March 04, 2015, 11:26:38 PM

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.

Messages - FTb-n

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
Lenses / Re: Canon ef-s 17-55mm 2.8 is usm GONE
« on: March 03, 2015, 11:49:53 AM »

To maximize the AF performance of the 7D2 for sports, a short fixed f2.8 lens is a must.

Agree.  Crop shooters are stuck with a 16-35 f/2.8L II or third party zooms to get an f/2.8 lens wide enough to be considered a 'standard' zoom.

I'll go a step further.  The 7D2 is not a toy.  Many of its owners see crop as a strength and not a weakness for what they shoot (i.e. stuff that is further away) and have cabinets full of high-end glass.  Yet for closer FLs, they are stuck with UWA L zooms as their best standard zoom option.

How about one -- just one -- great L lens for crop? 

17-55 in crop is 27-88mm in FF which many would agree is not wide enough for many folks' walkaround needs.   How about an EF-S 15-55 f/2.8L IS USM?  Make it awesome.  Be overpricey Canon and charge $1,200-1,500 for it.  Birders and sports guys who love that their 7D2 obviates the need for that 600mm supertele would gladly get in line to buy such a lens -- if they haven't bought the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 already.

- A
A 15-55 f2.8L IS would be great.  They could also go longer, but with the 70-200, it isn't necessary.  The gap between 55 and 70 is nothing.  Going shorter, however, would great and would truly make these two lenses the Dynamic Duo for crop.

Lenses / Re: Canon ef-s 17-55mm 2.8 is usm GONE
« on: March 03, 2015, 10:26:10 AM »
Canon should make a true 2.8 equivalent lens (Like the Sigma 1.8 zoom)

I'd rather see Canon make an EF-S 15-60/4 IS.

I used to have the 17-55/2.8.
It's a great lens but too big and heavy. Mine had the dust issue as well.
So, I sold it and replaced it with the 17-40/4L - and now I miss the extra range and the IS.
Not the f2.8 aperture, though.

So, I say replace the 17-55/2.8 with a more compact and lightweight 15-60/4.
That would be a lens I'd buy (assuming high image quality and a price of $700-800 max).
I must disagree.

The 17-55 f2.8 is to crop bodies what the 24-70 f2.8 is to full frame.  With the introduction of the 7D2, Canon has made it clear that it is committed to the crop body market.  The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is a great lens on full frame and on crop.  Canon needs a companion short lens.  The 17-55 f2.8 should be replaced with a Mark II version to upgrade the USM, the IS system, and to improve the build quality.

The fixed f2.8 is critical to the success of this lens.  It may not be for everyone, but for low light events with crop bodies, it's a must.  Plus, bodies like the 7D and the 7D2 can leverage f2.8 lenses for quicker AF.  In my experience, the 17-55 f2.8 on the original 7D focuses much quicker than the 24-105 f4 (even when on the 5D3).  I think the f2.8 speed of this lens is a reason for the improved AF response.

To maximize the AF performance of the 7D2 for sports, a short fixed f2.8 lens is a must.

Lenses / Re: Canon ef-s 17-55mm 2.8 is usm GONE
« on: March 02, 2015, 08:30:19 PM »
Canon should solve the dust problem in this lens, it´s  slowly time for that.

Canon should make a true 2.8 equivalent lens (Like the Sigma 1.8 zoom)

this lens is actually a f/4.4 lens! And so are all other "2.8" lenses used on crop bodies.

Looking at it like that, I guess a 2.8 on a "full frame" really isn't a 2.8 when compared to using a real 2.8 f stop lens on a medium format or large format camera.
I like this line of thought.  So, I originally bought my 70-200 f2.8 II for use with my 60D.  Eventually, I upgraded to a 5D3 and now my 70-200 feels like an f1.8 lens.  Wow!   ;)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What is that dot on the 5D3?
« on: March 01, 2015, 06:17:50 PM »
You can find it on page 18 of your manual, and in the manual of all those other cameras too.

