Messages

391

Lenses / Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?

« on: September 18, 2012, 03:38:13 PM »

Canon might regret introducing the EF-S concept only if/when they lose large numbers of 60D sales because consumers realize that can upgrade to a Nikon D600 for about the same cost as upgrading to a 60D and they buy the Nikon instead. In contrast, a Nikon D200 user, like a nephew of mine, can purchase a D600 body only for now, can use his current lenses and can buy more lenses as finances allow. As for why he would want to "cripple" his new camera with old lenses, consider that his wife is 7 months pregnant with their first child. A D600 body alone will be financial stretch.

And that is my point.  If he spends $2100, he gets a camera that downsizes all his photos to the same 10-11MP range as his current D200.  What has he gained for $2100 with his crop lenses?  Not much -- he's effectively throwing out half his sensor that he paid so much for.  He might be better off spending the $2100 on good glass, which would affect IQ a lot more, or combination of glass and a more capable crop body that he can take advantage NOW.  If he can't get FF-compatible glass for a few years, then it really doesn't make sense to get a FF body now.  Bodies are updated a lot more frequently than lenses.

That is not to say that if one buys a crop camera that you should ONLY buy crop lenses.  The 17-55 has IS advantage over Canon's FF options and the 10-22 is much less expensive and nearly as capable as the 16-35.  Focal length limited shooters also gain from the crop cameras' higher sensor density.  I think it is also a reason why there are relatively few non-kit EF-S lenses.  Most of them are kit lenses except for the 10-22, 15-85, 17-55 and the 60 macro.  One is a ultrawide that is needed for the smaller sensor, and two of them are mid-range zooms which is what most people use (not sure why Canon developed the 60 macro).  If you want a Canon high speed prime or longer focal lengths, you'd be getting EF lenses anyway, which can be used on FF.  With 1 to 2 to sell/trade, the cost of moving FF is not that high.

392

Lenses / Re: Were EF-S lenses a bad idea?

« on: September 18, 2012, 12:25:22 PM »

I don't think Canon regrets introducing the EF-S lineup.  Just like I don't think Canon regrets introducing the EF-M mount either.  I actually like it that Canon makes it harder to use cross mount the equipment, for which they were not designed to do.  Some of the EF-S lens' rear elements would hit the FF mirror, which is why they came up with another mount in the first place.  The EF-S line was designed for amateurs and hobbiests.  The lenses are smaller, cheaper and less regged than their L counterparts.  There is nothing wrong with that.  In fact, I prefer Canon's EF/EF-S designation to Nikon's alphabet soup code.  Which lenses/bodies have focus motors?  Wait, the cheapest crop bodies can't use which lenses?  Which ones have a manual aperture control?

I bought into the EF-S system seven years ago, before FF became affordable.  I moved to FF this year.  I sold the non-kit EF-S lenses for 85% of the price that I bought them.  I had the 10-22 and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.  There is no rectilinear FF lens that would work on FF with a focal length range of 10 to 22mm, and the 24-70 f/2.8s cost more than the 17-55.  Even now, there are still many FF users who complain that the 24-70L II doesn't have IS, which is something that crop users have been able to take advantage of for years.  In a couple years, the 6D price will drop, which will decrease the price premium required to use FF systems.  Consumers ultimately win with the more choices that are available.

I don't understand why Nikon users would cripple their more expensive FF cameras with crop lenses.  If the crop feature gets its down to 10.7 MP, then you're better off with a crop camera with a higher pixel density, which will improve resolution.  There is nothing magical about their crop feature -- it throws out the sections of the image that are physically blocked because of the smaller image circle.

393

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

« on: September 18, 2012, 12:19:11 AM »

I'm using 35mm and it is an awsome lens.
My next purchase will be 85 1.2L

I'm still wondering which way to go in wide angle. Never had a chance to really try it out.
Wide angle will either gonna be 14mm II or 24-70 II.
I've never had a 24mm lens so how far away should I step back with 35mm to get 24mm?

If I can get 24mm with 35mm easily, I might not need 24-70 and I'll buy 14mm instead.

The smaller increments at the wide end get more significant the shorter the focal length.  The 35mm has a horizontal AOV of 54 deg.  The 24 and 14 have HAOVs of 74 and 104 deg, respectively.  The 14 is hard to frame well and is about twice as wide as the 35.  The 16-35L II covers the wide range with AF and takes filters.  Another way to do is with the 14 and 24-70/24-105/24 prime, but that is more expensive.

