Lock up the mirror and use the blow cleaner again.
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.
Ironically, I have been thinking Sony is looking better and better, especially with the finally-NEX-I-can-live-with NEX6 and A99. Sony is bound to release a scaled-down full frame body to compete with 6D and D600, and the price is likely going to be much nicer.And they still have weak lens selection for both lineups. The NEX line barely has 10 lenses, and that says nothing of whether they are any good. Same is true of A-mount, especially if we are talking for full-frame; the cheap primes just really aren't there. You have to go third-party in many cases.
Hey i'm finnally making the move from sony to canon what i've been using is:
I'm upgrading to:
16gb Cf card
My predicament is weather to buy a 430ex ii with a couple triggers or a Tameron 28-75 2.8
I mostly shoot longboarding, landscapes a little bit of portraiture low-light events, day time events and quite a lot of video, but I really want to experiment with flash but not sure I want to lose the focal range capability for video or lowlight shooting, recommendations?
Good decision. Whilst Sony has better sensors, Canon has some of the best Lenses around. Especially they're prime selection.
How about these upgrades: a 135 f/2.0L IS, or a 200 f/2.8L IS ?
I never really shot that long any way, thanks for pointing that out though, and the main aim of the 17-40 is for the wideangles needed for longboarding be it filming or photography
I did not know this about the 430ex what 3rd partys with ttl have 360 rotation if anybody knows?
Just a question: do you need to go as wide as 17mm for longboarding? Keep in mind that the 17-40mm on full frame is roughly equivalent to a 10-22mm on a crop body.
If you do want to use the 17-40mm for action, you need to consider that wide open, in the corners it doesn't provide anything vaguely resembling sharpness:
At f/4 at 17mm the 17-40 can't even achieve corner resolution of 1200 line widths per image height!
At f/4, the 16-35 is considerably better:
At f/11 the performance of both lenses, in terms of resolution is pretty close - so for anyone shooting landscapes, it is pretty much a wash. However, for anyone shooting action, the 16-35mm is the better choice -albeit at a much higher price.
If you don't need the extreme wide angles of those lenses, you could rather look at something like a 24-105 f/4L IS USM, or Tamron's new 24-70 f/2.8. (I would be hesitant to recommend the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II unless you are shooting professionally. - We've just got one for my wife's business, but it is really expensive, and you really need a good reason to spend that much money on a 24-70mm lens.)
BTW: The MTF charts above are from Photozone - http://www.photozone.de - They have some pretty good lens reviews, which may be worth reading before you make your final choices.
There were some comments about rather getting the 16-35 f/2.8. My view, rather is that you are missing a standard zoom. I would rather go for the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM than the 17-40mm. It is a little pricier, but the 24-105mm is probably one of the all-round most practical lenses. - Despite the fact that it is only a f/4, it is still very popular with wedding photographers. I would try to get the kit with the 5DII and the 24-105mm f/4L - that is very good value. The only downside of the 24-105 is that the bokeh is a little busy with certain backgrounds, and can be a little distracting.
Just another comment about the 17-40mm on full frame - for landscapes you need to use it around f/8 to f/11 to get any semblance of sharpness in the corners. This is an example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/specular-images/7524804780/#in/photostream - Even at the highest resolution I have uploaded to flickr, you can see that the corners leave a bit to be desired - this was shot at f/16, so I would have lost a little sharpness to diffraction again as well. - In a 100% crop, the corners are mush. - I'm not trying to say the 17-40 is a bad lens - just understand its limitations. It is however a very usable walkabout lens for a crop frame body as well.
I would concur with the other posters about the need for a flash. Something to think about is the fact that Canon's 4x0 series flashes do not rotate through 360 degrees, which can be a problem when using bounce flash indoors.
I know it is a very expensive option, but also think about Canon's radio triggering system with the 600-EX-RT - it is an impressive system, just getting one Speedlite and a trigger already costs a bomb. - It may be worth considering taking the path of first buying a third party flash to get started, and then saving for a 600-EX-RT. That path, however, sees you committed to the Canon radio trigger system! - Make an informed decision, and understand the consequences of your decision. ;-)
One obvious gap in moving from your old kit is at the long end. Your 70-200mm on the Sony is equivalent to a 320mm at the long end on the 5DII.
What you probably need to consider is which aspect of your photography to concentrate on first. That will allow you to spread your purchases over time. If you can afford to keep your old camera while you start building up your new system, that may help you to still enjoy all aspects of your photography, even though your new system does not cover all of your interests.
I know you have not asked this question but I would get the 16-35 over the 17-40.
Compare to Sony, Canon is blessed with a wider range of cheaper third party options. You might want to consider a flash from Yongnuo (565EX, 568EX, YN-468 II) and a pair of YN-622 radio triggers which together will give you equivalent functionality including off-camera E-TTL. Put the money saved towards the Tamron.
Perhaps its also difficult to build. Ive heard 50mm is easy to build but 35mm is more difficult thats why there arent so many 35mm lenses with wide aperture out for example.
like to hear some comments about this photo.
*like how well the bokeh and etc