Messages

16

EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop

« on: December 04, 2012, 05:58:18 AM »

Most helpful ever!
My problem is really the wide end, for I don't care much about reach. I mainly shoot people and landscapes and find myself often increasing ISO, and it's being hard to find some fast WA lens for APS-C. I considered getting  the 10-22, but it's not really fast for indoor use -- I'd have to push the ISO maybe a little too high for my 60D -- and would mean sticking to APS-C for a good while. I also thought about the 16-35, and although I could use some more reach for avoiding changing lenses, it's my plan B in case I don't go FF. (I guess the 17-40 L is just too slow for indoor use on a 60D.)
The thing is, I want a good, not-expensive-like-hell lens for better indoor, low-light shots. The 24-105 L sounds just perfect (I'm no pro), but its not as wide as I wish on my crop camera.
Probably FF is really the way to go, for indoor WA is just so damn difficult on crop.
Thank you very much for replying!

As an alternative to the 10-22 Canon, maybe you should give a try to the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, lots of people claim it's the best wide zoom for crop sensors.

17

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Pro's who use 5D MkII

« on: December 04, 2012, 05:13:19 AM »

Not exactly about photography, but the 5d2 and 7d were used to shoot some scenes on the movies Avengers and Captain America.

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2174309/canons-hdslrs-set-marvels-avengers

If it's good enough for Hollywood mega prods.......

18

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D pricing... so much difference worldwide

« on: December 03, 2012, 09:32:43 AM »

That's nothing compared to Adobe pricing :

Photoshop CS6 (download)

US : 669$ - 513€ - 416£

EU : 1060$ - 813€ - 660£

Must be the fees for international DSL rates 

19

EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop

« on: December 03, 2012, 09:16:42 AM »

I come from the film era, where 24x36mm was already considered small. When I made the jump from my Nikons F4 / F100 to the D70, later D200, I was mainly bothered by 3 things :

1- The cropped viewfinder made it like I was looking through a keyhole (this only is enough for me to stick with FF cameras).

2 - I use a lot wide angles, the only thing that could replace them was the 12-24mm f4 DX, that was a bit limited to say the less.

3 - Too much depth of field makes it more difficult to separate the subject from background and deal precisely with DoF.

I won't enter the very tech stuff about pixel size, high ISO. Since I am back with the format I was used to, I never looked at a crop camera again, but I am half considering to buy a used 550D (or 1100D) to serve as a luxury point and shoot.

20

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Pro's who use 5D MkII

« on: December 03, 2012, 06:38:44 AM »

The_Limper posted a link to Reuters pictures of the year, not only almost all are made with Canons, but you'll see a lot are made with 5D2s or 5D3s.

http://blogs.reuters.com/fullfocus/2012/11/30/best-photos-of-the-year-2012/#a=1

21

Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses

« on: December 03, 2012, 06:16:19 AM »

some wide angle lenses are needed

16-35 f/4 IS USM
however i'd love to have a canon 12-24 4-5.6 USM

+1, though I would refer a fixed aperture (like 12-24 f4L USM). One super wide prime would be good as well to fill the gap :

17mm f2.8 USM, as a cheaper and lighter alternative to the 17 TS-E.

22

Lenses / Re: tilt-shift question

« on: November 30, 2012, 07:00:41 AM »

Having the 17, 24 v2 and 90mm TS-E, I would recommend the 24mm for general use, the 17mm is much more specific, no filters, dangerously exposed front lens, a bit less sharp and slightly more distortion than the 24mm.

For food and product shots I would recommend the 90mm as well, you get 1/3 macro, sharper than the 45mm, and better, slightly compressed perspective, narrower angle of view makes it easier to get rid of disturbing background.

The 45mm would be more to shoot bigger items, like furniture.

