Messages

1

Lenses / Re: 100L vs. 135L

« on: June 18, 2013, 06:11:04 PM »

I'm currently in the market for a telephoto L lens, but stuck between these two. I've never owned nor shot either lens so that's my biggest issue. Here's the question; which one should I buy? I shoot cars so I'd like to have the perfect 16:9 aspect ratio from a distance, but also get more up close if needed. The 100L will basically knock out two birds with one stone due to the extremely small focus distance, but then the 135L has been crowned the king of the L lenses. Which decision should I make? Your help is appreciated!

For me the right answer was 135L.  I don't have much interest in macro photography so we looking primarily for a portrait/tele lens and the 135L fits the bill perfectly.  It will focus as close as 3 feet, which is generally plenty close enough outside.  The sharpness and color rendition of this lens are hard to beat.  I have only limited experience with the 100L and its is a wonderful lens as well.  Its advantage is of course its macro capability.  The 135L is a stop faster and better bokeh.

2

Lenses / Re: Why no lenses like 35-135mm anymore?

« on: June 18, 2013, 03:15:05 PM »

I agree with those above in saying that 35mm is really not wide enough for most photographers in a standard zoom lens.  24mm is the current standard at the wide end and for most people that is a good focal length.

Personally, 24-135 would be an ideal focal length range for me. 

3

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: June 17, 2013, 04:28:38 PM »

For portrait work, the 6d focus points absolutely stinks.  The grouping is far tighter than the range of crops ive used over the years.

I tried REALLY hard to like that camera...but i just couldn't do it. To much to give up on a 1500 dollar body to feel comfortable. The lack of a proper joystick is also a terrible loss, as the directional pad is mushy as all hell and imprecise.

And look at the 7100..totally embarrasses the 6d. Not trying to get into that debate, but seriously, F canon for that nonsense. Yup, if i wanted to shoot landscapes only, it would be hog heaven.
And yet i wait for a 7d2 / 70d.
Beyond Ridiculous.

We all have different priorities and preferences.  For me the 6D has proven to be an excellent camera.  After some use, I don't miss the joystick and find the directional pad easy and intuitive to use.  I do wish it had more AF points and/or they were spread out more, but have found it still works well for portrait work since I frequently focus and recompose using the center point.  I use the outer points when taking really shallow DOF shots and have found this works out well in all but really poor light.

Not sure what you mean by the D7100 embarrassing the 6D...  The 6D is full format and the 7100 a DX or 1.5 crop, so the 6D has a much larger (FF) sensor so IQ is of course better.  I agree the D7100 tops any of Canons current crop sensor bodies - it's newer!  But, only until the 7DII or 70D is released.

4

Lenses / Re: Favorite portrait lens for annual pictures of your our kids

« on: June 17, 2013, 03:59:05 PM »

I own all 4 lenses you mentioned: 24-70 II, 50L , 85L II and 135L. My vote is 85L II first.

I feel like 24-70 II is great for general shooting. Let the prime lenses(85L or 135L) take care close up shots. Be prepare to buy 2nd body which I think is wonderful and usefull. I have missed many close-up shots in my daughter events by just having 24-70 II on one body.

The 24-70 II has a listed "closest focusing distance of 0.38m/1.25 ft".    That's pretty close...

5

Lenses / Re: $1000 .. what to buy

« on: June 17, 2013, 03:53:35 PM »

You already have a really nice kit.  If it were me, I would look at selling your 24-105L and use that money and the $1K toward a 24-70 2.8 II.  It would give you a killer excellent standard zoom instead of a good one.

6

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Moving from Canon 40D to Full Frame. Lens questions?

« on: June 17, 2013, 07:14:10 AM »

Bad news: A camera is only as good as the glass you stick on the front of it.

Good news: My 18 year old 28-70 2.8L works a treat on my 5D2 and 5D3. Ultra-sharp.

You might find that you get MORE out of your L lenses with a full frame.

I was talking to a pro friend of mine about if I will need to get a newer 28-70 L lens when I make the jump to the full frame sensor and he agreed with you that the older L lens will actually be better than the newer.

