO 1600. If you do you really need a full frame.

3)Better Auto focus. This means it has more AF points. But you should shoot centre spot, use only centre focus and then recompose. Hence you dont need more than 1 AF pts either. The only time you shoot AF using all points is shooting birds for example or a football game. You point the camera and burst multi frames, hoping the camera will get 1 good shot. But I doubt you will shoot many these situation.

4) faster frames per second. again, just mentioned above.

5) there will be a few more mega pixels on the newer sensors. But it is really no difference. Think about it. If you move from a 2mp to a 8mp, an massive 4 times increase in resolustion, you will get 2 times more pixels along the length of the frame. as it is a square root. Now if you move from 11mps to 14 mps, you work it out. sqrt(14/11). hardly anything.

camera improvements reminds of of boys comparing their trump cards...look my card has 1 more hp than urs. My hero has +1 attack pts than yours. Its all bollocks. get a 2nd hand 450D, learn about shooting AV, f stop, manual iso. And dont invest in any EF-S lenses either. Shoot a 450D for 3-4 months. Then move to a 2nd hand 5DMKII. And build ur your collection of EF lenses.

You will thank me later!

P.S. you might ask, why then the 450D and not going down further to 400D, 350D? because 450D has live view whichis useful for manaul focus and the screen is larger which helps you to see your photos as you take your pictures. 450D. You cant go wrong.

3

Lenses / Re: If you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they...???

« on: September 16, 2012, 06:23:18 PM »

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 II
Sigma 50mm 1.4
Canon 70-200 f/2.8

4

Lenses / Re: Help picking lenses for vacation!

« on: June 17, 2012, 03:21:55 AM »

Hey guys and gals! I was just wondering, my family is going on a vacation this summer to London, Paris and Venice. I would for sure bring my Canon 5D Mark II, but don't know what/how many lenses to bring. Seeing all the places are perfect photography spots. Should I carry around more than 1 lens? Also, I have currently, Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM and lastly Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM. Which ones should I bring  Also, I saw the 8-15mm fisheye and quite liked it. Are there any owners here who would like to share their experiances with it? Would it be good to use on the trip? Thanks! 
Ryan

take everything.

17-40 you need for buildings and indoors. Where you are going is full of it.

35 f/1.4 is an amazing lens. Low light at night and also streeting.

24-105 I prefer the 24-70, but most of your shots will come from this one

70-200. it is possible to leave this one at home, because when you are out there, it is quite cumbersome to carry it. You will fine that it is not versatile enough to be the main lens. It is useful for landscaping compression and also some street shots of people. Picking out detals of places, buildings. You will definitely need it. Depends if you are prepared to carry it in your bag and is willing to change lens when you are around.

I went travelling with my kit. that is, 16-35II, 24-70, 70-200 IS + 50 1.4. I only shot the 70-200 on the few days when I really needed to shoot with it and had it on my camera all the time. Othertimes when I had it in my bag, I didnt botheer shooting wiht it because I found it was too much effort to change lens, shoot 3 photos and change it back to primary lens.

In the end, lens dont matter. you just shoot with you have. If you have a 50 1.4 you will shoot with that. So ddont worry about the lens too much. Too much fantasising. We all do it. You will find reality when you are shooting on the field. You make do with what ever you have.

good luck.

5

Lenses / Re: Help picking lenses for vacation!

« on: June 17, 2012, 03:16:54 AM »

Hey guys and gals! I was just wondering, my family is going on a vacation this summer to London, Paris and Venice. I would for sure bring my Canon 5D Mark II, but don't know what/how many lenses to bring. Seeing all the places are perfect photography spots. Should I carry around more than 1 lens? Also, I have currently, Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM and lastly Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM. Which ones should I bring  Also, I saw the 8-15mm fisheye and quite liked it. Are there any owners here who would like to share their experiances with it? Would it be good to use on the trip? Thanks! 
Ryan

take everything.

17-40 you need for buildings and indoors. Where you are going is full of it.

35 f/1.4 is an amazing lens. Low light at night and also streeting.

24-105 I prefer the 24-70, but most of your shots will come from this one

70-200. it is possible to leave this one at home, because when you are out there, it is quite cumbersome to carry it. You will fine that it is not versatile enough to be the main lens. It is useful for landscaping compression and also some street shots of people. Picking out detals of places, buildings. You will definitely need it. Depends if you are prepared to carry it in your bag and is willing to change lens when you are around.

good luck.

6

Lenses / Re: First L Lens or upgrade, looking for advice

« on: June 17, 2012, 03:12:27 AM »

Hello all, been a long time reader, but not poster.

Ive been shooting since T2i came out, then my needs for a better camera got me a 60D, and never really care much for buying any glass since my canon 50 1.4 covered all my needs.

But now ive been asked to shoot couple weddings.

