Messages

46

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50 1.4 or Canon 85 1.8 OR 100 2.0 for 5d mark ii

« on: February 06, 2013, 07:21:09 AM »

Hi folks!

I just got my 5d mark ii and still have no lenses because i want to make the best decision. Unfortunately i can only buy ONE because i sold everything i had to afford the 5d!

I`m stuck between a Sigma 50mm 1.4 and a Canon 85mm 1.8. I find them both stunning lenses and very sharp, but i just cant decide.
Will the 85mm be to long for portraits and group photos? And about the background blur, wich one will give a more smoother background, and nicer bokeh?
And the focus, i heard the 85 is much more accurate and faster. For night shots, how will the 1.8 behave?

In my research ive also read about the canon 100mm 2.0, because it woul be more like the amazing135mm 2 but should i wait a little bit more and save more money and buy the 100, is it worth it? I quite woried that it will be too long to be my only lens.
Im driving myself crazy!

Hope you can help me make the best decision so i can take the 5d out of the box and hit the streets!

For night shots you'll need about double the shutter speed with the 85 because of the longer focal length and fraction of a stop difference.

The longer lens (with larger absolute aperture size) will give you better subject isolation but challenging for group shots unless you have a lot of distance to work with.

Because this will be your only lens for a while I'd lean towards the 50. Far more versatile. 

47

Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms

« on: January 30, 2013, 08:55:04 PM »

The standard lens requirement for shooting events/weddings seem to be a combination of 24-70/28 and 70-200/2.8, I read both are nailed to a pro's camera 90% of the time (though I have problems doing the maths :-))

A lens with a larger aperture afaik has three advantages: better af on some bodies, better subject isolation/creativity (just one eye in focus) and last not least a "fast" lens is required for "low light" shots.

My question rose when I read the great book "Captured by the Light" by David Ziser who - believe it or not - writes that f4 to f5.6 (for convenience or added safety) is his bread and butter setting for posed candid wedding flash shots, and he used the 5d2 at that time.

Saying that it's his "bread and butter setting" is different from saying that he uses it all the time.

Turning this around, what are the disadvantages of f/2.8 zooms ?

The main advantages are shallower dof (when needed,  not  necessarily on every shot) and that it helps AF performance

48

Video & Movie / Re: Indian Wedding shot with 5D Mark III

« on: January 22, 2013, 06:52:16 PM »

Hi there!

Got a great time with this beautiful couple... let me know yours about it!

Nice work.

To me the depth of field in many of these shots looks very shallow, so I wonder how you get it in focus. Lots of practice pulling focus ? Or do you prefocus each shot (including the ones that start out of focus) before you start recording ? What sort of apertures are you shooting these ?

49

EOS-M / Re: Micro four DoF and lenses

« on: January 21, 2013, 02:33:22 PM »

If you go mirror less, go APS-C.

Why APS-C over m43 ? The difference in dof is tiny. For example, if I compare the NEX with 50mm f/1.8 vs the olympus with 45mm f/1.8 at 6 foot , I get .28ft for m43 vs .3ft for the Sony. If I adjust the to-subject distance so that the subject is framed the same way, I get 0.26ft dof for the Sony -- a slight advantage but nothing to write home about.

OP is right that the new Olympus models have closed the gap in image quality, this is largely due to them sourcing their sensors from Sony who currently have a decisive lead in sensor technology.

50

EOS-M / Re: Micro four DoF and lenses

« on: January 21, 2013, 12:20:36 PM »

I am really attracted by 4/3 system as it is small. I believe in few years the cameras will come with great sensors and IQ that will be good for my needs. Per Dxo olympus om has a slighty better dynamic range than 5d iii at the moment.
What do you think about a future of the lenses.
Why there's no lenses like 85mm f/1.2. The eqvivalent on 4/3 would be 42.5mm f/0.6, right?
 

The micro 4/3 lenses focus closer than the full frame "equivalents". For example, the 45mm f/1.8 focuses at 0.5m, so its dof at MFD is about 1cm (or less than half an inch). The 75mm f/1.8 focuses at 84cm and dof is about 1/4 of an inch at that distance and less than an inch at a more reasonable shooting distance of 5ft (about what you'd use for a typical head shot)

Of course all your EF lenses will work on micro 4/3 and give the same dof as they do on FF (though with a cropped field of view).

51

Canon General / Re: FYI: This Is The Gear Used To Take Obama’s New Official Portrait

« on: January 20, 2013, 09:39:58 PM »

It's not a personal attack, geez, it's just a joke. 

No problem, esp. since the post wasn't directed at me in the first place - I just wanted to know if you have any real insight in 85L vs. other lenses or were talking off the top of your head... I don't own such a fast prime and thus really cannot tell if there would be a difference.

To answer that particular question, yes I do, and well, I agree with others in that I cannot perceive a difference in IQ with either lens at f/7.1.  I am interested now, and might just have to get them out and do some tests.  Problem is finding time  .

