Messages

526

Lenses / Re: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 HELP

« on: May 14, 2012, 12:26:44 PM »

It's a great lens.  I had it for my crop camera for 4 years before switching to full frame.  I used it mostly wide open, and it works well for portraits.  The dust issue is overblown.  It has a more limited range than the 15-85 or 24-105, but the lack of range doesn't matter much if you're carrying a tele-zoom anyway (i.e. 70-200).

Its weaknesses are build quality and flare resistance.  It's not weather sealed, but I found that it worked fine for my uses.  Unless you plan on exposing it rain and dust storms, it should be fine.  It's not as tough as a typical L-lens, but it's not as fragile as the 50 f/1.4 either.  It's in between.  The lens is prone to flare when it is really bright outside depending on shooting direction, but I tended to compensate for it using exposure compensation and then fixing it post (but then your 7D's metering system is better than my old camera's).

I would skip both the 16-35 and the 17-40 unless you plan on moving FF soon (within a year or two).  The 17-55 is more versatile than either of those lenses, and it is optically superior to the 17-40 especially wide open.  Nikon's 14-24 is better than either 16-35 or 17-40, so I think there's a lot of room for improvement for the next versions of those lenses.  It would be a shame to spend more for FF compatibilty and then have Canon release a much better version when you finally make the move to FF.

527

Lenses / Re: 24-70 2.8L price jump? (not MM II)

« on: May 11, 2012, 07:13:38 PM »

Lens prices go up over time in the long run.  This last December/January had the best prices in years, so that 1300 comparison point was low (trendwise).  Plus, Canon is probably conditioning folks to think of the Mark II as a 700 upgrade to the Mark I by pushing the price higher.

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/00043/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f2.8L-USM-price.html

If you check out the above link, J&R has it for 1399.  It's back-ordered, but it's still 1399.

528

Lenses / Re: 100-400mm vs. 70-300L for basically the same exact price used? Which one?

« on: May 11, 2012, 05:52:53 PM »

The 100-400 makes more sense because you are distance limited.

529

Lenses / Re: What can tilt-shift lenses do that post-production cannot?

« on: May 11, 2012, 03:59:20 PM »

Sort of....  Lens correction profiles exist for 14L II, but not for TS-Es.  The body doesn't know how much the lens has been tilted, shifted and rotated, and light fall off and distortion increase the larger the adjustments are made from the center position.

I think the point was that the TS-E will natively produce results better than an LR-corrected shot with the 14mm lens (not about correcting the TS-E shots with LR).

I agree that the TS-E would produce better results at zero-settings.  At large tilt and shift settings, the image degrades at the edges/corners closest to the edge even after stopping down.  I was trying to remark that fixing that type of distortion is difficult because there are no automatic software settings or profiles.  Granted, the image is no longer the same as a non-tilt/shifted image, but I'm imagining it could be concern if you're interested in panoramas (i.e. a lateral 360 from a canyon floor or in a city's downtown).

Disclaimer:  I have zero experience with panoramas/photo stitching but hope to start sometime this year.

530

Lenses / Re: What can tilt-shift lenses do that post-production cannot?

« on: May 11, 2012, 02:32:30 PM »

if its distortion that you wish to avoid then any TSE lens is the way to go. when properly used, they are designed to minimize disortion. im not sure the 14mm wont suffer from the same distortion you find displeasing in the 16-35mm. i'm not certain as i haven't used the 14mm but i am very aware of the 16-35mm characteristics.

You will still see distortion in the 14mm. I've tried it, and it's definitely there. It mostly can be corrected with LR's lens correction, but still probably not as great as a good tilt-shift lens like the 17mm or 24mm.

Sort of....  Lens correction profiles exist for 14L II, but not for TS-Es.  The body doesn't know how much the lens has been tilted, shifted and rotated, and light fall off and distortion increase the larger the adjustments are made from the center position.

531

EOS Bodies / Re: Help with Camera decisions

« on: May 11, 2012, 02:23:35 PM »

If you combine the 7D with the 5Dii you get the 5Diii!

At almost the 5DII + 7D price.   

532

Lenses / Re: Selling Lenses to Adorama Used Store

« on: May 10, 2012, 11:36:04 PM »

It depends on the demand of the lens that you're trying to sell.  I tried selling an ef-s 17-55mm f/2.8 IS in excellent shape.  They list used lenses of that condition for 800+.  They told me they had dozens of that lens, and the the prices were soft, so they offered me much less than 70% retail value.  They said they rated it as E/E+ but then offered me 70% off a value of 750 = 525.  I had them send it back and sold it on Ebay for about 750 net after listing fees, shipping etc.  YMMV.

533

Lenses / Re: 24-70 & 70-200 = different versions of 70mm

« on: May 10, 2012, 03:12:14 PM »

Pretty normal.  The designed focal length of lens does not match what is printed on the lens/box exactly -- it is rounded.  If you look on this site, you'll see it on the patent applications (focal length and f stops).

Another factor is that zooms typically have different focal lengths based on how far the focus point is from the camera.  The closer the focal plane, the more focal length you lose.  Focal lengths are typically measured at focus at infinity.

534

Lenses / Re: What can tilt-shift lenses do that post-production cannot?

