Messages

451

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D and 5D II that different?

« on: August 08, 2012, 03:09:46 PM »

The larger pixels of the 5DII mean you can stop down further before diffraction begins costing you sharpness in your landscape shots.

If you consider equivalence, you'd need to stop down the 5D2 shots more than on the 7D to get the same depth of field, assuming you have already use the correct focal lengths for the same field of view. So there is no benefit to the 5D2 there. If anything, if you're going pixel peeping, the 5D2 would then be worse for diffraction since it has more of them.

Even for noise, still considering strict equivalence, the 7D is generally superior to me since when you go fishing in the shadows it is less prone to show banding. The only benefit I see for picking a 5D2 over a 7D is if you need the shallower depth of field that can be attained with lenses that exist.

The other apparent advantages of a bigger sensor only come into play if you don't need or care about strict equivalence.

Why would one shoot strictly for equivalence?  FF gives you the option for shallow DOF and faster shutter speed.  Given a trade between faster shutter speed and shallower DOF versus not getting the shot due to blur, I'd choose faster shutter speed and shallower DOF.  I'd rather shoot a 5DII at ISO 3200 in a dark auditorium rather than a 7D at ISO 3200.  The same lenses will also result in higher resolution (lp per image height) on a larger sensor.

452

Lenses / Re: lens recommendations for a vacation

« on: August 08, 2012, 02:33:36 PM »

I would add the 24-105L and would consider not bringing the monopod unless you have a specific situation that you know you'll need it, but ultimately you'd have to bring the gear to fit your style of shooting.  I would find the gap between 14 and 50 too large and would supplement it with the 24-105 to fill in the gap.  And yes, you should definitely get a second battery!

453

Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2 vs 35mm 1.4

« on: August 05, 2012, 08:58:52 PM »

Used the 35 on a crop sensor, and then added a used 50 when I moved to FF.  The 35 is sharper wide open then the 50.  The 35 is not weatherized like the 50, but that's not a feature that I require.  I used to have a general purpose zoom (17-55) on the crop sensor, but I sold it to switch to FF and never replaced it with a 24-70/24-105 so I exclusively use primes for the midrange.  I tend to use the 50 more because it slots nicely between the wide angle and telephoto zooms.

If you're happy with the 50L, then stay with it.  It might be hard to downgrade to the 1.4 or 1.8.

If you prefer the 35mm FL, then go for the 35L now.  It's a great lens.  It's an older design but is still sharp.  The new Ziess is sharper according to TDP, but the Ziess is MF only and costs a bit more.  I expect that the 35L II will similarly cost more when it comes out.

454

Lenses / Re: Lens Recomendation

« on: August 05, 2012, 11:41:59 AM »

How about wide angle lens, I bought 7D with 17-55 F2.8 which fill all my needs from lens for this moment. So what I'm asking is which one should I get for 7D, EF-S 10-22 or EF 16-35 F2.8L II?

You have 17mm on the wide end now, and you're considering the 16-35 II?  You realize you'd be paying over $1500 for an extra 1mm on the wide end?!?  Get the 10-22mm, which is ultrawide on the 7D. The 16-35 only makes sense as a FF body if you're looking for a UWA zoom.

I fear you may me suffering from the (unfortunately common) misapprehension that EF-S lenses have focal lengths that are somehow 'adjusted' for the APS-C sensor - they aren't.

+ 1.  Had the 10-22 when I had the crop camera and works well.  Other choices to consider are Sigma's 8-16 if you want something even wider or Tokina's 11-16 f/2.8.

455

Lenses / Re: Lens Recomendation

« on: August 05, 2012, 07:51:56 AM »

If you're going for an APS-C camera, I would recommend the ef-s 17-55, and if you're going for FF, then the 24-105 is fine or the 24-70 II if you can afford it.

Had a crop camera for 6 years and the 17-55 was a mainstay on it.  Sold it when I moved to FF for a slight loss, but f/2.8 is the minimum that should be considered for indoor available light photography.  The wide end of the 24-105 is too long for many APS-C users and the crop cameras are more susceptible to noise at high ISOs, which makes the 24-105 less ideal for indoor purposes.  The new copies of the 24-70 I are too costly, and version II is even more than that.

456

Lenses / Re: Another help me pick a lens yay...35L or 24-105L

« on: August 05, 2012, 07:37:28 AM »

He asks the question, should I get the 35L (which I LOVE!) or the 24-105L?  Remember, he loves the 35L on his camera, which is APS-C.  Did anyone catch that point?

So, even though we're asking an A or B question, nobody chooses A or B.

NNNNNKay, that aside, why not answer his question.  For your camera, I'd get the 24-105L instead of the 35L.  See, that was easy.

For a guy who is just beginning to build his lens kit up, no way I'd buy a 16-35L over the 24-105L.  Too much money and too specific.  You always go general first, then specific.

Hmmm... if you read his second post, he's also considering moving FF.  Why get the 24-105 outside of the kit?  That's usually a poorer value proposition.  The reason why you see so many recommendations is because you can't cover what he wants to do with one lens:  landscape, portraits and indoor events.  For indoor events, 24-105 may be too slow; for landscape 24-105 may be too long on a crop.  The 35L would be a great solution for low light, but he also already has the nifty fifty, so neither of his choices would get him very far for all three goals.