394

Canon General / Re: Loving Canon right now.

« on: September 17, 2012, 11:31:22 PM »

Just remember that the 5D II won't be around much longer, so that comparison will be largely moot.  At that point, you can get the 7D, 6D, 5D III or go with another brand.  7D is listed for 1500 even now, so how much lower could Canon price it at release?  I'm sure that Canon expects the price to drop as time goes on, and that 2100 will be highest it plans to charge for it.  How fast will it drop?  That will depend on how well it does at 2100.  I'm sure Canon was thrilled that Nikon priced the D600 at 2100 (if it is cheaper to produce than the Nikon, then Canon will have the flexibility to go after maximum profits or market share).  However, with more plastic and a smaller size than the 5D II, the 6D is poised to go below the 5D II price of 1900 because it is cheaper to produce.  After a few years, FF photography will be more affordable than it is now, and that is a win for the consumer.  Value-driven consumers will not the majority of the early adopters; they will buy later when the price drops or when sizable rebates arrive.

395

Lenses / Re: Which lenses to start?

« on: September 17, 2012, 10:51:55 AM »

The 70-200 is a great lens, esp outdoors where space is not an issue.  For low light indoor ambients, I like the 35L; it's more forgiving than the 50L.  A lot of people will recommend the 24-105, but I don't think it's as useful if you intend on getting more lenses and the new 24-70 II looks to be a great performer (albeit a very costly one, at least initially).  For general travel, I like the 16-35, 50, 70-200 combo which gives you a large focal length range and low light capability.

396

Lenses / Re: The Digital Picture resolution tests are up for the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: September 17, 2012, 10:34:45 AM »

I find this odd, when I tested the lens I found 70mm to be the sharpest focal length on the lens.  It does seem to be much sharper at f/3.2 than f/2.8 though. 

I don't always trust the Digital Pictures chart tests, there is more to a lens's performance than a test chart.  Some of their Zeiss charts look horrible but when you use them in real-life situations they look absolutely incredible.  I will say that their tests on longer lenses seem to be more accurate than their tests on shorter ones.

Bryan tested 2 lenses.  One performed better at the wider end; the other better at the longer end.

397

Lenses / Re: Zoom-walking, Walk-zooming

« on: September 14, 2012, 11:52:33 PM »

Walking changes the framing but not the perspective. This article illustrates the point quite well, and illustrates quite nicely why getting the same framing of the same subject with different focal lengths results in a very different picture.

Walking changes the framing and the perspective.  Perspective depends only the distance.

398

Lenses / Re: Which to get next: 35 f/1.4L or 16-35 f/2.8L...?

« on: September 12, 2012, 06:42:50 PM »

If your kit satisfies your current work needs, then I'd suggest going for the 16-35 for trips and vacations.  Sometimes 24mm just is not wide enough.

399

Lenses / Re: 24mm F/1.4L II or 24mm-70mm F/2.8 II

« on: September 12, 2012, 01:47:18 PM »

If you already have another prime that you can use in low light, then it would make sense swapping the 24L II for the 24-70L II.  But if you intend to use the 24L II wide open, then keep it.  Assuming that you already have a midrange zoom, the 24-70L II will make your pictures incrementally better.  The 24L II gives you shallower DOF to get shots will not be possible at f/2.8 and smaller.  Just realize that your wallet will be lighter in the future when you decide to replace your mid-range focal lengths options.   

400

Lenses / Re: Canon 50 F1.2L VS 85 F1.2L MKII Lenses

« on: September 12, 2012, 07:57:09 AM »

At what aperture settings is the 50L sharpest?
Thanks.

It sharpens up as it is stopped down, but it's advantage over other 50mm options is from f/1.2 to f/2.8.  Other, less  expensive options can do as well or slightly better past at f/4 and smaller.

401

Lenses / Re: Bang for buck 5d to 5d mark III or 70-200 2.8 nonIS to 70-200 2.8 IS II

« on: September 11, 2012, 11:33:48 PM »

I think you would be better served by upgrading the body in this case.  The 5D III has a lot more resolution than the 5D classic giving you additional crop latitude and partially offsetting the reach advantage of the 50D.  In addition, it has several stops of high ISO advantage over the 5DC, which will help you in low light (weddings) and sports.  The AF will give better performance for sports and more flexibility in framing using fast glass (i.e. not tied to the center point).  The more lenses you have, the higher the value of body upgrades.

