Messages

106

Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom

« on: March 28, 2013, 11:23:17 PM »

I will admit that with the 5D III the dominance of primes when it comes to low light has been compromised by the higher usable ISO range.

+1

I'll still use my 85/135 lenses for subject isolation in portraits, but the 35L was my go-to lens for indoor ambient light shooting and nighttime walkaround, and I wonder how much I'll use it in those situations now that I have a 24-70/2.8 II.

The obvious question is...how often do you shoot faster than f/2.8 not because that gives you the depth of field you desire for the shot but because it's the only way to get the shutter speed you want, and you really wish you could shoot at f/2.8 or slower to get more depth of field?

With the 35L, the answer is 'often' for indoor ambient and 'sometimes' for nighttime walkaround.  Regardless, I'll hang onto the 35L for a while. It's not a fair time to evaluate indoor ambient usage with DST begun and days getting longer.  I'll see what happens next winter...

I recently shot a boys basketball game in response to a last minute request from a friend, who was the young boys' coach.  I'd never been to the court before, so I brought a few lenses.  Well, the gym was not much larger than the court, and I was shooting near the baseline near one of the corners.  I had hoped to use the 135L but it was too long and I had to use the 24-70 instead.  A large percentage of the shots were wide open at ISO 3200 for shutter speeds near 1/500.  The zoom saved me that day because most of the pics were from 35-60mm from under the basket.  The pics were good and I was impressed how well the  5D3 + 24-70 II's AF worked.

The next day, I shot a birthday party at a beginner's gymnastics gym in even dimmer conditions.  The gym had a large bank of windows on one side, which made a lot of the pictures strongly side or back lit.  I started with a 85mm prime close to wide open but it couldn't track the kids erratic movement, so out came the 24-70, which delivered so well for the basketball game.  Most of the pics with the 24-70 were at ISO 5000 near 1/500.  What surprised me was that the basketball pics were a lot better than those from the birthday party.  I know it's not any one thing, but the higher ISO (and noticeably worse DR/increased noise), worse lighting, and smaller, more erratically moving kids, all had their parts for why the images were worse.  The prime missed a lot, but it was better at taming the harsh side/back light due to the natural vignetting and dimmer/more defocused background due to the larger aperture (plus it allowed me to drop down to ISO 1000).  In the end, I chose the zoom over the prime in both cases (IQ drops with higher ISOs but missing the shots because they're blurry is even worse), but I sometimes wish I had a fast-focusing 35 or 50 prime instead.

For more stationary subjects indoors and for use at night, I'll opt for the primes almost all the time.  For shooting kids sports where I have access to the sideline (not focal length limited), zooms are great.  Did I mention how impressed I was with the 24-70 II's focusing abilities?? 

107

EOS Bodies / Re: Here I go, the Full Frame way!!

« on: March 28, 2013, 10:32:21 AM »

The OP said he bought the 5d3 with the kit 24-105.

24-105 = general lens = check

The fisheye is definitely a specialty lens though.

+1, although the fisheye can be used as a UWA in a pinch.  It can be defished in LR using the Canon 15mm fisheye profile.  It actually produced better results than I would have thought: corners are softer than a UWA as one would expect but AOV is impressive.

108

EOS Bodies / Re: Here I go, the Full Frame way!!

« on: March 28, 2013, 07:57:11 AM »

70-300L is a very nice lens, and is ideal if you use it for general shooting outside in good light.  It is also significantly lighter than the 70-200L II and 100-400L.  It's still white, so it still attracts attention but it's smaller size allows it to be carried in a small camera bag.

109

Lenses / Re: EF or EF-S for 7D/70D

« on: March 27, 2013, 04:59:45 PM »

My 7D body has been shipped and should be delivered tomorrow, hopefully. So for now it will be the 18-55 kit lens I have. But since my full frame camera purchase is years away, I'm going to take the suggestions/advice of sticking to EF-S for the near future.

I'm still flip-flopping between the Canon EF-S 17-55 and the EF-S 15-85 as my "walkabout" lens. I know the 17-55 is better for low light and the 15-85 has more range.

Either way I hope to pair the "walkabout" with an ultrawide, either the Canon 10-22 or the Sigma 10-20.

My budget is limited so, I may only be able to get one lens for now and maybe another next year, in that case I'm leaning towards the Canon 15-85.

Thanks for all the input.

If you can, get the 17-55 refurbished/used.  It is currently available from the canon refurb store for about 800 USD + tax.  The canon 10-22 is a nice lens, although other good options are the tokina 11-16 and sigma 8-16.

110

Lenses / Re: Renting a wildlife lens

« on: March 26, 2013, 10:49:04 AM »

Since you have a 70-200 2.8 IS II mentioned in your signature you should consider getting/renting a 2x extender. It will keep your kit lighter and cheaper. The IQ is said to be almost as good as with the 100-400mm.
Have a fun and safe trip.