457

Lenses / Re: Another help me pick a lens yay...35L or 24-105L

« on: August 04, 2012, 07:02:01 AM »

What you should consider is what your kit would be after getting 1 lens now and another next year.  It looks like you favor the wider FLs.  You could consider the following combinations:

1.  10-22 / 17-55 or 15-85/ nifty fifty
2.  10-22 / 35L / nifty fifty

The first option would give you the uwa range for landscapes and a good walk-around lens.  The choice between the 17-55 and 15-85 comes down to trading focal length range for about a stop.  Something like the second option would give you more low light/shallow DOF flexibility.  I prefer having the wider side of the 17-55 and an extra stop compared to the longer side of the 24-105, but that decision is up to you.  Having a 70-200 or 70-300 at the longer end makes the longer end of the 24-105 less critical.

458

Lenses / Re: New Tilt-Shifts in 2013? [CR1]

« on: August 02, 2012, 04:57:13 PM »

Get a 1.3 crop body instead of the 1.4

Why? A 1.4 TC is thousands of dollars cheaper and much lighter and the fractional dip in IQ isn't noticeable even in big prints.

You keep saying the same thing, "use a 1D MkIV", "get a 1.3 crop body", there is absolutely no need to.

The TC does cost you a stop that the crop body doesn't.  It's a trade between the crop factor, noise (affected by the generation of the sensor and pixel density), etc.

459

Lenses / Re: Filters

« on: August 02, 2012, 04:53:01 PM »

Hi, i would like to ask what is the different between B+W F-Pro and B+W XS-Pro.
i only know that XS-PRO has tinner frame. Are Both have the same image quality and both has coating which easy to clean ?

F-Pro vs. XS-Pro refers only to the mount.  F-Pro is 5mm thick (except CPL), XS-Pro is 3.4mm thick.  The coating is identified by the designation of MRC (multi-resistant coating), Nano (MRC with slightly greater light transmission), or the lack of such a designation (which means single coated or uncoated).

The XS-Pros might be nanocoated by default.

460

Lenses / Re: Canon USA Announces EF 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm L IS II Lens Firmware Version 1.1.1

« on: August 02, 2012, 01:22:28 PM »

I wouldn't necessarily call it a quality assurance issue. Canon has just developed a brand new 61pt AF system and drive in their new pro bodies that has some advanced capabilities not previously used. Seeing as all of these lenses were designed and announced well before the 1D X was even announced, let alone released, its not surprising they have an update to these lenses that would fully support their new AF system.

+1.  At least Canon is willing to update/fix these issues when new technologies/products are introduced.  3rd party manufactuers can also run into these issues as well, but how often would they acknowledge and fix the issue?

461

Lenses / Re: Filters

« on: August 02, 2012, 01:19:25 PM »

No - pick UV or clear, for a dSLR there's no difference (UV helped with film, CMOS sensors are basically insensitive to UV).

+1, whichever is less expensive.

The XS-Pro clear is cheaper than the UV. You thought it should be opposite. Anyway, I will return my slim-line and pick up a XS-Pro.

No, I didn't say which would be cheaper, I said pick whichever one is cheaper.  Some online merchants only carry one or the other and their prices might be lower than brick-and-mortar stores that carry both.

462

Lenses / Re: Filters

« on: August 02, 2012, 12:44:17 PM »

No - pick UV or clear, for a dSLR there's no difference (UV helped with film, CMOS sensors are basically insensitive to UV).

+1, whichever is less expensive.

463

Lenses / Re: What lens(es) should I consider for next purchase?

« on: July 31, 2012, 12:22:07 PM »

What about the TSE 24mm, what will I be able to do that I cannot with a 24-70mk.ii ?

It's an ideal lens for architecture and landscapes, but it does not have AF.  Different style of photography.  To get best use out of it, you'll need a tripod and time.  Shift can be done on the fly to help correct verticals, but tilting is much harder esp. when you're trying to verify the focus plane using liveview (hence the tripod).

The TSE-24's IQ (esp sharpness) is better than other the current canon lenses (16-35L II, 24L II, etc.).  After trying a good tilt shift, it makes the zooms and primes look muddy or blurry.

464

Lenses / Re: What lens(es) should I consider for next purchase?

« on: July 30, 2012, 02:35:19 PM »

Do you guys thing the IQ of the 24-70ii will be on par with the 70-200ii?

The MTFs on Canon's website indicate it should (direct comparison at 70mm).

465

Lenses / Re: New Tilt-Shifts in 2013? [CR1]

« on: July 29, 2012, 02:50:44 PM »

The EF 90mm f/2.8 TS-E is the sharpest lens that Canon makes. Please, please, please don't DOWNGRADE it to a "L" lens. All the Red Ring will do is raise the price, it certainly won't improve the optics.

It would be nice to have that extra rotation between the tilt and shift elements like they have on the 17 and 24mm versions.