The thing they have in common is a IR remote control, and that's the sensor that picks up the IR beam from the remote.
I long forgot that an infrared remote was an option.  Thanks.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / What is that dot on the 5D3?
« on: March 01, 2015, 05:09:13 PM »
What is that dot on the grip of most EOS bodies where the second finger rests?  See the photo below.  It's on bodies from the SL1 up through the new 5D's.  It's even on my old XT.  But, I don't see it on the low end models.

Lenses / Re: I'm Torn Between...
« on: February 27, 2015, 12:19:33 PM »
I should elaborate.  I use a 17-55 on my 60D and 7D.  I also have both the 24-70 f2.8L II and the 24-104 f4L IS for my 5D3.  Of these three lenses, I still think the 17-55 is the best choice for the crop bodies in part for the focal range and partly for the IS with the faster aperture.  As long as I hang on to a crop body, I'll hang on to this lens.

With a 7D2, I assume sports would be a subject matter.  The 17-55 is fantastic with sports.  I often used it to shoot volleyball from net-side where it was necessary to quickly aim at a player, focus, and shoot.  The 17-55 locked on without issue.  I think part of this is due to the faster lenses.  Even with the two L lenses on the 5D3, the 24-105 sometimes misses where the 24-70 doesn't.  If indoor sports is a concern, the 17-55 will not only help in low light, but the faster lens will make better use of your AF system on the 7D2.

That said, the 15-85 is the only other EF-S lens in this range that can touch the 17-55 for image quality.

As for the dust issue.  Put a good clear filter on the lens and it isn't an issue.  I use Hoya HD filters.  If using Hoya, only use the HD or their new high end filters.  B+W is another fine filter to consider.

Apparently early versions of the 17-55 had IS issues.  I think those have long been resolved.

There is one quirk of this lens.  When you zoom from wide to tele, you will feel extra resistance around the 24mm mark.  This is normal.  To be quite candid, this is most noticeable when you are playing with the lens and trying to figure out if you have a "good copy".  Don't worry about it.  I don't notice it when I shoot with the lens.

Check out Canon rebates.  One may be ending tomorrow (Feb 28).  I don't know if it covers this lens.  Also consider Canon's refurb store.  Often good prices and the lenses are thoroughly checked out by Canon (more so than new lenses off the line).

For what it's worth, my Dynamic Duo lenses for crop are the 17-55 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II.  For FF, its the 24-70 f2.8L II and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II.  Regardless the body, the 70-200 is my most used lens (for sports, events, candids, and portraits).

I hope this helps.

Lenses / Re: I'm Torn Between...
« on: February 27, 2015, 10:06:01 AM »
Neither.  For crop, get the the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS.

PowerShot / Re: Advice for non-compact versatile camera plz
« on: February 26, 2015, 01:52:45 PM »
I own the SX20 and it served me well during a Florida vacation a few years ago.   But, it's mostly limited to outdoor use or wide angle use indoors.  At wide angle, the lens is f2.8.  The SX60 is slower at f3.4.  Both still use the smallest sensor (1/2.3").  Noise becomes an issue quickly.

In my opinion, the best compact is the G16.  It's focus speed and shutter response is very quick.  It uses the slightly larger 1/1.7" sensor.  Combine the larger sensor with an aperture range of f1.8-2.8, and it's a great indoor compact.  It doesn't have the extreme zoom of the SX60 (which would be fun to use), but I think it's a far more useful camera.

The S1xx series cameras are little brothers to the G16 with the same sensor.  They are more compact, easier to pocket, but with a slower lens.  The G1X and the G7X are technically superior cameras to the G16, but for the money, I'd prefer a Rebel SL1.

As much as like the G16, this class of camera is a disappointment to one accustomed to SLR's.  I would recommend watching the Canon refurbished store for deals on the SL1, T4i, or T5i.  If she likes the feel of the SX40, then the SL1 would be a great option.  I recently bought one for a gift, and it's a fun little camera with a sensor that's a close cousin to the 7D, 60D, and T2i-T5i bodies.

