Messages

421

Lenses / Re: Which to keep? EF 70-300 IS USM or 70-200 4L IS USM

« on: July 20, 2012, 12:06:47 PM »

I'm surprised there haven't been posts saying to buy the 200 f/2L or 300 f/2.8L. 

Anyways, if I were to keep one of your current lenses, it'd be the L glass, 70-200 f/4L.

If you are willing to sell, I would do that and get the 70-300L. 

Those would be my two options.

Most of those posters are jumping all over the mirrorless threads and opining that it would be perfect if it just had _______ feature or that Canon should have been able to figure out how to put a FF sensor in a mirrorless body for a P&S price.   

422

Lenses / Re: Why did Canon release the 40/2.8 pancake before the A1?

« on: July 20, 2012, 10:12:48 AM »

Any thoughts as to why Canon released the 40/2.8 pancake so far ahead of its mirrorless offering?

because they figured, that gazillions of snapshooters would buy it ... "becuse it is oh so cute and oh so cheap"! These people have no concept whatsoever, that a lens with 44mm flange-back will not natively fit on a future Canon mirrorless cam and that they can use it only with a fairly bulky adapter or buy yet another EF-M "pancake" lens. Canon is pretty smart. Unlike many of its customers. hehe. :-)

+1

423

Lenses / Re: Which to keep? EF 70-300 IS USM or 70-200 4L IS USM

« on: July 20, 2012, 09:42:33 AM »

Keep the 70-200:  better IQ and versatility.  You could always add the 1.4x later to get close at 280 f/5.6.

I had thought about doing that. Will autofocus still work?

D

Like others have already stated, AF will work with a 1.4x.  The pictures will get a little softer at 100% but is barely noticeable, but it should do well compared to your non-L 70-300.  TCs should only be used when you need the extra reach.  Losing a stop over the whole range is significant, but at 300, it would be the same/better than your current non-L 70-300 at 300 (both at max aperture of f/5.6).

424

Lenses / Re: Which to keep? EF 70-300 IS USM or 70-200 4L IS USM

« on: July 20, 2012, 12:21:02 AM »

Keep the 70-200:  better IQ and versatility.  You could always add the 1.4x later to get close at 280 f/5.6.

425

Lenses / Re: The one waiting the new version of 100-400 IS, investegation

« on: July 19, 2012, 06:42:31 PM »

I'm waiting for the new version.  I use the 70-200 with the 2x for now but the images are soft at 400 and AF is slow, but I'm in no hurry... yet.

426

Lenses / Re: Question...To UV or not to UV...that IS the question!

« on: July 19, 2012, 12:19:01 PM »

At the end of the day, you should really always be using a lens hood, both to protect from lens flare and to protect your lens, and if you're doing that in most scenarios a filter isn't going to help much more.  However, if you're NOT using your lens hood and ARE using a filter (especially a cheap one), there's a decent chance that at times IQ will be negatively impacted.

Except that UWA lens hoods are so shallow and wide that they don't afford much protection at all.

427

Lenses / Re: Question...To UV or not to UV...that IS the question!

« on: July 19, 2012, 08:30:05 AM »

Everything that you put in the path between the subject and the sensor will "degrade" the image, but good filters affect the images less so that ther effects aren't visible to our eyes' sensitivity.  The same can also be true of lenses that have a lot of elements (i.e. 70-200 f/2.8 IS II but no one complains that of the poor IQ even though it has so many air/glass interfaces).  There are videos on YouTube where people stack dozens of filters and obviously the images degrade.  You might need more B+Ws to get the same degradation than some other brands, but if you have enough of them, it won't matter -- the image will also degrade.  Filters can affect flare, so if flare is an issue, I just take it off and see if it improves, take the pics and put it back on.   

A few lenses need filters to complete the weather sealing (i.e. 50L), but I find the filters a lot easier to clean.  In dirty environments I'm much more willing to wipe off dirt, fluids, etc with whatever is on hand off of filters where I don't have to worry about scratching lens elements.  The front elements have a lot of coatings and I'd rather not worry that my quick and dirty methods of cleaning the lenses in the field would degrade/scratch the coating layers.  Small scratches of the coating layers won't affect IQ either, but it would affect resale value.  I get a lot of my equipment used, and I'd rather buy a lens that looks perfect than one that shows wear and tear.  I'd rather buy stuff that has been babied rather not used extensively in harsh environments... wouldn't you?

428

Lenses / Re: my second lens?

« on: July 18, 2012, 11:24:11 PM »

Depends on which focal range you prefer, but some suggestions are a UWA and a longer telephoto zoom.  Possibilities range from the Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16 and Sigma 8-16 for the UWAs, which are all in your budget and the 70-200 f/4 IS would be a couple hundred above your budget.

If you're happy with the focal length range of your kit lens, then I'd suggest looking at a fast prime (sigma 30 f/1.4 or canon/sigma 50 f/1.4s depending on your preferred focal length).  The fast primes give you the flexibility of not using a flash when the lighting is not as good indoors and gives you the option for a much thinner DOF.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is a great lens but I'd expand the focal length range and/or get low light capability first before upgrading the mid-range zoom.  It'll take two lenses to improve the IQ of your current lens without losing focal length range (either 17-55/70-200 or 15-85/70-200), which is currently beyond your budget.

429

Lenses / Re: Help Choosing My Next Lens? :)

« on: July 18, 2012, 12:18:51 PM »

I'd consider the 16-35L and the 100L.  The 16-35 is a nice UWA zoom and the the 100L opens you to macro photography.  Both would open areas of different types of photography for you to explore.  I wouldn't consider the TS lenses unless you are serious about landscape/architecture and have a good tripod system.  Wider TS (17 and 24) are generally more useful for landscape/architecture esp. indoor.  The TS 45 and 90 are typically more used for product photography.  All TS lenses are manual focus only.