I'm not familiar with the 28-70 2.8 L, so I looked up the reviews and comparisons on The Digital Picture.  From the sample pictures, its almost as sharp as the current flagship 24-70 2.8 II at 28mm and 35mm, but the 28-70 looks extremely soft at 50mm and 70mm. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=102&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

7

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/4L IS vs 24-105L

« on: June 16, 2013, 08:38:17 AM »

The next four are a comparison with the 40mm STM, again at f6.3, mid frame and extreme corner.

Our only 24-105 is on a different location so I can't do a back to back comparison at the moment. Suffice to say the new 24-70 is very close to the primes.

I've revised my opinion at 50mm: it isn't so good mid frame at this focal length as other focal lengths, but still, it's pretty good.

I'd give the 40 2.8 a slight edge, but the 24-70 4.0 compares very well in these crops. 

Thanks for posting the comparisons.

8

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it time to consider Sigma lenses seriously?? competitive to Canon?

« on: June 14, 2013, 10:28:10 PM »

So what lenses then do you guys recommend?
I already got the sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4, 18-35mm f1.8 as recommendations. On my list to buy is a UWA and a standard zoom (want to upgrade from the terrible 18-55). Again, I've been thinking of the 10-22mm, 15-85, or the 24-105.
Thanks in advance~

The EF-S 15-85mm is by far my favorite crop lens.  I think it's a better lens than the 24-105.  I mostly use it for landscapes and outdoor photography.  If you need a faster, low light lens the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is also excellent.  I own a 15-85 and have borrowed a 17-55 on several occasions.

I recommend the EF-S 10-22 for UWA.  I rented one twice and was very happy with the results.

For longer range lenses, the EF 70-200's are outstanding, as is the 70-300L.

9

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it time to consider Sigma lenses seriously?? competitive to Canon?

« on: June 14, 2013, 10:17:10 PM »

I have yet to get to those parks, but want to.  However, I will be renting Canon's future big megapixel full frame when I go (and hopefully the upcoming Canon 14-24 lens)...probably next year.  I can't imagine going to that much time and expense, to visit those parks with just a crop body as the main camera. 

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but...

When we visited Yellowstone and Glacier In 2011, I had just moved up to the DSLR world from a cheap P&S.  I was very happy with my T2i, 18-55, 55-250 and rented 10-22.  I have plenty of great shots from that vacation.  Fortunately I shot in RAW, so have been able to re-PP them in LR4 which I didn't buy until last year, so they look much better now.

Of course I look forward to returning with my 6D and L lenses.  I will add a 24-70 2.8 II shortly and am debating between buying a 16-35 II or do as you mentioned and just rent a 14-24.  I really don't need anything wider than 24mm 98% of the time, so renting might be the way to go. 

10

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it time to consider Sigma lenses seriously?? competitive to Canon?

« on: June 14, 2013, 04:31:04 PM »

Hey guys.  I am an amateur/hobbyist photographer that loves to keep up on the forums and on cr.    I was wondering what you guys take on the new lenses that Sigma has been putting out on the market.  The price ranges are very competitive even to the Canon brand.  I am a Canon fanboy (to put it best) but the recent 35mm f1.4, 120-300mm f2.8, and now the 18-35mm f1.8is making me think much more of a third party brand.  A friend of mine had a sigma 50mm f1.4 that pulled some impressive pictures!  I have bought and returned a sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens before... horrid lens (possibly the copy). 

Anyways, I want to hear from y'all before buying a few lenses. (10-22, 50 1.4, and 15-85 or 24-105)  Thanks!

First of all, no offense but I would sell the T2i and buy a newer, better Canon body before upgrading lenses.  Certainly if you are considering buying a "super-tele" like the 120-300 f/2.8, or a Canon super-tele...you definitely simply must buy a better camera.

My experience with one copy of the Canon 10-22 was horrible.  Very soft in the outer 60% of the image at all apertures.  This was in 2010.  I can't believe the lens is still in production.