+1.  Superteles are much heavier.  Depending on how it's used, it might necessitate bringing a tripod too.

111

Lenses / Re: What would cause Canon to release the 35L II?

« on: March 26, 2013, 09:22:09 AM »

The Sigma 35 f/1.4 is a factor, but so is the 24-70 II.  Any prime in that focal length range that does not beat the 24-70 II is DOA.  Most of Canon's fast primes in that range are good enough wide open where corner sharpness is not as much of a concern for shallow DOF portraits/applications.  Having primes that beat the 24-70II would give prime users a reason for using primes for all types of photography, not just for shallow DOF, because right now the 24-70II is comparable/better than the 24L II, 35L and 50L at the same apertures.

Primes typically cost less than the zoom that covers the same range (except the original 24-70L), so I'm guessing that the primes would be less than 2300 at launch and less than 2000 in about a year.

112

Lenses / Re: small primes to go with SL1?

« on: March 26, 2013, 09:10:33 AM »

Given the way Canon has "crippled" the 100D down to "entry-level" specifications, I do not think we can expect any EF-S primes. Canon should have brought these primes out years ago, basically as soon as they went with APS-C - in order to replace the 50mm f/1.8 as a "first prime" for budding photographers. They didn't, as they reason that that part of the market only wants zoom lenses (although the "higher" demographic is also primarily into zooms ... 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 24-105mm, 70-200mm, 100-400mm, etc.)

Canon has, in my opinion, created a bit of a problem for themselves with the 100D. It is definitely a camera with the sole purpose of preventing current "users" not to buy m4/3, as once you go there it's lost business for Canon. Yet, bringing out EF-S primes will keep people, as they grow photographically, in the APS-C segment. This bites into their "full-frame" business, with its inflated price tag, as "full-frame" basically loses a lot of its appeal - because you get the same from EF-S (and currently from m4/3).

Canon sees APS-C as (1) a method of selling cheap DSLR's to the masses, and (b) an "upgrade path" towards their expensive "full-frame" offerings. The new 100D makes it obvious that they are losing serious ground on point (1) to m4/3 and other "mirrorless" systems. Yet if they make EF-S a serious form-factor with dedicated primes and decent tele-photo lenses, then they lose on point (2).

Canon, just like Pentax, has not kept up with their market.

I don't think Canon is afraid of APS-C threatening full frame.  For the same generation of technology,  FF will win in low light/high ISO/noise and shallower DOF.  Does that matter to the masses?  Probably not, but it's probably why most FF users are using FF.

I also don't see much advantage for Canon to release EF-S primes.  The 35/2 and 50/1.4 are fairly small and light already, and a lot of people balk at forking 1k for a EF-S lens (i.e. 17-55 f/2..  People also want lenses that are FF compatible in case they decide to move in that direction in the future.  Perhaps an EF-S 15 f/1.4 might make sense, but I don't think that there'd be a large market to make it worthwhile.

113

Lenses / Re: Lens recommendation

« on: March 26, 2013, 07:32:37 AM »

24-70.  For most people, it is better to cover the range you need first unless you know that you'll additional funds to spend soon.  If you have a larger budget, you could try covering the range with 2 primes:  a 35 and a 50/85.  The primes deliver better IQ and get you the shallower DOF, which is nice when the background in unattractive or cluttered.

114

EOS Bodies / Re: Congratulations Canon to another great Camera release!!

« on: March 23, 2013, 09:16:16 PM »

Most people who get Rebels leave the stock lens on - or at best, get a 50mm 1.8...

How would you know? Just because the people in this forum are so well-off that they don't use Rebels with L glass?

Because 80-90% of the people I see shooting with Rebels out in the field are doing so with the stock lens...mind you, it's only from my own experience and I realize there are many that use much more expensive lenses with them. I was one of them (I used the 70-200 F4 IS with it)

This is not far from the truth.  In October 2011, Canon announced that the 50 millionth EOS cameras and 70 millionth EF lens was produced.  1.4 lenses to each body.

115

Lenses / Re: EF 17-40 Indoor foto????

« on: March 23, 2013, 10:03:25 AM »

I know you say that you want ultra wide, but if you want to shoot inside castles and churches without a tripod I would strongly recommend a lens with IS, even with the 6D's high ISO capabilities.

The default choice is the 24-105 IS or maybe the Tamron 24-70 VS. Or maybe consider the new 24mm f2.8 IS.

The picture below was taken with the 24-105 hand held.

Why didn't we use a tripod ? Because someone forgot it...............

+1.  IS would be nice for these types of applications.  Cranking up the ISO loses a lot of detail.

116

Reviews / Re: Review - EF 24 f/1.4L II

« on: March 22, 2013, 11:57:40 AM »

Justin's reasons for selling his 24 match up well with why I never got one.

Most of the time that I'm looking for 24mm, I'm almost instinctively reaching for the TS-E 24. And I'm not looking for speed at those times.