I'd skip getting a prime 300mm or longer -- it doesn't sound like it's a pressing need.  If you want to extend your reach, you could consider getting an extender or two.

430

Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]

« on: July 17, 2012, 11:14:44 PM »

I'm not fully aware of all of the optical pros and cons of the 50mm f/1.2L, but I will say this: Dollar for dollar, it doesn't compete with the 50mm f/1.4. And that's considering the noted flaws in THAT lens. I just don't seem images produced with it that would make me go out and drop that extra grand+.  However, I think we're both going to take a raft from the f/1.2L users on this forum...

Considering price to performance, the 50mm f/1.4 wins but then the f/1.8 might win that competition versus the f/1.4 as well.   

If given the choice of someone giving you the choice between the 50L and the 50 f/1.4 for free, I'm sure most people would pick the 50L.  When our own funds are on the line, then I'm sure many of the previous choices would change.  The 50L versus 50 non-L feels a bit more contentious perhaps because the options are closer in IQ than at other prime focal lengths (24, 35 or 85mm).  But if this rumor is true that the 50 f/1.4 replacement is going to be around 800, then the it'd change the ratios between those opting between the f/1.2, f/1.4 or nothing at all because at that point, Canon will stop making the current f/1.4 and prices will rise similarly to the 24-70 I's as inventory runs out and all that is left is the 24-70 II and 3rd party options.

431

Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]

« on: July 17, 2012, 10:53:14 PM »

There's no need to pump up on opinions. There are tons of reviews on the EF 50's. Virtually everyone identifies focus shift and border softness in the 50 1.2L. Photozone is pretty reliable: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d

In fact the 50 1.2L is not as sharp as the $369 50 1.4 at any aperture, and the borders never really sharpen up at any aperture.

What you get for an extra $1130 is a slightly improved bokeh, twice the weight, a loss of resolution across the board, and a red ring. Not a very good deal.

The 50L is as sharp as the 50 1.4 most everywhere and its AF is better.  The canon f/1.2 and f/1.4 have similar resolution and both do better overall (average of center and edge measurements) than the Sigma and Zeiss f/1.4 offerings.  TDP also found that the f/1.2 is the best option from f/1.2 to ~f/2.8.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

The nice thing I like about the lensrentals evaluation was that they used the same body.  Many reviews are done when the lenses are introduced with different bodies and comparing them can be more difficult.  I'm not defending the 50L's price, but it performs as well as any Canon-mount 50mm f/1.4 lens at large apertures (f/4 and larger).  I've used a canon 50 f/1.4 and the resolution was much worse from f/1.4 to f/2 (even after MFA).  Maybe it was the copy I was using, but it's AF accuracy was horrible from f/1.4 to f/2.  LiveView AF produced better results than phase-detect AF.

It's one thing to say that none of the fast Canon-mount 50mm primes from any manufacturer performs well outside of the center and that the canon f/1.2 and f/1.4 do well against the competition.  You can then argue whether or not f/1.2, the bokeh, build quality are worth the premium price.  That's fair.  But I'm don't think it's fair to say that the f/1.2 loses on resolution when there really isn't a better option at large apertures for Canon shooters.

432

Lenses / Re: Recommendations for vacation lenses and gear

« on: July 17, 2012, 06:34:17 PM »

+1
My wife has a method to curb excessive photography on my part while on vacation; when I start over shooting..she starts shopping

Those shots better be the best of our life for that price!   

433

Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]

« on: July 17, 2012, 03:38:32 PM »

And back to Topic: If its a 1.4 it must be stunning. Sharp to the edges at 1.4. Cause its price is really ugly

I can't see the new version being sharp to the edges wide open.  None of the fast 50s from Canon, Nikon, Sigma do that.  It Canon were to figure that out, it'd be an L for 2k+.

Besides the 50mm f/1.4, which other Canon lenses sell at a discount to their Sigma counterparts?  Even if the new 50 f/1.4 were to match Sigma's offering, Canon's price would still likely be higher than Sigma's by a couple hundred dollars, which puts it near the $600-700.

434

Lenses / Re: Canon 85 1.8 vs. Sigma 85 1.4

« on: July 17, 2012, 12:18:04 PM »

I rarely shoot with I servo (a few times when shooting high speed bikes on a track, and some testing with birds, otherwise I shoot AI Focus as a default (most of my shots are of people and things that hardly move). I have never microadjusted any lens on my camera, and have not seen the need...? That lens is the only one that I have struggled with, but as mentioned above, it works quite well with my borrowed 1Ds III. It could be as you suggest that microadjustment would solve it, and if I were to buy one I would have to do it. However I do not see myself buying one in the near future, since I just got my Siggy 85 1.4 which I am very happy with, and I have set my eyes on the new 24-70, and I would like to replace my 50 1.4 (just got it back from the shop) with the 1.2. Too many cool lenses, and not enough money:)

As a sidenot, although I love my Siggy 85 1.4, I have to say that the bokeh on the 85 1.2 seems more dreamy, or buttery, and color rendition is brilliant.

Then it was most likely a MFA issue.  The faster the lens, the more important it is.  I'd do it for all lenses f/2.8 or faster.  It's noticeable especialy if the adjustment is more than 2.  My 5DII seems to want every lens around +10.

435

Lenses / Re: New Canon 50mm Coming? [CR1]

« on: July 17, 2012, 09:17:58 AM »

For $849, I'd expect a 50 f/1.4 to either have Zeiss class build & IQ, or the abilities to make coffee and <self censored>

LOL!  AF is extra.