In the meantime I'm going to see if Bryan Carnathan mentioned the lenses in comparison anywhere on his site.

I checked photozone and the TDP chart pictures. photozone has the 70-200 doing better (though neither of these lenses struggle at f/7.1). Based on the TDP chart shots, I think you'd really have to be pixel peeping to tell the difference. So for that particular shot, I agree with those who say a number of different (85mm or zooms that cover 85mm) lenses would have worked

52

EOS-M / Re: To buy M or not to buy M?

« on: January 20, 2013, 08:45:15 AM »

the M that is...   the fuji is awesome...

You don't need a full set of lenses. The lenses you choose for a mirrorless (if you already have a DSLR)  are going to be small normal length lenses that don't have a direct equivalent in the EOS lineup. You can generally get by with 1 or 2 native  lenses (with the fuji I'd just get the 35)

Fuji is awesome but you need another set of lens.  I'd wait for the next M. 

Perhaps the only point of the mirrorless from Canon is to keep the party faithful from giving up and buying one of the strong products from other manufacturers. 

53

Canon General / Re: FYI: This Is The Gear Used To Take Obama’s New Official Portrait

« on: January 20, 2013, 06:56:02 AM »

Well, anyway, as Vincent Laforet says in his blog, there is NO reason to own the 85L if you're not shooting it between 1.2 - 2.0, as you might as well own the 70-200 II for only a few hundred $ more, with the ability to have the versatility of the zoom, much faster auto-focus, IS and pretty much equal sharpness.

If you can afford both, well, I'm jealous of you.

There's no reason to own a 70-200 if the only focal length in that range  that you plan to use is 85mm. Fast AF and IS are not useful for this guys use case (subject is more or less stationary, and he would want to shoot at 1/60 or faster IS or not)

54

Canon General / Re: FYI: This Is The Gear Used To Take Obama’s New Official Portrait

« on: January 20, 2013, 06:39:15 AM »

Yeah, my point is he should have been using the 70-200 II.

But wouldn't it be a "waste" to use the 70-200 II at 85mm ? It goes up to 200.

55

Lenses / Re: 135L vs 85L vs 70-200L II

« on: January 16, 2013, 07:10:15 PM »

I hope no one minds if I hijack this thread a bit (add to it?)... I too am thinking over some of these combos. I currently have a 5D2, 24-105 and the 70-200L 2.8 IS II. I love the 70-200 and I consistently get shots with it that I'm mostly happy with but I do hate how big and conspicuous it is. I'm doing quite a bit of traveling this year and hate to lose telephoto but also am wary of lugging around a big white lens (I'm going to Africa, China, and potentially SE Asia). I was thinking of switching up my kit a little bit.

I was thinking of selling the 70-200, 5D2, and 24-105 and getting a 5D3, 85 1.8, and 135. BTW, I also have a 35 1.4 and a 50 1.8.

I do a fair amount of portrait work and some weddings. I think I'd like to use primes but I guess I'm afraid I'd miss the convenience of the zooms and IS. What are your thoughts? Thanks!

Do you use the 24-105 much or do you find yourself using the 35L and 50mm f/1.8 all the time ? One way to get a toe in the water would be keep your existing kit and pick up the 135L, and sell the 24-105 if you're not using it.

56

Lenses / Re: 135L vs 85L vs 70-200L II

« on: January 16, 2013, 07:05:58 PM »

Is there a good reason to own a combination of these lens, or are they too similar to justify high prices?

I have the Sigma 85mm and the 135L -- the pair can be had for less than $2000.

Since you're wondering specifically about AF performance -- the 135L is a speed demon. The focus limiter is a nice touch for this (btw it also focuses at about 1m)

I don't believe the three lenses are all that similar. The zoom is a zoom with IS (it's also slower, heavier, and more conspicuous). The 85L is short enough to be usable indoors but doesn't focus very quickly (for example it's not a sports lens).

The 135L autofocuses very sharp but is a very long lens for using indoors. I usually use it as an outdoor portrait lens -- I mount the 135L if I'm outdoors and the Sigma if I'm inside.

57

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over

« on: January 05, 2013, 08:35:12 AM »

I am amazed by such sophisms questioning the very existence and the meaning of the term "overpriced". In some people the will to argue trascends every boundary set by mere common sense.

So, how would you consider a Ford Focus priced like a Maserati?

It's ridiculously plain that there's a value perception related to the market situation. This new 24-70 f/4, as well as other recent Canon products, do not come from God himself to give man the gift of taking pictures for the first time. They enter a game that other players were playing already.

In comparison with its two closest relatives - namely the 24-105 and Tamron 24-70 - it is apparent that this lens doesn't offer such superior quality or such unique features to justify such a higher price - thus it is overpriced.

The supply of the 24-70 f/4 is relatively limited. The 24-105L is undercut by a large secondary market (it's a kit lens for a popular camera with a long life cycle so it's easy to buy used).