I know im going nowhere with my kit lens. I ve been also saving up some money because i knew one day i would have to buy a L series, and we all know they are expensive. My first lens was going to be the 70 200 2.8 II but im not sure if my kit lens is going to cut it at the wedding. I also shot events and video, most of the time, low light.

These are the lenses im looking at:

17 40 f4
16 35 f2.8 II
24 105 f4
24 70 f2.8 II ?

I also dont want this lens to be exclusive for weddings, all arround lens too. And i know most ppl will say get the 24 105 f4, but i do love to shoot wide.

Ive saved enough to buy 1 really expensive lens. And by expensive i mean the new 24 70 or was by default the 70 200

Help me choose on this, Thx

Mike

the 24-70 L. forget about the cropped lenses. It is expensive and you will soon upgrade no doubt to full frame and you will not regret getting a full frame lens.

7

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality

« on: June 17, 2012, 03:01:12 AM »

It is the least thing you would care about unless you blow your photos to A2 size.

If you shoot and print on normal size, I bet you wont tell much difference between a good compact and the 5DII. focus on your shooting. Less talking.

the 5DII is a good camera, you should only get the 5DIII if you need one. that is if you need large prints in low light. The 5DII is sufficient in low light. At 6400 ISO using a 50 1.4 your shutter speed in low light is around 1/30 to 1/50 even with +4/3EV as the meter will be confused by the bright lights. So it is shootable. If you find yourself shooting in lower light then you are really shooting things that even your own eyes can't realy see. You are not composing, but using your camera like a photon counting device...taking a picture in the dark of what's out there when you can't see yourself.

I find that my 5DII is just sufficient with the lens. During the day, you are better off getting a better lens. I can bet you that you dont need to spend an extra $3000 to improve your photos. It is the photographer. Moving from 5DII to 5DIII only make some of your pictures better resolution in low light. If a photo is a S___ photo, taking the same S___ composition with the 5DIII will turn that into the same S___ composition boring photo where you can pixel perv a bit more. Not very useful is it?

I'd love to get a 5DIII in the future. But for now, even I have more than enough funds, I won't want to buy anything. I don't need it. It is tempting to replace my 24-70 with the mkII as that is better money spent. But I really don't need that. Most of these improvements are there to make us feel inadequate, and marketing tries to get us consumers justify that we need more, when in fact if we take a closer look, we are most likely to be more sufficient than we thought we were.

8

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Less talking and more shooting

« on: June 13, 2012, 01:22:53 AM »

The op has some very valid point.

I just got back from Tahiti & Bora-Bora honeymoon last week, sort of like a once in life time trip really. I took all I had by the time, 17-40L for UWA, 50 1.4 for low light, 70-200 IS II for portait of my wife, 1Ds2 for stills, 50D (magic lantern rules!) for movie with underwater package. and a second hand beaten up 24-105L I got for fun.

Guess what, 90% of pictures came from the 24-105. When you are travelling, that single convenient lens mounted right on your camera is the most valuable one. Not the other $3000 big white lens which rests in the hotel room.

So, shooting is a different thing to talking. Sometimes they are even contradicting.

I carried my 70-200 around china for 3 weeks with my 5D2, 16-35 and 50 f1.4

I only used the 70-200 twice
once shooting a really cool play at night using a tripod
and the other on a boat cruise down the yangtze river i used a 2x tc with it on this too
the rest of the time I basically used the 16-35 or the 50 and the rest of my gear stayed in the hotel room
my wife pretty much just shot with the 24-105 and her 5Dmk2

Yes it was the same for me when I was out there. When I had my 70-200 on my 5DII I got some great shots. Unfortunately it wasnt wise to have it on there all the time. So most of my shots came from the 16-35, and in the end I was just happy shooting with my 50mm 1.4 as it was so light. And yes, you just shoot with what ever you have.

As already mentioned somewhere down in the replies, sometimes we talk about so much about more expensive lenses, thinking what you will be shooting, why you need this and that, but onthe field it is totally different and you quickly learn what is really needed. Which is a nice thing.

Less shooting lens charts at home with the 70-200 and more going out there with you 50mm.

9

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Less talking and more shooting

« on: June 10, 2012, 07:16:37 AM »

Without wanting to get flamed, I just want to say that I see too much discussions here about what lens, what camera, what gear etc here on the forum. Its nice talking about the gear but to be honest, if we are talking too much then it means we are not shooting.

The bodies and lenses are there to be used on the field. I just got back from a 6 weeks backpacking to SE Asia. Took all the gear I built up over the past few years, that is, my 5DII, 16-35 II L, 24-70 L, 50 1.4 and 70-200 IS. I used to talk a lot about my gear, thinking what to use to shoot a particular afternoon stroll. But when I was out there, I just had my camera and 1 or 2 lenses with me for the day. The lenses got dirty, camera survived a typhoon, and at the end of the day that is what it is all about. The gear is there to be used on the field, out there. And I shot what ever I saw with what ever gear/lens I had with me at the time. Forget about deciding whether you need the 50 1.4/1.2/1.8 or 24-70 with or without IS, when you are out there, that is the least thing you think about. You just shoot. And you shoot with what ever equipment you have with you. And yes the lenses will get dirty, dust will get inside, UV filters might crack, but afterall that is what shooting is all about. I also had my compact digi cam in my pocket. I got some great shots without my 5DII. You dont need the latest lens with a flat MTF chart with IS and the 5DIII, its not all about the equipment.

