Messages

496

Lenses / Re: Which 3 Primes to go for. Your advice will be appreciated

« on: June 05, 2012, 07:37:39 AM »

For ambient light indoor portraits, faster lenses are really helpful -- f/2.8 is too slow when the light is dim.  Take your pick amongst the 35L, 50L or 85L based on your preferred focal length.  All three are great lenses.

Even if this might be contrary to some enthusiast's view "larger aperture is always better" ... is the 85L with a large open aperture really a fix for noisy sensors at bad lighting indoors?

This might be the case with the wider-angle 35L, but afaik the depth of field of the 85L is so thin (and f2.8 on my 100mm or f1.8 on 50mm is thin to begin with) that it's great for carefully composed artistic portraits, but it is a bit misleading to suggest for your average indoors (or portrait) shot "f2.8 with IS too slow? Just take f1.2!".

Sometimes you just don't have a choice because you can't control the lighting.  Shot my kids preschool show last night using a 70-200 f/2.8 on a 5DII at ISO 3200 and was only getting shutter times of about 1/30-1/60s most of the time.  I was in the second row, but the stage is large, so I couldn't use my fast 50mm prime, and my flash won't reach well.  If I'm only concerned about one subject, I'd gladly trade thinner DOF for speed.  Zooms give you composing options, primes give you DOF/shutter speed options.  It is up to the user to make that trade to determine what setting combination will produce the desired effect.

497

Lenses / Re: Canon 35f1.4L vs Zeiss 35f1.4 ZE

« on: June 04, 2012, 11:44:38 PM »

The Canon is a great lens, but according to TDP, the Zeiss is slightly sharper from f/1.4 to about 2.8, where the Canon catches up to the Zeiss in sharpness.  I got the 35L because I wanted AF and use it mostly taking pictures of family, especially kids that are almost always on the move.

If you are looking to make a decision soon and are willing to work with a MF lens, then the Ziess is the way to go.  But of course, everything could change when/if Canon comes out with the 35L II.

498

Lenses / Re: lenshood showing up at wide setting on EF10-22

« on: June 04, 2012, 10:09:07 PM »

Both 10-22mm and 17-40mm use the EW-83E.

It should not vignette (mine certainly didn't), provided it's mounted correctly.

+1. 

499

Lenses / Re: Buying/Selling/Renting Lenses

« on: June 04, 2012, 02:42:30 PM »

I wouldn't dismiss Ebay so easily.  I tried selling an item (ef-s 17-55) for the first time last month, and it took me about an hour to set up the page.  Assuming you buy it used/refurbished and sell it for the same price, you'd lose about 12% due to Ebay/Paypal fees, which would be covered by a 2-3 week rental.  You could do better on other sites, but at least there is some protection with Ebay.

I would not take this advice.  Reason being is that if you are new to eBay and have no feedback (or very little feedback) you will not get the same selling price as more established and trusted sellers.  My auctions go for good prices because I time the close of the auction well, have excellent feedback (100% and 90 star rating), and have very well lit and detailed photos in the auction.  If it weren't for my good feedback, my auctions would probably close at prices 20-30% lower.

The buyer protection program has changed the risk calculation and has made Ebay a lot more attractive for selling high value items.  Sure, you might lose on shipping cost, but it limits financial loss.  I joined Ebay when it came out in the 90s, bought low value stuff and only recently used it to buy camera equipment.  There is no way that I would buy high value items without the buyer protection plan in place.  I've bought dozens of items over the years and sold my first item last month.  My "feedback" rating was a 9.  I rarely leave feedback and generally people don't leave for my transactions either.  In fact, I more likely believe listing stories of those that have moderate ratings numbers.  High numbers indicate people that buy/sell as a business.  Would you believe someone that says they are the sole owner of a lens when he has multiple lenses for sale, and has ratings in the hundreds? 

High feedback ratings means less now that Ebay has limited the financial loss.  You just have to make sure that you ship insured with signature confirmation, but that is spelled out in their seller guidelines.

I also did not say that you should not have good pictures of the product.  That goes without saying, but it is not inaccurate to say that it takes about an hour to set up a seller transaction for the first time because I did it.  I got a competitive price for my listing.  Ebay has created a "safe" marketplace for people.  You can get more value by selling/buying on Ebay rather than buying/selling to places like Adorama.  I tried selling it Adorama first, but they offered a price that is hundreds of dollars less that my net (auction price less Ebay/Palpay fees).  You might be able to better on Craigslist or some other site, but neither of those methods have any transaction protections.