I think most people would be very happy with either the 24 f/1.4 or the TS-E 24, but I don't think very many would get a lot of use out of both. They're both 24mm L lenses, yes, but they're not at all interchangeable and have no overlap except focal length. One might think that therefore there'd be room in the kit for both...but, as I see it, if you're happy with the one the other isn't going to interest you much except as a very expensive novelty.

And I couldn't be more thrilled with the TS-E 24....

Cheers,

b&

I think the 24L II's utility depends on whether one shoots primes or zooms.  I see it as competition with a 24-70 or a 24-105 (zoom vs. prime).

117

EOS Bodies / Re: Congratulations Canon to another great Camera release!!

« on: March 22, 2013, 10:31:00 AM »

It's fascinating how the only people defending Canon's latest releases all own either a 5D3 or a 1DX, and as such, are probably not going to buy a Rebel. If yes, only as back-back-back-back-up body.

Maybe your perspective would be a bit more accurate if that was the only Canon camera in your budget. Sure, one can switch to Nikon, but it has a cost to rebuild a lens kit, and money is the problem to begin with. Otherwise we would all buy a 5D3 and a D800E and lots of top glass and be happy ever after.

I bought a D600 and I'm building a set of lenses in F-mount. I didn't like it. Switching brand is always some sort of hassle and economic inconvenience. I could afford it and it worked very well for me, in the sense that I'm very satisfied with my purchase. But I understand that not everyone can afford to do so. This doesn't make them a bunch of childish whiners. As a matter of fact, I would hardly advise anyone to buy a 700D over a D5200.

I don't think people would argue that Canon needs to improve its sensors, but that takes time -- years.  Engineering takes years, tooling takes a year or more.  What is coming out has been planned years ago.  I think it's pretty clear Sony/Nikon caught Canon off guard.  It may take a couple more years before you start seeing the changes you want.

Unfortunately, the Rebel line is refreshed yearly.  It's also unfair to expect the Rebels to feature the newest and highest IQ sensors first -- I'd expect those to be in the xxD and xD lines first.  And history bears that out.  Over the next 3-4 years, the Rebels would inherit most of the features of the xxD line and the cycle starts again.  IFF the 70D comes out with a new 24MP sensor, then the Rebel would get that in the future, not now.

Does Canon deserve to lose market share in this market?  Yes, if its competition offers superior value to its customers, and that value is not just the body, but the whole system including lenses.  But Canon also knows that a large segment won't get anything beyond the kits lens(es), so it might not lose many until it can get its problems fixed.

Canon's FF offerings were all refreshed last year.  This year and next will see the APS-C lines get refreshed.  The future Rebel upgrades will be clearer once the 70D is released.  If you can't wait until then, choose the best system for you based on your time-table.  I'm sure Canon would rather have you as a customer than lose you to a competitor, but it can only move as fast as it can.  You make your choices based on your needs and what the market offers.  Complaining that Canon doesn't meet your specific needs/time table won't change a thing.  Individually, you or I do not matter.  A single person is not a profitable market.  Thousands/millions of people compose a market. 

118

Lenses / Re: small primes to go with SL1?

« on: March 22, 2013, 10:02:04 AM »

I don't see Canon coming out with a bunch of EF-S primes any time soon.  It makes more sense for Canon to do make the smallest lenses for the EOS-M because of its smaller lens mount and reduced lens to sensor plane distance (no mirror box).  Canon has also determined that there is a market for EF IS primes, and the lenses with IS are larger than their non-IS predecessors.  There are already two lines forming:  L glass that is fast or specialty (i.e. TS-E) and consumer grade IS primes under that.  I don't think a third product line makes much sense.

Although I see the logic in creating small wide EF-S primes, I don't know think that the market is big enough for Canon to make it a priority.  It is also telling that Sigma has yet to bother maker wider fast EF-S lenses after making the 30mm f/1.4.  Many of the Rebel buyers use the kit zooms and others see a APS-C camera as a stepping stone to full frame cameras down the road.  These segments probably outnumber the enthusiasts that would be interested in what you're proposing by quite a bit.

119

EOS Bodies / Re: Congratulations Canon to another great Camera release!!

« on: March 21, 2013, 02:18:37 PM »

Interesting Graphic

It is interesting -- thanks for posting.  Add an EVF and some dials to the EOS-M and the length and width are similar.  The depth is bit larger to accomodate the mirror box, but then you also get a useable grip and phase detect AF.  Definitely wouldn't mind having one as a backup camera -- wouldn't take up much space in the camera bag.

120

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announces the EOS T5i

« on: March 21, 2013, 11:21:24 AM »

Are the T4i and T5i bodies exactly the same??

It looks like the SL1 might be positioned to take over the Rebel line.  If the SL1 sells well, I wouldn't be surprised if all future Rebels are sized like the SL1.