Messages

376

Lenses / Re: Wide angle/standard zoom

« on: September 28, 2012, 03:04:42 PM »

Assuming your budget is around 3k (16-35L II + 50L that you listed under option 1), I would suggest the 24-70L II and the ef-s 10-22 (used/refurbished, which you would sell when you move to FF).  Assuming you don't need larger apertures for speed or thinner DOF, the 24-70 II (based on TDP charts) performs about as well as the 24L II, 35L at f/2.8 and smaller and is much better than any canon 50mm.  The 16-35L II softens a bit at the longer end of the zoom range, so I tend to use it at the wider end.

When you move to FF, you could sell the 10-22 and use the proceeds to offset the cost of the FF camera or use it to fund a FF UWA lens.  24mm is wide enough most of the time and how much you'd need the 16-24mm range is based on your individual style.

I switched to FF earlier this year, and I have your option 1 setup.  When I travel, I bring the 16-35, 50 and the 70-200.  It works well -- it covers landscapes, low light and has some reach.  If I didn't use the 50 at apertures larger than f/2.8 so often, I would definitely consider a 24-70 in place of the 50.  Even now, I'm considering getting the 24-70 II in the future if it proves to be robust and as sharp as the initial reviews indicate and when prices soften a bit.

377

Lenses / Re: Which canon macro lense 60mm, 100mm, 100mmIS, 180mm

« on: September 25, 2012, 07:44:57 AM »

If you do a lot of macro work, then the 180L would make sense.  It offers a longer working distance, which is helpful in a lot of instances.  If you do some macro work and would like to use it for portraiture, then a 100mm makes sense.  The IS offers you more flexibility when you try to handhold it, but is not necessary.  If you are happy with the ef-s 60 on the crop, then the 100 will perform similarly on FF.  If you have a 70-200L II, then the 100L makes less sense because both perform similarly for portaits at 100mm.

378

Lenses / Re: 70-300mm For my 5DM2

« on: September 24, 2012, 08:36:08 PM »

I'm not sure how much you'd gain by getting the 70-300L from the 70-200L and 2x that you already have.  You gain IS but you'd lose range or 1-2 stops (depends on comparing bare lens or with extender).

However, if you're willing to part with the 70-200 plus extender, then you would be able to afford both the 24-105L and the 70-300L.

379

Lenses / Re: 24-105 on FF, or 17-55 on crop?

« on: September 24, 2012, 08:24:29 PM »

I found that the 5D II center point focused better in extreme low light better than the 7D.  The 5D III should do better especially when using non-center points.

If you don't need to have 2 lenses on 2 bodies a lot of time, it might make more sense to sell the 17-55.  Equivalence would say that the performance between the 24-105 and 17-55 would be similar, but it would be really nice to have that extra stop back.

380

Landscape / Re: Best lens for landscapes for a trip to the mountains?

« on: September 24, 2012, 12:46:38 PM »

Since you are renting, get the 10-22. If you were buying, it might be a different set of circumstances, but, renting you should get what works best for your camera. While the 17-40 and 16-35 would be upgrades over your 18-55, they don't really add to what you have. The 10-22 adds a whole different world of shots (10-17mm), which is critical for landscape stuff. And its a rental, so it has no impact on what future lenses you own.

Honestly, with the 10-22, the 28 and the 50, you probably don't even need to take the kit lens. And I agree with others, rent a CPL as well, just be careful when you include the sky in shots. I did my travel this past summer with an ultra-wide, a 28mm, and my 70-200 f/4L, and that is all you really need.

+1.

381

Lenses / Re: Update for the EF 24-105 f/4 L ?

« on: September 23, 2012, 03:30:07 PM »

If Canon could build a 24-105 f/2.8 with IS, keep the weight under 1,000 g, and have as good of IQ as the current 24-105 f/4, then I would be will to pay up to $3,000 for it.

Probably closer to 3 lb.  The 24-70 II is a shade under 2 lb and the 70-200 II is 3.75 lb.  3 lb would be double the weight of current 24-105, which would definitly affect its portability.

382

Lenses / Re: last call for vacation lenses

« on: September 22, 2012, 07:23:54 AM »

35L.  Need AF for a lens that will be used a lot as a walk around lens, the focal length is right and it has low light capability, which the other two lenses already chosen do not have.

383

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade

« on: September 21, 2012, 01:37:51 PM »

Another way to look at it is that the 4K market is poised to drop in price dramatically over the next few years.  Would the 1DX be different if it didn't have the physical capability to support 4K?  Probably, and it might have been a little less expensive to produce, but Canon saved a lot of R&D by having a platform that supported both the 1DX and 4K video.  Canon isn't marketing the 1DC to photographers/small video outfits.  It's charging what the market will bear.  Early adopters pay the price premium -- what else is new?

However, if ML were able to crack the 1 DX, then the price will fall quickly.  Or if more competitors entered the market at a lower price, then the price will fall also.  But if the hardware is the same between the 1DC/1DX, then Canon can still make money by selling a 4K for $7k.  Go competition and ML!