402

Lenses / Re: Wide Angle for Crop and FF?

« on: September 10, 2012, 01:35:37 PM »

I have read that some have used the Tokina 11-16 successfully on FF at 16mm only even though it's designed for crop bodies.

If you are willing to keep the crop body when you upgrade to FF, it might make sense to get a crop UWA lens.  Canon's 10-22, Sigma's 8-16 and Tokina's 11-16 are all highly rated, less expensive and will perform comparably on crop bodies as the 16-35 will on FF.

403

Lenses / Re: Which Lens?

« on: September 07, 2012, 11:10:38 PM »

On FF, 24mm has a horizontal  angle of view (AOV) of 74 deg.  16mm has an horizontal AOV of 98 deg.  14mm has an horizontal AOV of 104 deg.  The fisheye will give you a horizontal AOV of 180 deg with a lot of distortion (not rectilinear).  Fisheye pics can be "defished" but they become soft in the corners as the image is stretched into the corners.  Sigma makes a 12-24mm lens but that still has a horizontal AOV less than 120 deg.

What AOV are you trying to achieve?  If it's wider than 120 deg, your options are limited.  Either defish a fisheye or start taking panos.

404

Lenses / Re: Need advice on indoor low light lens choices.

« on: September 06, 2012, 09:57:58 AM »

It depends on size of indoor. If it's not enough room, then 24-70 (I or II), if you have enough place in there - 70-200 F2.8 (II in case of IS)

I checked with my 24-105 this morning and it seems as though the 24-70 range for me will be my more used indoor simply because of room. I am debating on returning the f4 70-200 for the 2.8 but not really sure the added weight is worth the extra $1k and to only gain a stop still will require fill flash to me. I do not find myself using the 50mm simply because with kids it can be hard sometimes not being able to zoom in or out plus the more light the less my twins are in focus so thats why I am having a hard time finding the best way to approach most shooting environments knowing I cannot get them all. I did great birthday portraits with it at 2.8 but there was plenty of ambient light in the room. Basically what is everyones go to suggestion for christmas morning? Should i get the 600ex and go that route?

Yes, get the flash.

405

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrading from Canon 60D to 5D MkII: Help me decide!

« on: September 06, 2012, 08:29:56 AM »

I have been shooting quite a lot with the 60D for past 1.5 years. I must say I enjoyed shooting with this body even though it is not considered stellar. However, I am tempted to upgrade to the 5D Mark II but holding back for few reasons:

1) Is the IQ between the 60D and 5D huge? Like in the out of camera RAW files. Also I do a bit of PP in Lightroom.

2) I understand the ISO performance in the 5D is better than my 60D, but I tend to not go beyond 800 and try to stick to 100 as much as possible. Will I see substantial difference in ISO performance when shooting in ISO 800/1600. Or even at low ISO such as 100.

3) Any idea if 60D's AF system is better than 5D Mark II or not? I shoot wildlife, but not too often though. Mostly landscape, portraits, street, still life.

4) I have a 24-70 f2/8L, how likely will I get better results when paired with a 5D MkII. Is there any focus microadjustment function in 5D MkII?

5) They say bokeh quality in full frames are better/creamier, if that's true is it really that noticeable?

6) How about the dynamic range in 5D?

Any other points I may have left out or should be aware of? Thanks in advance.

For the way you shoot, the 5D II won't be that much of difference compared to the 60D.  I find that the 5D II IQ starts pulling away from crop cameras at 1600.  I find that the 5D II at 3200 falls in between a crop camera's 800 and 1600 (closer to 1600).  With a crop, 800 was my upper limit a lot of the time with 1600 as the max.  Now, I'm much more willing to use 3200 on the 5D II.

The EF zoom lenses match full frame a lot better than crop.  The 24-70 and 70-200s are a lot more flexible on FF.  The 24-70 gets you to the WA range, and the 70 gets you down into short telephoto portrait ranges.

Yes, the 5D II has AFMA.  The center point on the 5D II is REALLY good.  It can AF lock at really low light levels where crop cameras fail.

FF cameras give you more options in how you shoot.  They give you greater control over DOF (at the thinner end).  If you like shooting with ambient light or landscape, then full frame is the way to go.  FFs have less noise when the light is low due to its larger sensor area, and all the specialized glass (17 and 24 TS-Es, 24L II) have much more value on FF than on crop bodies.  If you are focal length limited, the 60D's higher pixel density will give you an advantage.