« on: May 10, 2012, 07:56:02 AM »

Apart from the converging parallels the TSE gives the ability to move the focus plane such that, say, it is 45degrees from the vertical, allowing you to take an in focus picture with almost unlimited DOF whilst being wide open

Also as a prime wa, the 17 and 24 TS-E are very very sharp

+1.  The more you have to correct for buildings "falling over," the more you source data you lose from having to stretch a portion of your source file.  The shift function can eliminate or minimize that effect and can help maximize the number of pixels you have on your "subject."  With a normal lens, you might have to change the angle to keep the subject vertical lines vertical, which might give you too much background/foreground that has to be cropped out.

Tilting the focal plane is not something that can be done in PP.  You can't make an OOF area more in focus.  Let's say you take a picture of a deck or sidewalk from where you are on the ground to the horizon.  A regular lens will have a portion of it OOF closest to the camera because of its DOF even if shooting at f/11 or smaller.  With a TS lens, you can shift the focal plane so that it is parallel to the deck/sidewalk and still shoot at f/4 (max aperture).  The sidewalk with lay completely within the focal plane even though the DOF is thin, but the DOF effect can't be seen because there isn't anything on top of the deck/sidewalk.

What it comes down to is how you want to shoot.  Tilting the focal plane is hard handheld b/c you'll be trying to hold the camera steady while checking the focal plane magnified in LV, so it'll require a tripod to do it precisely.  Shifting can be done handheld pretty easily.  If your primary WA shots is of buildings and architecture, go with the TS-E 17mm.  If your primary WA shots is of nature, then vertical lines being vertical doesn't matter as much and the 14mm is much more portable (smaller and doesn't require a tripod) and has AF.

535

Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm 1.8 MK1 and 85mm 1.8

« on: May 10, 2012, 07:18:04 AM »

50 f/1.4.  You can always crop but you can't make the lens wider.  The 50 f/1.4 weighs 5 oz more than the 50 f/1.8, but on a 5DII, you're probably not going to notice the weight difference much -- in fact, the 50 f/1.4 would probably feel more "balanced."

536

Lenses / Re: What to do??? 24-70 2.8L version 1

« on: May 08, 2012, 03:59:27 PM »

I think I would be more comfortable buying new rather than used or refurbished.  Do you think if I wait a few weeks they might have a rebate going that would save me a couple hundred?

The current rebates end at June 2 (which does not include the 24-70).  By that time, the 24-70II "should" be out.  I don't see why Canon would give rebates for a lens that they are discontinuing.  By offering rebates on version 1, they might be cannibalizing their own version II sales.

537

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70L vs primes (24L, 35L etc)

« on: May 08, 2012, 09:05:40 AM »

There's no big center sharpness difference between 35L & 24-70 @f4, at f2.8 it's small. I'll shoot portraits & maybe events/weddings with the lens. Thus my question is: How often do you really use the f1.4 to f2.8 range on the 35L, or do you have it mainly for the stellar iq?

I use the f/1.4 to f/2.8 range most of the time I'm using the 35L, which is mostly used indoors.  I switched from a cropy body to FF recently and sold my 17-55.  I did not replace the 17-55 with a FF mid-range zoom, so now I'm using primes (35 and 50).  Outside, I tend to use the 50 more often because there is more space and it gives a longer working distance.

I'm tempted to see how well the 24-70L II performs.  With 35 and 50 primes, I gain low light capability that I won't have with the 24-70L II and the IQ should be similar, so I don't need a midrange zoom anymore.

538

Lenses / Re: What to do??? 24-70 2.8L version 1

« on: May 07, 2012, 09:53:01 PM »

I'd try the Canon store.  The price for a refurbished unit is 1119.20 + tax.  They are currently out of stock, but they should have it back in stock in the new few days/weeks.  The price is even better when the store runs a sale from time to time.  A Canon refurbished product also has a 90 day warranty.  Right now the new units don't have a rebate, hence the higher price.

539

Lenses / Re: 5D MKIII w 70-200 2.8II using a 1.4x vs 2x extender

« on: May 07, 2012, 09:42:37 PM »

You have bought yourself a brilliant combination there. Why don't you wait and see how often you need more reach? There is always the walking zoom to get in closer when 200mm isn't quite enough. For nice balance in the hand spend a few hundred dollars on the vertical battery grip when they eventually start shipping.

The 70-200 is so good optically you shouldn't see a great deal of IQ degradation when using the x1.4 extender, though you do lose a stop, giving you 280mm at f/4. The 2x extender robs another stop and further, slight degradation. So you're down to 400mm at f/5.6. And with either extender you'll also collect a drop in AF performance. Extenders are a compromise. Valid reasons for using extenders are financial plus the fact that they take up very little room in the bag.

Read up here on the extenders:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-2x-II-Teleconverter-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-1.4x-III-Review.aspx

Personally I'm not a great fan of extenders but others will sing their praises. When I get my FF 1DX I'll probably get a 400 f/2.8 as my 300 f/2.8 will lose the reach I currently have with the x1.3 APS-H 1D Mk4. A x1.4 extender on the 300 will give me 420mm but at f/4 and with reduced AF horsepower.

Paul Wright

+1.  Got the 1.4x III when I moved full-frame to compensate for losing the 1.6x crop factor.  IQ takes a very slight hit, but AF speed was affected more than I expected.  I use it 1.4x III primary at places like the zoo or for outdoor sports.  Still cheaper and lighter than getting another longer lens.

540

Lenses / Re: Canon Refurb Store ... Not Such A Good Deal

« on: May 07, 2012, 06:58:31 PM »

I am wondering how long it will take before the mk III shows up?

I'm wondering about that too.  Imagine snagging one with a 20% sale!