23

Lenses / Re: Wide Angle on a Budget

« on: November 30, 2012, 05:23:05 AM »

Check out the 20 mm 2.8 or the 15 mm fisheye. Both Canon. Both in your price range. Both 2.8. Both can be considered "wide" on a 7D. I have no experience of these lenses. Maybe someone who has them can share...

I have the 15mm fisheye and though it's probably the best fisheye on the market for full frame, I would not recommend it on a crop sensor : you'll end with a 24mm equivalent with tons of distortion. The 20mm is probably not a very good solution either, some people hate it, some like it, but it's an old and big lens that'll give you only a 32mm equivalent, not very wide.

The only crop sensors I had were Nikons, but when I had to find a wide angle, I came to the conclusion that a dedicated crop sensor lens is the way to go. I had the 12-24mm f4, and it was an excellent lens.

Crop sensors are as good with tele lenses as they are problematic with wide angles. One of the important reasons for using full frame sensors is precisely when you need a choice of wide angles.

I would suggest you stick with the Canon 10-22mm or the Tokina 11-16mm that has an excellent reputation. You will have a real wide angle zoom, with much more flexibility than a fixed one. Even the Samyang 14mm would give you "only" a fixed 22mm with manual focus, compared to the equivalent 16mm of the Canon zoom.


My guess is the Canon would be bright enough with increased ISO (you can get a sharp picture with 1/15s), otherwise the Tokina is the way to go, IQ and built quality is excellent.

Edit : not that I am a big fan of Ken Rockwell, but you should nevertheless have a look at his review of the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

24

Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses

« on: November 29, 2012, 03:40:44 PM »

Just for the fun.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/telephotos/300mmedif20/index.htm

25

Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses

« on: November 29, 2012, 11:46:45 AM »

If they could make the same 135mm f2 with IS, I would be more than satisfied, I'm afraid the extra 1/3 of stop of a 1.8 version would only add weight, bulk, a larger filter size and 3 times the price. The new 135mm f2 IS when it comes will likely sell for 1899$ anyway.

Zeiss already make's a 135 F/1.8. It should be no big deal for canon. 

I guess it's no big deal, after all Nikon even had a 300mm f2 in the past; I just wonder if the extra 1/3 stop would justify all the negatives (weight, bulk, filter size, price).

26

Lenses / Re: Anyone longing for 45mm and 90mm TS-E replacement ?

« on: November 29, 2012, 11:43:25 AM »

Just to add, I got decent results with the 1.4x converter Mk2 on the 24mm (resulting focal +/- 34mm). I was almost considering to invest in the 2x converter Mk3 to get an equivalent 48mm, but the IQ loss and the resulting f7 aperture are far from ideal.

27

Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses

« on: November 29, 2012, 11:23:39 AM »

If they could make the same 135mm f2 with IS, I would be more than satisfied, I'm afraid the extra 1/3 of stop of a 1.8 version would only add weight, bulk, a larger filter size and 3 times the price. The new 135mm f2 IS when it comes will likely sell for 1899$ anyway.

28

Lenses / Anyone longing for 45mm and 90mm TS-E replacement ?

« on: November 29, 2012, 10:44:17 AM »

I just wondered if I am the only one longing for an upgrade of the 45mm and 90mm TS-E lenses.

I have the 17mm, 24mm Mk2, and 90mm, and I would have a good use for a 45mm TS-E. I tried one some time ago and was not so impressed by the optical quality, it's OK but far from stunning.

The separate tilt and shift of the 17 and 24 v2 add a lot of versatility to the lens. The 90mm is excellent but could use the same mechanical improvement, as well as a bit of extra sharpness and a 1:2 macro reproduction. The 45mm may be the only TS that's a bit less good than Nikon's equivalent, better IQ is needed.

With Canon refreshing the old EF 24,28 and 35mm, I think the 45 and 90TS-Es will be the oldest lenses in the catalogue (aside from the 50mm compact macro and the 135mm Soft Focus).

I wonder if I should buy the 45 TS-E now or wait for a replacement, that I hope will come soon.