500

Lenses / Re: Which 3 Primes to go for. Your advice will be appreciated

« on: June 04, 2012, 10:51:40 AM »

Thanks to every one, for the extremely valuable advice
I wouldn't mind more, so please keep them coming

There seems to be a recurrent theme emerging
- The EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM (launched 2001)
- The EF 100 f/2.8L Macro IS USM (launched 2009)

I am taking everyone's advice on board, and my final lens's choice will probably be somewhat different from what I was initially considering

For ambient light indoor portraits, faster lenses are really helpful -- f/2.8 is too slow when the light is dim.  Take your pick amongst the 35L, 50L or 85L based on your preferred focal length.  All three are great lenses.

I love the 70-200 for sports and portraits in good light, but it is large and heavy (3.75 lb).  If you had a higher emphasis on sports (less than 5%), I'd suggest the 70-200.  However, if you value weigtht and discretion, another option might be better for you.  It really comes down to a trade amongst weight, cost and discretion.

501

Lenses / Re: Which wide angle lens for 60D

« on: June 02, 2012, 11:36:26 PM »

I realize I will need a ND filter most of the time so I am going to bite the bullet and buy the Heliopan 77mm Variable Gray ND Filter.

I'd get 1-2 standard ND filters instead, perhaps a 3-stop and 6-stop.  A variable ND filter is actually a pair of stacked polarizers, and related to the uneven polarization you get with a CPL on an ultrawide lens (<24mm FF-equivalent), a variND produces a 'Maltese cross' artifact with an ultrawide AoV, especially at the darker settings.

True.  I tested a 11-stop Schneider variable ND filter on a 24mm lens (my widest lens that accepts a screw-on filter) and was able to get a couple stops before banding set in (while trying to get banding by aiming the camera at large sections of sky).  At 200mm, I was able to get about 6 stops before the same phenomenon set in. 

502

Lenses / Re: Can a UV filter affect IQ (sharpness) on a lens?

« on: June 02, 2012, 11:24:59 PM »

Used a Canon and a B+W filter on my 17-55 and never had an issue with either of them.  I'd suggest trying another filter brand (at a camera store or a friend's) just to see if it is a lens issue or not.  Tolerance stack ups vary from lens to lens, so yours might be more sensitive naturally to filter variation.  Another consideration is that longer lenses have longer focal lengths which may lessen the impact of bad filter.  There are many videos showing that lenses with slightly damaged front elements don't perform noticeably different than those with perfect front elements.  However, at the shortest focal lengths (i.e. fisheyes), dirt on the front element can be visible.  You might be able to test this hypothesis by seeing if the image IQ hit is worse at the wide end than the tele end, but in any case, I'd suggest trying another filter.

503

Lenses / Re: Best (Recommended) ways to clean your lenses?

« on: June 02, 2012, 11:08:23 PM »

I find that a rocket blower, a lenspen and a microfiber cloth work well for me.  The rocket blower works well to remove dust, but for more persistent dirt or smudges, I use a lenspen or a microfiber cloth and then the lenspen.

504

Lenses / Re: Which 3 Primes to go for. Your advice will be appreciated

« on: June 02, 2012, 11:00:20 PM »

Based on your max budget of 14L II + 85L II + 180L, I'm suggesting 4 lenses which would be less than your max budget:  16-35L II, 50L, 100L and 135L + TC (optional).

The 16-35L II is much more versatile for landscape, architecture and indoor use (and less expensive) than the 14L II.  The 24L II is a great lens, but it might not be wide enough if you're constrained for space.  The decision between the 50L and the 85L II is based more on what you prefer than anything else.  I find the 85L II to be sharper wide open and is great for patient subjects, but I find the 50L to be much more versatile.  It focuses much quicker than the 85L II (chasing kids) but is a little softer wide open.  Plus the 85mm focal length is too close the 100mm that I would recommend as a macro.  The 100L works well for portraits as well being a great macro lens.  The 135L would be used for tight portraits and sports and it takes Canon TCs, thereby extending your kit's focal length range.

505

Lenses / Re: Best general purpose lens?

« on: June 02, 2012, 05:49:12 PM »

17-55mm assuming you mean for an APS-C body.  A general purpose zoom should cover wide to short tele, and 24mm on APS-C is normal, not wide.