Car manufacturers do in fact do this all the time, and in some cases the limited quantity is completely contrived for example, they will  release "special edition" models (which have a special paint color and some other mindor upgrades) in limited quantity and charge a large sum for it. One of my friends priced a Toyota Prius when they were at the height of their popularity and the dealer quote included a "supply and demand fee" for about $6000-.

There is also plenty of this from other manufacturers.

So it's hardly unprecedented. However, as a buyer of these products it's good to be aware of this and wait for the "early adopter premium" to expire. If I'm asked for buying advice, I always point out that new products have a premium attached to them. Often on this board the advice is "buy Canon and buy the most expensive thing Canon makes", but this isn't always good advice.

58

Lenses / Re: Prime Lens for 6D

« on: January 02, 2013, 10:18:24 PM »

I am starting to look into getting my first prime lens and I am having a hard time making a decision.  My friend has a 35 mm f/1.4L lens, which I found quite amazing, though I didn't use it for long.  I also am looking into a 50 mm f/1.4.  I know these lenses have huge price differences, and I am also concerned about the looming update for the 35 mm lens.  My main question is, what do you guys find the best focal length for an everyday prime lens?  I feel kind of restricted at 50 mm, but I wonder if 35 mm is too wide for an everyday walk-around lens.

As a "walkaround" prime, I'd pick the 50mm focal length though it's really a matter of preference. Some people like the 50mm focal length, others like to shoot either wider or narrower -- so most of these people would lean towards either a wide angle or a wide angle/short tele combo like 35/85.

Wide angle lenses can be a challenge to compose with because (a) the tend to pull in a lot of background (including things you might want out of the frame) and (b) they tend to exhibit (more) perspective distortion which can be a challenge to work with if you're photographing people.

Anyway, if you prefer wide angle lenses, get a wide angle lens. Take a good look at the Sigma 35mm as well as the 35L.

59

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon Sells More DSLRs Than Anyone Else in 2012

« on: January 01, 2013, 12:08:14 PM »

Begin to innovate?  Show me someone else's 600mm f/4 lens that I can handhold.  Show me someone else with even one, let alone five, high-precision AF points with the greater accuracy of an f/2.8 baseline.  Show me 12 fps with a FF sensor/mirror.  Who else has an integrated radio-controlled flash system?  Maybe these innovations are irrelevant to you, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Re the 600mm lens -- it doesn't really speak to my point for two reasons. One is that I do agree and state in my posts that Canon's lens system really is the industry leader, and they didn't lose ground this year (if anything they consolidated their position). However, I'd neither call the 600mm lens hand holdable nor would I consider it a novel technology. But again I agree that it is one (of a number of) release(s) that consolidates Canon's lead in developing glass.

To your other points -- by limiting the market to FF you are essentially defining the market place in Canon's terms (only Nikon and Canon make FF SLRs) Nikon, like Canon have had integrated off camera flash for years. If you're trying to argue that Radio control is new, Pocket Wizard and other third party providers have been doing that for years. Maybe the AF points would qualify.

However the kind of thing I'm thinking of are major technological steps -- things like Fuji's hybrid viewfinder, and their new sensor array design. Magic lantern like firmware features. Mirrorless cameras (something where Canon's entry is too little too late). Sony's SLT technology (which allows phase detect in video mode).  Leica's technology which lets them use full frame wide angle lenses with a short flange distance.  Usable AF in video mode.

I just don't see Canon's fingerprints on most of the new technology in the marketplace. Their entry into mirrorless far from being a class leader was not worth of a manufacturer of their stature.

60

Lenses / Re: Best effective use of my 50mm f/1.4

« on: January 01, 2013, 08:04:30 AM »

I was thinking today (doing some wildlife work since the snow has been out in force) while shooting my 7D that the 50 would become an 80mm. I have rented 85 f/1.2's in the past and not liked them for one reason or another. So the question is: Using a 50mm f1.4 on a 7D will make it an 80mm, BUT how much light do I lose due to the crop factor?

In terms of depth of field, it behaves like an 80mm f/2.4 on a full frame.

In terms of metering, it meters like any f/1.4 lens but the smaller sensor won't tolerate as high ISO settings.

Has anyone done this with much success? Or should I just buy an 85 f/1.2 and learn to love it? I also would not be opposed if the 7D +50 idea works to buying a 50 f/1.2. I also own a 100 f/2.8 IS Macro but the DOF is a bit too shallow for what I want without stopping down to f/5.6

If you want to shoot an 85mm lens and get similar depth of field to what you would get on APS-C with 50mm at f/1.4, you need to stop it down to about f/2.4 on full frame (assuming subject distance and therefore composition are the same in both cases -- the 50mm lens focuses closer than any 85mm lens so this assumption isn't always true). Generally you can get away with shooting primes wide open on APS-C whereas on full frame you need to stop down much more often.