As a former T2i (550D) owner, I would argue that it's a pretty good camera capable of taking excellent pictures.  The T2i's IQ is very comparible to Canon's newest crop body cameras like the T5i and SL1, as well as the older but higher end 60D and 7D. The newer bodies may have better AF, more solid build, better viewfinders, more features, but its picture quality is roughly the same.  To significantly improve IQ, you would need to invest in a full frame 6D, 5D2/3 or 1DX.

I never owned an EF-S 10-22, but rented one two years ago to use on my T2i for a 2-week vacation in Yellowstone, Glacier and other western National Parks.  I came away with lots of very good images with this lens and probably would have bought one at some point if I hadn't made the move to full frame last December.   It's reasonably sharp across the frame and distortion is modest.  Not a great lens, but a very solid performer.

11

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/4L IS vs 24-105L

« on: June 14, 2013, 02:19:17 PM »

Despite the reviews that are floating around about the 24-70 f4 saying otherwise, this lens is sharper than the 24-105 across the focal lengths.

Thanks for the detailed response Sporgon. 

Have you experienced any of the focus shift problems with your lens that Photozone reported in their review?
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=2

12

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Moving from Canon 40D to Full Frame. Lens questions?

« on: June 14, 2013, 02:14:31 PM »

All valid points. But I REALLY don't have the budget to get a new camera body + new L lenses. I met with a gallery owner who said his clients want 20x30" prints and up. My 40D will do 12x18" before the quality degrades.
Could I just buy a newer Canon crop sensor camera, keep my ancient L lenses and get great quality 20x30" prints out of it?

Unfortunately, you won't see much of an IQ improvement upgrading to another crop body camera.  I think a 6D is your best option for optimal image quality.

I agree with Hannes in suggesting a 6D with a 24-105L lens.  Your 17-40 4.0 will be fine on a full frame camera as long as you stop it down.  I have borrowed a friends 17-40 for use on my 6D a few weeks ago and was generally pleased with the image quality.  I used it 98% of the time for landscapes at f/8 to f/13 which is where this lens is sharpest.  I would not recommend it at f/5.6 or wider.

13

Lenses / Re: What would you do if you had $2000, a 5DII and no lenses?

« on: June 14, 2013, 02:04:33 PM »

Somebody else mentioned this, but it depends on if you are spending $2K now with the expectation of buying more lenses later, or if $2K was you total budget for lenses.

If $2k now and more later, I would start with a 24-70 2.8 II.  Awesome lens and this focal range will cover most of what you need.  Later I would add a 70-200 or 70-300 and some fast primes for low light (35 1.4L and 135L come to mind).

If $2K was my total budget, I'd get the following:

24-105L
50 1.4
70-200 4.0 IS

14

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/4L IS vs 24-105L

« on: June 13, 2013, 07:31:15 AM »

At Building Panoramics we have both lenses. I can assure you the new 24-70 f4 is significantly better than the 24-105. Too early to tell on the IS yet.

Is it worth the hefty price ? If you can afford it then yes. If not, don't loose any sleep over it !

I've just posted a pic in 'best landscapes' shot on the 24-70. You can see a much bigger version on our website.

Sporgon, I highly respect your work, so you comment carries a great deal of weight. Do you find the 24-70 f4 sharper than the 24-105 or is the IQ better in other ways?  Do you have any side-by-side shots with the 24-105 and 24-70 you would be willing to share?

15

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/4L IS vs 24-105L

« on: June 13, 2013, 07:24:58 AM »

However, for 24-70/4 money you could buy a 24-105 and a 100 (non L) macro.

+1

+2

The 24-105 is a tremendous value.  A very good and flexible general purpose lens.  I own a 24-105 but have never used a 24-70 f/4.0.  According according to most reviews, the IQ is very similar, with the 24-70 having better sharpness at 24mm and 70mm and the 24-105 sharper from 35-85mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The 24-105 has the advantages of price and reach (70-105mm) and the 24-70 has the near macro advantage and possibly slightly better image stabilization.  Be aware that Photozone warns of focus shift issues with the 24-70 f/4.0:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=2

Personally, I would consider this lens if it were priced around $900-1,000, but at its current price point, I think it does not offer much.