384

Lenses / Re: Lensrentals.com - great blog entry - statistcs on repairs, failures and support

« on: September 21, 2012, 08:21:18 AM »

Repair wise, he barely indicates that Canon has the edge over Nikon. They both have 5 lenses/bodies on the list, but Nikon does show up higher on it on average. The repair cost & time of Nikon service is somewhat higher.

He does use "Nikon fanboy" a lot - probably some personal experience there he is talking to. Reading between the lines I think he has a bit of a grudge against Nikon because they stopped selling repair parts to him and raised prices.

As far as I can tell Canon has somewhat better reliability and repair service, but it doesn't seem to be enough to get excited about. As usual Canon and Nikon are more or less neck and neck.

By the way I'm all Canon and will never buy a Nikon.

For running a rental business, repair service cost and turnaround time (6 days for Canon and 26 for Nikon) are significant factors because a lens out of service is lost income.  Another point that he makes is that now everything needs to go back to Nikon.  Their company does many of the smaller repairs on their own, which helps lower costs and time out of service.  For a individual user, it matters less but can still be a factor.  I'd hate to have a in issue with a lens, and then having it take a month's time to get it repaired.

385

Lenses / Re: Upgrade from Sigma 18-200

« on: September 21, 2012, 08:14:22 AM »

The 24-105 is cheaper as part of a kit, and the focal length range is better suited to FF than APS-C.  A lot of people find 24mm to be too long on a crop camera for a mid-range zoom, but that is really up to you.  If you're ok with 24mm at the wide end, then the 24-105 is a good choice.  Just look for deals (about 860 currently from authorized dealer in US -- see canonpricewatch) because there is a large variation in price for this lens.

If you want a lens with a larger max aperture, then the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a good choice.

386

Canon General / Re: How do you sell your gear?

« on: September 20, 2012, 03:02:26 PM »

Hello all.

New to the forum, but I've been a long time visitor to the site.  I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but I'm having a tough time selling some gear.  I'm trying to sell my canon ef-s 17-55.  I've had it up on Craigslist for a few weeks with about 1 or 2 interested in buying that have backed out of at the last minute.  I really don't want to put it on ebay to avoid fees.

I was just curious if anyone knew of any other outlets to sell used gear. 

Thanks for any suggestions.

I sold my 17-55 a couple months ago on Ebay and netted about 750.  The fees may be higher, but the market is a lot bigger too.

387

Lenses / Re: Poll: 35mm Vs 50mm Primes

« on: September 19, 2012, 11:35:44 PM »

A question I always wonder:

Why do people say the 50mm is a little tight on a crop body, but the 85mm is never too tight on a ff. Same goes for the 85mm on a crop vs the 135 on ff.

Different uses.  The 50 can be used a general walk-about lens on FF; a lot fewer people would use a 85mm on FF for street.  In practice, it doesn't really matter because one can use 35/50/85 on a crop or 50/85/135 on FF and they would give roughly the same framing but different DOF.  The difficulty is that there is a lack of fast glass on the wide end.  The 24 f/1.4 would require a fast 15mm lens, which does not exist...

388

Lenses / Re: Patent: EF 14mm f/2.8 With a New Coating

« on: September 19, 2012, 11:22:00 PM »

I agree that it might be that rare non-telephoto lens that breaks into the $3k price range.

But my question is: "Will they discontinue the 16-35mm?" Or will they maintain three wide angle zooms in the lineup?

Hopefully they will replace the 16-35mm in the lineup (with the 14-24mm) and thus be able to lower the price (because it will sell more units at a lower price).

I think that having 3 WA zooms makes sense because there is a large spread in price.  Some may want to use screw on filters while others can't afford a 2k+ lens.  Nikon also covers the WA FL range with multiple zooms.

389

Lenses / Re: Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM Tips Needed

« on: September 19, 2012, 10:32:03 PM »

@drcroubie

Wow, 8mm and it's not a fisheye, and it can be used on a FF camera?! I'm really considering getting this.

Is there any other UW lens that are compatible with FF cameras?

Synomis192, the 8-16 is for crops only.  Sigma does make a FF 12-24 tho.

390

Lenses / Re: 24L II or 24-70 II ??

« on: September 18, 2012, 11:05:53 PM »

When I moved from a crop to a FF, I sold the 17-55 and replaced it with primes to supplement the 35L that I already had rather than getting a midrange zoom.  I ended up picking up a used 50mm prime at a good price, but I tend to use the 35L more as a general walk-about lens because I like its wider AOV.  I also ended up getting a used 16-35 to replace the 10-22.  When I travel, I bring the 16-35, the 50 and the 70-200.  I chose the 50 over the 35 because it fits between the two zooms better and it still gives me a low light option.  I got the 16-35 because it was much less expensive than trying to cover the UWA range with comparable primes (14 and 24).

In the end, the choice is a trade between focal length flexibility versus depth of field/low light flexibility.  You really can't go wrong either way; it's a matter of personal preference.