With your 50D, I recommend renting the EF-S 10-22 or 10-18. Both of these lenses are excellent. Be prepared for some of the most beautiful scenery you have ever seen!
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.
just an update for everyone in this thread. I have found my solution to my lens problem: more hours. I picked up more hours from my campus job. So far I have saved $450, this is with out selling any gear yet. I am going to purchasing that sweet 16-35 f4. Its the lens I wanted and it will be my first L glass... it will be sweet! I want to avoid the whole buy sell thing if I can. I will buy a 6d this summer. The 135 will be next for portraits And I'll keep my 50 for in between.
In all three following scenarios assume the same exposure information for both users.
So, two people standing next to each other both with brand new 300mm f2.8 IS MkII's, one with a 7D mkII the other with a 5D MkIII. They sit in a hide together and across a field there is a fence, a bird lands on the fence, the crop camera owner has tighter framing but still needs a small crop, the ff owner needs to crop much more to get the same framing but so what, it is a nice shot. Who has less dof? Neither, dof in both images is identical.
Same scenario but both guys decide their wider shot is actually a nice environmental shot that shows the birds habitat well and the light is just catching the fence nicely, obviously the ff camera shows more fov view but both images work well, so, same place, same lens, same aperture, different sized sensors and therefore different framing, who has less dof? The crop camera. Why? Not because it is a crop camera (or because he is using a mythical 480mm lens), but because the captured data is enlarged more, the bigger you make something the less sharp it is, dof is about apparent sharpness so the more you enlarge something the less dof it has.
Same scenario, the bird flies to a second fence much closer to the hide. The ff user can still use his 300 for a frame filling shot of the bird, the crop camera user has to swap out his 300 to a 70-200 to get the same framing, he zooms to about 190mm to get the same framing as the ff user and they both take the same framed shot from the same place with the same camera settings, just different focal length. Who has less dof? The ff user, at the same distance a 300mm at any aperture will give you less dof that a 190 at that same aperture, this difference will be greater than the difference between the enlargement amounts.
So depending on the specific scenario the dof of a crop camera can be shown to be the same as, or narrower, or deeper, than a ff camera.
Further, "compression" is a very bad way of expressing perspective. Compression is dependent on where you are in relation to your subject, nothing else, the lens does not create "compression". In the three scenarios above who has the most compression in each situation? Neither, they are both shot from the same place in relation to the subject so all the images have the same perspective. That means the "compression" is the same in all those above situations.
i dunno about you but at f2 my sigma 85 is noticably sharper than either of my 70-200 mk2 are at f2.8
and in very low light the 1.4 is a god send
Lately I've been using my 85 more for environmental portraits. Step back 20' and you have 1.4' of dof at f/1.4 so it's easy to get your subjects in focus. From the distance, the foreground and backgrounds are not that blurry and you can make out what's in the background. Its a very nice look the 70-200 can't match.
Hello my fellow canon rumor members. I would like some feedback. I'm torn between the Canon 16-35 f4 and the Tamron 24-70 f2.8. I shoot with a 7d mark ii and the focal lengths I like to use most are 16, 24, 35 and 50. Both lenses have IS and I'll be using which ever lens I get for both photo and video. I'll also be using the lens for general photos and street photography. Can you guys please help me make a choice?! I do plan on going full frame, probably when the 5d Mark 4 come out, so efs lenses are not an option.
I was in very similar shoes not long back when I realized I was missing a tele lens simply because I couldn't carry my 70-200/2.8 everywhere. I decided to go for the 135L, not sure if it would be the right solution (I was also considering the 70-300L and 70-400L). However, I can happily say that I have not looked back.
It is one of my most often used lens nowadays (other than my 24-70) and I try to shoehorn it into every job- I like it so much! It is great for portraits, indoor sports, events, shows, zoos, just to name a few of my recent uses.
So yeah, I would wholeheartedly recommend it. Your only limitation will be sticking to speeds above 1/160, but if you are shooting anything moving you'd have to do that anyway. And the high ISO capabilities of the 6D will help you out here.
(BTW, I have access to only the 35L and the 135L at the moment, and I just love the combo on my 6D).
Interesting to hear how much you like your 135L, and the places you're using it. Have you had many occasions when you had the 135L with you but wished you'd brought your 70-200? Is it just the smaller size and lighter weight of the 135L which you are liking, or is it more than that? The thing I'm trying to decide is how much I would miss the convenience of the zoom in travel situations. I do spend a fair bit of time wandering around with my 35 and 85 though, so maybe I'd be fine with the 135 (and I'd enjoy the f/2 aperture).
Another vote for the SL1. A fun camera to carry around and gives you all the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. And the price - especially for refurbished - is a deal hard to pass up! (I should know - I bought one refurbished a few months ago)!
Of course, if possible, I would take her to a camera store and try out a few cameras and see what she likes. That answer will be far more important than what we recommend.
Obvious the zoom would be more practical for the trip, but I would probably get more use out of the prime the rest of the year.
Agreed on all that. I love mine, too. The price will likely go lower. You can buy a Sony A7 for under USD1000 these days. And that's a better camera in many respects.
The 6D is great. But its AF system is complete garbage with the exception of the center focus point, which is great. AF Servo tracking really blows...