March 06, 2015, 02:38:53 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - EricPeeg

Pages: [1]
Lenses / Educate me about why 70mm <> 70mm...
« on: January 05, 2013, 09:26:05 AM »
Alrighty, I should probably know this, but I guess I've never had the lenses to test this question before.

Yesterday evening, I received a copy of the new Canon 24-70 F4 IS lens. We can talk about why I selected that lens over the F2.8 and why I'm so crazy, but perhaps folks can explain to me something I observed this morning on my morning walkabout where I took the new lens out for a shakedown cruise.

The images below are uncropped and unretouched, other than being exported from Lightroom at smaller dimensions than the original RAW files from my 5d Mk II.

The first image (Img_4708.jpg) is the 24-70 shot at 70mm (at the top of the lens's rotational range) F4, 1/200th, 1000 ISO, -1/3 EV.
The second image (Img_4697.jpg) is the 70-200 Mk II shot at 70mm (at the bottom of the lens's rotational range) F4, 1/160th, 1000 ISO, -1/3 EV

Both images were handheld (left my tripod at home this morning), but I didn't move between switching lenses. Looking at the LCD, I thought "wait, is one of those more zoomed-in than the other?"

At home, thinking perhaps it was how I'd held the camera, I set up the tripod in the kitchen and repeated the test. This time, the tripod definitely didn't move between images.

The first image (Img_4735.jpg) is the 24-70, shot at 70mm, F4, 1/60th, 200 ISO, 0 EV.
The second image (Img_4736.jpg) is the 70-200, shot at 70mm, F4, 1/80th, 200 ISO, 0 EV.

As you can see, in both sets, there's a difference in the angle of view - not necessarily good or bag, but different. So, I can come up with two explanations for what I'm seeing, but I'm hoping someone can shed more light on this.

1. The difference can be explained by the fact that lens manufacturers paint numbers on the lenses which are approximations of the focal length, and two lenses of different design will inevitably have a different length (or angle of view) even at what's nominally the same setting.


2. This is the optical result of the difference in physical length between the 24-70 and the 70-200 lenses. At 70mm, the 24-70 is about 3 inches shorter than the 70-200. Because in both tests I tried to keep the focal plane of the image sensor more or less in the same place (roughly in the handheld setting, exactly when it was on the tripod), the front element of the 70-200 was always closer to the subjects, thereby shifting the scene.

My question to the collective wisdom of folks: Are either or both of these explanations accurate, or is there something else at play here? And also, what might explain the approximately 1/3 stop difference that the camera's choosing between shutter speed when it's working with the different lenses? Is this also due to the front element being closer to the subject (that whole "light falling off at the square of its distance" thingy I learned and forgot in my college photography class so long ago?)

Looking forward to learning from others here...

Lenses / Help me spend a one-time windfall!
« on: October 19, 2012, 04:51:50 PM »
So, I'm a long-time lurker here on the forums. This is my first post, because I need the collective wisdom of the folks here. Here's the scenario:

A year ago, I returned to photography after several years away from it (long story), and decided it was time to make the move from film to digital. I sold all of my Pentax 645N gear and lenses, and picked up a 5D Mk II and several lenses. I knew at the time that I wasn't buying my "final" gear, but then, when is that ever true...   :D Anyhow, in the past year, I've returned to the field to find an old passion rekindled - primarily in landscape/outdoor/architecture sorts of area. Obviously this means some low light/golden light photography; however, I do have a tripod and know how to use it, so 2.8 glass isn't perhaps required, even if I lust for it. I don't do any wedding photography, relatively little wildlife/birds, only the occasional portrait, and once in a while, a sporting event.

Now, I have an opportunity to spend a bonus. I've been very busy at work of late (it's non photographic), taking on several massive projects, working long hours etc. In what is a very flattering offer, my boss has asked me what I might like as a bonus, and we've settled on a solution - the company is prepared to buy me $8000 in photographic equipment, of my choosing. I don't expect I'll ever have this opportunity again, so I'd like to do this right the first time - hence, I come here for advice.

Here's what I have

  • 5d Mark II
  • 100 2.8 macro, non-IS
  • 17-40mm f/4L Lens
  • 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
  • 35 f2 (left over from a former career as a journalist)
  • 200 f/2.8L (also from journalism, not the newest version - the version with the built-in hood

My wife allows me to use her 70-300 4.5-5.6 IS  when I need a longer lens.

Now, here's the equipment I'm lusting after (Prices are B&H):
  • 5D Mark III - $3460
  • 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II - $2130
  • 70-200mm f/4L IS - $1200
  • 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS - $1400
  • 24-70mm f/2.8L II - $2300
  • 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS - $1530
  • 24mm f/3.5L II Tilt-Shift - $2000
  • 180mm f/3.5L Macro - $1430

Here’s what I’m leaning toward:

  • 24mm f/3.5L II Tilt-Shift - $2000
  • 24-70mm f/2.8L II - $2300
  • 70-200mm f/4L IS - $1200
  • 5D Mark III - $3460

I’d dispose of:

  • 5d Mark II
  • EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM 
  • EF 35 f2)
  • EF 200mm f/2.8L

And would end up with:

  • 5d Mark IIi
  • 24mm f/3.5L II Tilt-Shift
  • EF 100 2.8 macro
  • EF 17-40mm f/4L Lens 
  • 24-70mm f/2.8L II
  • 70-200mm f/4L IS

So, here are my questions:

1.   Should I spend half my funds on the upgrade to the Mark III? The images from the Mark II are lovely, and focusing speed or extreme low light hasn’t been my issue. I do find my images at 1600 ISO seem fairly noisy, but I don’t know whether the Mark III would be substantively better, often enough.
2.   What’s the best mix of overlapping zooms? The 75-300 that my wife and I have been sharing is convenient, so in some ways just replacing that with L glass seems like a good choice – in others, I wonder about a 70-200 and 100-400 combo. Or maybe a 70-200 and a 1.4x converter...)
3.   How much use will the Tilt/Shift get, really? (I know, that’s hard to quantify an answer)
4.   If I keep the 100 Macro, which I love, will I really need the 180 macro?

Thanks for reading what got much longer than I intended, and for advice and comments!

Pages: [1]