The T5 should also be a fine choice -- even the T3 with the smaller sensor would be preferable to a Powershot.

The comment that a T5/T3i would be a step backwards from a film camera makes no sense to me.  There's no film that can touch the performance range, particularly the high ISO range, of these sensors.

Please, keep us posted on what she gets and how she likes it.

Lenses / Re: Making a wise choice on lens purchases.
« on: February 16, 2015, 08:57:09 PM »
You didn't state what 'L' lenses you have.  From your description of your interests, I would start with the EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II and the EF 24-70 f2.8L II.  For wildlife and outdoor sports, add the new EF 100-400.  Then go with the 5D3, maybe two of them.  If money is available, the 1Dx would be a great alternative.  Personally, I like shooting with two bodies and currently use two 5D3's.  But, I would seriously consider one 5D3 and one 1Dx.

Of course, this is general advice.  The above "kit" can cover a wide variety of subjects and venues.
Sorry, what I already have is in my signature.

I agree with all of you that said it... a FF camera is very important. I am very set on the EF 200 f/2L, or the EF 600 f/4L for this year. If I go with the EF 200 f/2 then the FF body will also be bought this year. I should have said that I will also be getting the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L because that will be an obvious hole to fill, but I'm not having any debate with myself on that one. It must be done. The EF 400mm f/2.8L IS ii will also be done in a couple of years.

The sticky point for me is between the 200 f/2L and the 600 f/4L for this year. The EF 200mm f/2 will work for sports and be great for indoor sports. It will also work for birds with an extender attached. My purpose for the 600mm would be for birds, other wildlife and daylight outdoor sports.

Thanks for all your responses guys.
My mistake.  I usually look at signatures for gear and somehow missed yours.  Too much multi-tasking.

The 200 f2.0 makes more sense if you already have the 70-200 f2.8 because you know how the zoom fits your needs and how the extra stop will help.  I'd be inclined to go for the 600 first because it fills a gap in focal length.  But, only you can tell what your needs are.

As others have suggested, definitely get the FF body before making the lens choice.  I bought my 70-200 for my 60D.  I was amazed at this lens on crop.  But, it's so much better on FF.  My perspective on necessary lenses changes after I went FF.  You may make smarter choices for your needs after you see what your current lenses can do on a FF body.  Or, you may reaffirm your choices.  Either way, you'll be more confident in your decision.

I don't mean to talk you out of the 200 2.0, it's a great lens.  A friend of mine uses it for figure skating ice shows -- great for indoor sports.  But, with the high ISO advantage of FF, you may find a less "urgent" need for the 200 2.0 for this year, making the 600 a more desirable lens for 2015.

The options that you are considering are sure to please.  Have fun with them!!

Lenses / Re: Making a wise choice on lens purchases.
« on: February 16, 2015, 02:31:45 PM »
You didn't state what 'L' lenses you have.  From your description of your interests, I would start with the EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II and the EF 24-70 f2.8L II.  For wildlife and outdoor sports, add the new EF 100-400.  Then go with the 5D3, maybe two of them.  If money is available, the 1Dx would be a great alternative.  Personally, I like shooting with two bodies and currently use two 5D3's.  But, I would seriously consider one 5D3 and one 1Dx.

Of course, this is general advice.  The above "kit" can cover a wide variety of subjects and venues.

Lenses / Re: EF 50 1.8 STM
« on: February 09, 2015, 09:40:12 AM »
I have both the 24-70 f2.8L II and the 24-105 f4L IS.  The former has won me over for sports and events where I prefer to shoot with shutter speeds faster than 1/100 sec.  The latter is my preferred choice for landscapes which might include running water, I prefer the 24-105 with IS.  This enables me to shoot with controlled motion blur.  (To be fair, my landscape shooting is very limited and only when I travel.)