So if you find yourself talking about a dust speck on the inside of your 50mm you bought 2nd hand from ebay and thinking if you need a 1.2 or what case/bag you might need just for that one time afternoon garden party next week, I really think you are talking too much, and not shooting enough. So go out there and shoot. Get your hands dirty, get your gear dirty and only then will you get some great photos.

10

Lenses / Re: Wide Angle Lens for outdoor landscape & occasionally indoor

« on: April 15, 2012, 04:39:28 AM »

One thing I forgot to mention, as you said you've never used a wide angle before, is that don't expect the best image quality from a wide angle.  I believe people only use the the 16-35 2.8 not because it is amazing, but because it is the best that is available on FF at 2.8. I don't think the amount of money we pay justifies what the lens gives out. It is a lot of money to pay for a lens.

You would want to compare the image quality to the 24-70 and you will realise how much shaper the 24-70 is. ( or in your case, the 70-200 IS II as you've got there which is an amazingly sharp lens. It just doesnt come anywhere remotely close. ) Nikon has the amazing 14-24mm 2.8. I would pay the amount of money for that lens however I am a canon shooter. So overall I dont think you will be blown away by what the 16-35 has to offer, it is only there for interesting perspective shots, thats what I use it for. Wide angle landscapes/portraits and indoors etc. But for the real workhorse, it will always be my 24-70.

good luck,

11

Lenses / Re: Wide Angle Lens for outdoor landscape & occasionally indoor

« on: April 15, 2012, 04:24:20 AM »

How often will you be shooting at 2.8? With the 5DIII, the ISO performance is so nice, there is little reason to need that extra 1 stop if you can increase your iso so easily. I shoot with the 16-35 II on the 5DII and its a nice lens. I was shooting with it yesterday at night walking around town and the highest setting I used was IS0 6400 to shoot at f/2.8. With the ISO performance of the 5DIII being 2 stops better than the 5DII you can shoot at ISO 12800 at f/4 and still be laughing knowing you have another stop in reserve over the 5DII in case you need that. If you shoot street photography, it will usually be on f/8-f/11 at ISO 1600 during the day. So never wide open.

One thing that has not been mentioned is the minimum focusing distance. The min. focusing distance of the 16-35 is half that of 17-40 so that can be a real plus. If you are not shooting pro, there is little reason to pixel perv and find faults of the 17-40 over the 16-35, esp if you print 6x4.

good luck,

12

Lenses / Re: Which 70-200?

« on: April 11, 2012, 09:32:10 PM »

A word of caution. The mark 1 is is less sharp than the non is. That's why the mark ii was released. So do not buy that on  the market

13

Lenses / Re: Do all of canons 50 mm lens suck?

« on: April 07, 2012, 10:14:05 AM »

Ive owned the 1.4 and the 1.8. I loved the look of the 1.4 at 1.4. unfortunately it is very soft and the images are not usable at 1.4. Also I have have 2 copies of that lens. Both gives purple fringling in low light at night. I didnt like the colour reproduction either.

The 1.8 is cheap but the bokeh is not as good. and it is noisy.

I have now got rid of them both and bought a sigma 1.4. it is the best lens by far. sharp images, incredible bokeh. yes canon needs a new lens.

14

Lenses / Re: Your Most Used Lens!

« on: April 05, 2012, 07:33:42 PM »

Id love to use my 70-200 more but it is just so big and heavy I dont like carrying it around with me too much.

Im beginning to enjoy the 16-35 MKII. It is great to carry when walking around in crowded areas.

Before that, its a toss up between the 24-70 and the 50mm. I carry the 50mm when Im out and dont have anything to shoot in mind. If I intend to go out and shoot something, I carry the 24-70.

15

Lenses / Carry Canon L lenses out shooting. Which pair would you usually carry?

« on: April 04, 2012, 06:57:11 PM »

Finally I have completed my kit. It is composed of:

5dMKII
16-35mm f/2.8 MKII L
24-70mm f/2.8 L
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS
Sigma 50mm f/1.4

I'm very very happy with what I have. And theres going to be so much to learn. Im taking these travelling. Im planning to take only two lenses maximum when I'm out. Preferably not taking both L lenses ( not putting both eggs in one basket).

Which pair would you take for various situations? The 24-70 + 50? or the 16-35+50?

Does the 16-35 go well with the 70-200 without the middle range? Reading this forum, the 16-35 is more preferred to the 24-70 it seems.

thanks for your advice/experiences.