+1.  It was my most used lens on a crop body.

506

Lenses / Re: Buying/Selling/Renting Lenses

« on: June 01, 2012, 05:13:00 PM »

I wouldn't dismiss Ebay so easily.  I tried selling an item (ef-s 17-55) for the first time last month, and it took me about an hour to set up the page.  Assuming you buy it used/refurbished and sell it for the same price, you'd lose about 12% due to Ebay/Paypal fees, which would be covered by a 2-3 week rental.  You could do better on other sites, but at least there is some protection with Ebay.

507

Lenses / Re: 400mm f/4. Anything good and "affordable"?

« on: June 01, 2012, 05:04:29 PM »

After doing lots of research, I've failed to get excited about the illusive good, affordable 400 f/4 lens.  It's curious why Canon has not updated the aging 300 f/4 L IS (only 2 stops) and 400 f/5.6L, and those are not exactly cheap, either.

That is one reason to wait for the 100-400L replacement.  Even if it is priced at 2500, it will still be less costly than the 300 f/4 and the 400 f/5.6 combined, and should deliver better IQ too.

With the 100-400 ending at 400mm at f/5.6, it doesn't make sense to have a 400mm f/5.6 prime.  Perhaps Canon should introduce a 400mm f/4 prime instead.  Will it be expensive -- absolutely, but a lot less than the +10k 500mm or 600mm primes and only a stop slower with an 1.4x.

508

Lenses / Re: Would Canon produce new 28/1.8?

« on: June 01, 2012, 04:57:00 PM »

I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the EFS lens could be smaller/have less glass than an EF and would cost less to produce. I own both the 10-22 and the 60mm. I don't know why the former costs about 5% more than its FF counterpart, but the latter is 25% less. And an EFS 17-55 is much cheaper than an EF 24-70mm, at almost 50% less.

Yes, those three comparisons are against L glass.  But that brings up a point.  You wrote:

To me, inexpensive does not equal $450+. I'm thinking more along the lines of the 50/1.8.  It is cheap and fast and sharp (but too long to be normal on a crop sensor). LOTS of people are happily buying and using this lens, despite the build quality. The vast majority are probably using them on crop sensor cameras, if that matters.

The reduced APS-C size gives an advantage for designing wide angle lenses.  At telephoto focal lengths, the effective aperature is already much larger than the sensor size.  This is why why see so many crop body ultrawides.  The EF-S telephoto zooms (i.e. 50-250) keep their small physical size by keeping a small variable aperture range.

The aperture of the 10-22 may be smaller than the 16-35L, but it's performance is closer to the 16-35L than the 17-40L.

Better example: Nikon makes a modern 35/1.8 lens that is only $199, so why can't Canon make a modern 30mm-ish f/1.8-ish lens at the same price point?. The closest they have is the older, slower 35/2 that costs over 50% more than Nikon's.

Canon probably can't make enough money on it to make it worthwhile.  Companies are resource constrained and try to maximize profit.  R&D and changing tooling is expensive.  The ROI for the 35/2 replacement probably is not high enough for Canon to consider it to be a high priority.

509

Lenses / Re: Going full frame and needing more reach. Suggestions please?

« on: June 01, 2012, 12:58:45 PM »

You should try the 1.4x III first.  There isn't a big difference between 280 and 320mm, and if the 70-200 worked well on a crop body for you, then a FF + 1.4x III should work well for you.

The AF speed takes a hit, but it's still pretty good on the 70-200.  Racking from MFD to infinity takes longer, but that doesn't happen in most situations unless the light and subject contrast is really poor.  For most subject to camera distance changes, the AF speed is fine.  The fact that you're considering a prime suggests that your subject distance to the camera is not changing very quickly.  Pixel-peeping, there is not a big difference in IQ between the 70-200 and the 70-200 + 1.4x and is definitely better than cropping.

510

Lenses / Re: Would Canon produce new 28/1.8?

« on: June 01, 2012, 12:38:29 PM »

I'm still waiting for an inexpensive fast normal prime to use on crop sensor cameras.  < holding breath after many years > Comparable to the 50mm f/1.8, but EFS. 

Canon made the new 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses that are clearly geared toward video users (and not cheap!), but they continue to ignore all the many existing 7D, xxD, and Rebel customers.

Did you look at the Sigma 30mm DC f/1.4?