Messages

511

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.

512

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.

513

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.

514

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.

515

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?

516

Lenses / Re: Upgrade 70-200 2.8 is to version II and add 2x TC, or get 100-400L?

« on: May 31, 2012, 07:09:53 PM »

70-200II + TC, since you'll use it for your living.  Who knows, maybe the replacement for the 100-400 will be out when you're in position to get another lens.   

517

Lenses / Re: Italy Trip Lens Advice - wide angle

« on: May 30, 2012, 09:17:07 PM »

TSE-17 will do the job. Even on a cheap tripod (buy it there if need be)

+1.  Like the pics on your Flickr site, and I think you could doing really well with a 17 or 24 TS-E.  I find the 24mm focal length more versatile, but that is up to you and your shooting style.

518

Lenses / Re: Bokeh...is the look feeling dated?

« on: May 30, 2012, 12:35:31 PM »

Interestingly, I've been getting an increasing, though still very occasional request in a job brief for total depth of field...

Let us know when brides start requesting you to shoot with a Lytro plenoptic camera... 

had to look at that on the web - pretty cool concept.

I envision that one day, the digital cameras will take pictures in some sort of 3D vectorizing plane, allowing to choose the DOF in PP, just like it's possible to do with exposure, adjusting it thru lighting and curves parameters

It'd be nice if they could get it to work well at fast shutter speeds.  Want an HDR?  Just process 1 shot and let the software deal with the math from near to far.

519

Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III

« on: May 30, 2012, 07:41:22 AM »

The 100-400 is the longest Canon-made option that is still "portable." 

Do you mean physically long or long as in reach?

Either way I handshoot the 600mm for wildlife, but I would say the 500 f/4 II  is probably the longest in both areas that I would consider truly portable

I dont consider the 70-200 f/2.8 to be very large or heavy.

LOL!  I knew writing that sentence would bring you into the fray. 

I meant long in reach.  According to TDP, the 100-400 is about 3.5 lb, and the 70-200 is about 3.75 lb with ring and hood.  Above that focal length, the lenses get a bit heavier.  The 500, 600 and 800 are 7, 8.5 and 10 lb.  The 70-200 is also about 8 inches long, but the three telephoto primes are almost 2x as long or longer.

It's too bad that Canon does not offer smaller aperture options at the longest focal lengths like they do up to 400mm.  The Canon 300 f/4 is about $1400 and weighs about 2.5 lb while the Canon 300 f/2.8 is about $7300 and weighs about 5 lb.  What if they were to design smaller aperture lenses for 500 and 600mm?  They would be a lot more appealing at half the weight and less than 1/3 the price (300mm comparison is unfair because the 300 f/4 is a much older design)!  Imagine a 600mm lens at f/5.6 and 4.5 lb for $4000-5000!

520

Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III

« on: May 29, 2012, 11:02:25 PM »

The 70-200 f/2.8 II is big and heavy but it's manageable with a strap system.

It certainly might be manageable, but in the local zoo I can see owners of a 70-200/2.8+tc from afar because they use both arms to carry their camera. I just wouldn't have this and a flash hang from my wrist, that's why I've got the 70-300L.

LOL!  I carry it on a strap or mostly one-handed because the other is pushing a stroller or holding a kid's hand.  The 70-200 f/2.8 II is about a pound heavier (without the tripod ring) than the 70-300L.  I've never used the 70-300L, but the images from it look great and I'm sure the torque on the wrist is a lot less because its shorter (esp. at 70mm).  I was thinking about looking into the 300 f/4, but I like using zooms outside if the target distance is variable (like the zoo).  Instead, I got the 1.4x TC when it went on sale, and there isn't that much of a difference between 200 and 280 most of the time.  The 100-400 is the longest Canon-made option that is still "portable."  I'm hoping that the 100-400L replacement will be lighter than the current version because, right now, it only weighs a couple ounces less than the 70-200 f/2.8 II.