29

EOS Bodies / Re: First Round of EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]

« on: November 29, 2012, 10:18:08 AM »

New design and battery.. WHY CANON, WHY?! But other specs looks nice, but I'll pass if I'm not getting good deal out of that one.

New batteries because too many cameras use the same battery and people have enough BP-E6 so they don't buy new ones. If you are a serious user, you want at least a spare one, that you have to buy separately. You cannot reuse the spare from your old camera anymore. A new accessory they can make money from.

Yes, but, batteries lose their potential life over time.  So even if you have a ton, they will have to be replaced at some point.  Plus, i'd bet their profit margin is a lot better on lenses!

I agree, but I guess there is no small profit. I wonder if the profit margin is not even bigger on small accessories, glass is expensive to manufacture, and you cannot compress to cost past a certain point.
On the other hand, when you see the price of lens caps, cables, flashes and hoods, the margin is huge. Not even talking about battery grips, WiFi and GPS accessories.

 I am very surprised how good and long lasting BP-E6s are. I can't remember when I needed more than 2 BP-E6 per day in my 5D2, and I use it sometimes all day long on tripod with live view all the time. After 3 years + of good service, they show only minimal capacity loss, I cannot say the same for my Thinkpad who needs a new battery every year. I have 3 BP-E6 to work, and I don't see the need for buying new ones yet.

30

Lenses / Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed

« on: November 29, 2012, 09:56:21 AM »

Don't let yourself disturb by other comments, you made the RIGHT choice. Forget about the 70-200mm f4, it's a nice lens, agreed, but it's for hobbyists and travellers. If you want to go pro, you need the f2.8 IS, period. You can afford smaller apertures on shorter lenses, or if you work on a tripod. Handheld you need 2.8 minimum on long lenses. Why do you think fashion pros go for the 200mm f2, or 300mm f2.8 ? They don't spend hard earned cash for the glory of it, it's because they NEED that extra stop for faster apertures and better background blur. In many occasions this extra stop will save your day, that's what you pay for, not for extra sharpness, contrast or whatever else. IS is helpful, but does not replace the right speed, nor the proper camera handling technique.

IMO it would make more sense to have the 50mm 1.4 and the 70-200mm 2.8 the the 50mm 1.2 and the 70-200 f4. My guess is, if you change your 70-200mm f2.8 for the f4 you will quickly regret it on one of your future assignments.

One side plus of the big lens, however stupid it might sound, is that your clients will be more impressed, since for most people pro equipment = pro photographer. People's mind is set in a way that if you show poorly dressed, come with a cheap used car, etc., you are not successful in your business, so you are not the one they should give their money to. I hate the rule, but it's how it works in a lot of businesses. So consider your new lens as an excellent business investment as well.

Synmar... you make a lot of great points!  I really appreciate your feedback!  Im lock onto solidly with my 2.8 IS II.  As ive been shooting mainly portraits with it the last couple days I really like the versatility of it and the quality of the images.  Shot some natural light portraits indoor and outdoor as well as dusk portrait shots and I couldnt be more happier.. 

The 135 may be great also but im quite happy with the 70-200mm.. no regrets keeping it..money well spent.

Thanks for your comment, I'm very glad I could be some help, I would be very surprised that you regret your choice in the future. Try to limit your investment before money starts flowing, I thing you have a fairly decent basic kit to start working. One very useful addition could be a 100mm f2.8 IS Macro, since zooms are not very good at close focusing, and you may need it for lots of close-up details (like wedding rings), and maybe later a 1.4x Mk3 converter that would nicely extend your zoom to a 100mm-280mm f4 (but the 1.4x is not so urgent). Do not spend all your money on glass though, you will need a lot of other things if you begin a photographer career (lighting equipment, back-up body, lots of memory cards, a decent computer and mainly a very good screen, one item that is often under-looked by many photographers).

I wish you good luck, enjoy your new zoom.