The 2.8 zooms (which includes the 70-200) satisfies the vast majority of my needs. Still, I occasionally run into an event that requires something faster and would like a couple "fast primes" for the occasion.  The need isn't high enough to justify the 35L or 50L.  I've been quite happy with the 35 f2 IS as one of these lenses and have been waiting for a sibling in the 50mm range.

Now, here's the curious part.  My hope has always been for a 50 1.4 with IS, but I was ready to settle for a 50 f 2.0 IS.  Now Canon introduces a 50 1.8 STM and I'm not excited about it.  For low light candids, I would still use a shutter speed that's fast enough to not need IS, so this new lens, if sharp wide open, should be a great option.  But I'm now more inclined to wait and see what Canon does with the 50 1.4.

Part of my thinking is that the 35 IS and a future 50 IS would mitigate my need for the 24-105 by also satisfying the the bulk of my IS needs for wide to normal focal lengths.

I also own the 40 f2.8 which is incredibly sharp corner to corner.  I expect the new 50 to be as good.  Still, I'll wait for a 50 1.4.  (Incidentally, the 40 is EXTREMELY handy on a 5D3 as a grab shot lens.  It will definitely stay in my kit for some time to come.)

Lenses / Re: Upgrading lenses for college student
« on: January 24, 2015, 02:15:07 AM »
There are lots of options to consider.  The XT was my first DSLR and you may want to consider a body upgrade.  The T2i and up have 18 MP sensors based on the 7D.  It's huge improvement over the XT, especially at higher ISO's.  It's not a bad idea to consider lenses first, but keep you eye out for a good deal on one of these bodies.

As for lenses, I'd be more inclined to consider the 40 f2.8 pancake and the 85 f1.8.  You have some great shots on your site and I think these two lenses will give you more creative control over your images than another slow zoom.  The creative advantage lies with the opportunity for thinner DOF and sharper lenses.  These two lenses are likely to be a better long term investment. 

I suspect that the 28-105 and the 28-135 will be short-term lenses.  My bet is that you'll want to replace these in the not too distant future with something like the 17-55 f2.8 (IMHO the best "normal" zoom for crop) or the 15-85 f3.5-5.6.  The latter is very sharp, but too slow for my tastes.

Anyway, back to the 40 and the 85.  The 40 is a stop slower than the 50 1.8, but it's much sharper corner-to-corner.  It focuses quicker and quieter than the 50 and is similarly priced.  I think it's a more useful focal length for crop.

On a full frame body, the 40 and 50 compare to 64 and 80 mm lenses.  The 50 would be a better focal length for portraits on a crop body, but the 40 is a much better lens and more useful for other subject -- including group portraits.

For individual portraits, I prefer the longer lenses.  I use the 70-200 on FF for portraits and often work within longer half of its range.  The 85 f1.8 will give a FF equivalent of 136 mm which many consider to be the ideal portrait focal length.  Plus, it will offer more pop with thinner DOF than the 50 mm lens.  Of course, your taste and style may differ from mine, so consider this accordingly. is a great resource for lens reviews and image quality comparison tools.

Look at Canon's online refurbish store for good deals with factory warranty.  Also look at to find the best price for new or refurbished lenses and bodies.

Good luck with your search for your next lens.

Since getting a 35mm f/2 IS, I rarely use the 40mm pancake.  If the 35mm IS fits in your budget, I'd recommend going for that instead of the 40mm.  I also find myself preferring to either use the 35mm or any of the 50mm options I have, including the 50mm f/1.8 II.  The positives about the 40mm pancake are the low cost, fast and quiet focusing, and size.  My negatives are "just OK" image quality (maybe I have a bad copy) and the short barrel doesn't give you much to hold onto.

I don't mind the build quality and noisy AF of the 50mm 1.8 II.  I don't think the AF is that slow.  Yeah, the bokeh isn't as pleasing as that of other 50mm lenses, but it costs a lot less.  If I had to make a recommendation to someone, I'd advise the 40mm pancake over the 50mm 1.8 II.  They'd probably be happiest with the 40mm, but I know they'd be even happier with the 35mm f/2 IS.