521

Lenses / Re: Are you going to "upgrade" your 24-70 2.8 I

« on: May 29, 2012, 10:25:26 PM »

I've been back and forth on this for months....buy V1 or spend a little more and get V2.  Now I have a new dilemma.  I use a Canon T2i.  Do I really want to spend that much on this lens when I could upgrade my camera to something like the 5D mrk ii?  Maybe I should buy a used V1 and save a little more and buy the camera too.

Depends on what you shoot.  If it's NOT sports-centric, then I suggest the 5DII.  IQ is better and you'd gain a stop or two at higher ISOs for the same level of noise.  You might not need a midrange zoom, especially if you have a telezoom and/or a wide-angle zoom.  Instead, you could get a fast prime, which comes in handy in low light situations.

I moved from a crop body to a 5DII earlier this year and sold my 17-55.  I did not replace it with a FF mid-range zoom but use a 50mm prime instead.  For anything longer, I'm using the 70-200.

522

Lenses / Re: EF 100mm Macro 2.8/L IS, or 100mm macro non-L + EF 85mm 1.8

« on: May 29, 2012, 01:06:25 PM »

If you're not planning on moving to FF any time soon, I would not recommend getting FF lenses just for compatibility down the road.  The 17-40L is used for FF landscapes, but your 17-50 is more versatile (faster, sharper, cheaper) than the 17-40L.

I would also suggest getting a 70-200L first before getting the macro/mid-focal length prime.  A 70-200L works well for outdoor situations once your daughter gets a little older, and it will allow you to replace the 18-200.  That will leave you with 3 very good lenses, 17-50, 50 f/1.4 and 70-200 (the gap between 50 and 70mm is not worth covering) that will cover almost all of your shooting needs.  There are many 70-200L variants, and it really depends on your style.  If money and weight are not big concerns, then the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is a great lens.  The f/4 versions are lighter and cheaper but also delivery excellent results.  If you get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, then the 100L becomes less appealing because you already have a great option at the focal length and you can save money by opting for the 100mm macro (non-L).  If you choose the f/4, then primes and the 100L make more sense because there is a larger separation between your primes and zooms.

Each person has their favorite portrait focal length.  I find I like 50-85mm on a full frame (35-50 on a crop), but you might like something longer.  If you like the 50 f/1.4 on the crop, I'd skip the 85 f/1.8 because that would be another lens to carry and you wouldn't use it much.  If you find the 50 f/1.4 too short, then by all means look at the 85 f/1.8. 

523

Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III

« on: May 28, 2012, 12:46:39 PM »

That's a very nice shot indeed briansquibb! Overall I'm happy with the lens, your advice was one of those which convinced me in the end :-)

Yeah Act, I agree that the main thing here is the f/5.6 at 300mm, and it's quite capable of delivering great results though. I'm sad to hear that 70-200 f/2.8 II is a pain to carry around though - I was looking forward to maybe getting it sometime in the future, but since it's impossible to walk all day with it... Then it appears like I've just saved myself some $2500 worth of equipment :-)

The 70-200 f/2.8 II is big and heavy but it's manageable with a strap system.  Took it with me to the Bronx Zoo with a 1.4x and used it all day.  It's a great lens for portraits and sports.  It's not ideal for the zoo (a bit short FF and a bit heavy), but the pictures are nice! =)

524

Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III

« on: May 28, 2012, 09:23:06 AM »

It sounds like the 70-300L will be a good fit for you.  If you planned on using it indoors a lot in dim situations, then the 70-200 II would be better.

525

Lenses / Re: Recommendation for landscape lens on 5DMk111.

« on: May 28, 2012, 09:18:03 AM »

I went to an EOS boutique and they recommended EF 16-35mm f/2.8L 11 USM. Any comments?

If you want AF and focal length versatility, then the 16-35L II is a great choice.  The TS-E 17 and 24 are both better than the 16-35L II, but they're both manual focus only and making the adjustments are much easier on a tripod.  If you're serious about landscapes, then a TS-E is the way to go.  If you want something for use when traveling and sightseeing, then the 16-35L II is a better choice.