Even though I don't use it often, I can't bring myself to sell the 40mm pancake.  First, I wouldn't get much for it.  Second, it's so convenient to carry as a wide-ish just-in-case option when I am using telephoto lenses.

TBH, from what I've seen, 35 IS has some really nervous and bad looking bokeh, which perhaps is typical for 35mm. Not to mention the monstrous 3 stops of vignetting wide open. The IS is good for video, very good, but is it worth 4 times more than the 40mm pancake? The tiny thing is one stop slower, but it vignettes one stop less too. I'm just trying to be objective, the pancake has it's own shortcomings, but (IMHO) there is a lot less to hate about it, for the price.
Curious. confirms your note on vignetting, but the bokeh looks pretty good.  I use mine wide open most of the time (which is one reason for buying an f2.0 lens) and haven't noticed the vignetting at all.  I have no complaints on bokeh, but then my subject matter hasn't revealed it much.

You make a good point on value.  The pancake is an incredible lens for a great price.  The 35 IS shines in low light, action, and creative slow shutter shots.  One needs to determine whether these scenarios are worth the extra price tag.

Well, 35 IS bokeh may be lacking the smoothness in a specific focus range, just like 40 STM does, but it also has that "directional pattern" towards the edges and corners, which (IMHO) makes it even worse. Maybe it's not that obvious on crop cameras, but on FF it looks pretty bad.
About the vignetting. It may not show if you are shooting JPGs with the peripheral illumination correction turned on.
With apologies to a guy named Jared, I SHOOT RAW.  Still, subject matter often determines the degree with which certain lens flaws are visible.  My favorite shots from the 35 IS are of the first dance at recent wedding.  The newlyweds are in the middle with guests, floors, and darkly light walls occupying the corners.  Vignetting isn't noticeable here.  I need to shoot an evenly lit, white wall at f2.0 to see the vignetting where it is noticeable.

However, I'm more inclined to recommend the 40 pancake for street photography, if the focal length matches the OP's need.

As luck would have it, I'm planning a weekend trip where my main need will be a 5D3 and the 70-200 f2.8 II.  But, I want a shorter lens for candid moments when out and about.  I also want to travel light, so plan to leave the second body and the 24-70 home.  So, I started playing with the 35 IS and the 40 with this in mind.  I must say, with a full-frame body, the 40 does quite well in low light and it is much more inconspicuous -- and it is SHARP.  The 40 is my choice for this trip and I think it would be the best option for OP.

That is not to say that an image cannot be enhanced by some colour grading,  it absolutely can, but for me the best starting point is a neutral raw file.
Is there such a thing as a "neutral raw file"?  I had understood that in-camera white balance settings are only applied during the conversion to JPG and that RAW is RAW.  But, RAW files do include a thumbnail JPG which will reflect the WB settings (primarily for the LCD).

The first thing you have to realise, WB is subjective. If you do a 'true' WB at an event and then process all your images to that value then you often find all the character from the event disappears, effectively neutral white has no ambiance so dialing in a perceived WB value (the subjective part) will better replicate the feel of the event. Obviously the type and style of event will dictate how much ambiance you want to leave in.
Absolutely true.

I've used a couple different "guaranteed true" WB cards to help with setting the WB in post.  But, I haven't found one that I can rely on 100%.  A lot depends upon the event and how its lighting plays a role in the imagery.  This can be subtle, or extremely blatant such as with a figure skating ice show where colors are used with spot lights to reflect the mood of the number. If I go strictly by a true WB, skin tones may render naturally, but it no longer looks like an ice show.  It looks like a dress rehearsal with all the house lights on.

Still, when setting WB in post with  Lightroom, I have found that the whites of the subject's eyes are more consistent than my WB gadgets.  So make sure to get some good shots of someone looking in your direction.  (I haven't tried this, but maybe a selfie will work.  :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21