Messages

76

Lenses / Re: What lenses are good enough for the 18mp APS-C sensor? 1000$ limit :)

« on: February 06, 2013, 11:32:18 AM »

I am reading up a lot on this, preparing for purchasing a 7D classic, and everyone seems to agree that the 18mp APS-C sensor is capable of excellent results, providing it is paired with a "good enough lens".

So, my question is: Which lenses ARE good enough for the 18mp APS-C sensor?

Which lenses are good enough (sharp and resolving power) for the 18mp APS-C sensor, below 1000$?

Are you concerned that an 18mp crop sensor will show up flaws in your lenses because your camera has a sensor that's inferior in some way (or will this be your first DSLR?)?  Or are you trying to find lenses that will maximize the potential the sensor has to conjure up sharp photos?  (One could also flip your question around: are lenses whose performance would be wasted on a 7D because they need, say, a FF sensor to show them off, so you would be wasting your money on them?) 

If your concern is with maximizing sharpness, you might as well just look at various resolution comparisons and charts of the sort you'll find at The Digital Picture, photozone, lenstip, etc.  Almost all Canon's primes are very sharp in the center, including the cheapest (their flaws tend to be confined to edges and corners and thus are much less in evidence, if at all, on crop-sensor cameras), and so are some of their cheaper zooms; plenty of superb photos have been taken with the 50mm 1.8....

But assuming you already have a lens or three, why don't you use them on your 7D and see how they perform?  If you're not satisfied, note their deficiencies and then come back and ask if there are better alternatives. But you may be pleasantly surprised. Plus, as others have noted, depending on how you view your photos and how critical your eye is, you may often conclude that the differences among lenses is exaggerated.   

77

Lenses / Re: Sigma lens for birding?

« on: February 06, 2013, 10:07:30 AM »

there can be only one!

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=64

Sure, why not....   The same site also does some comparisons that may be useful:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=54

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=50

I rented the Canon 100-400 L and Sigma 50-500 OS (not simultaneously, unfortunately) and preferred the Sigma.  There was little difference in sharpness, but the background blur from the Sigma was much smoother than the Canon's, which could be horribly busy with twigs and leaves fairly close to the subject (greater distances were fine).  So I bought the Sigma.*  There is presumably a degree of variation among copies.  Juzaphoto complains about the OS in the copy he tested of the 50-500, but on the one I rented and the one I bought both provide superb stabilization - I've taken photos in very low light, hand-held, quite successfully (I've read other reviews which concur).  Initially I was rather taken aback by the weight of the thing, but I soon became used to it.

*By the way, if you're interested in the Sigma but concerned about quality control, you may want to do what I did and buy a used one from lensrentals, which recently sold a few for well under $1000.  They actually tell you whether a copy is equally sharp across the image or a bit soft in a particular corner or along one edge....

78

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: future of sigma art line

« on: February 05, 2013, 10:12:05 AM »

Personally I can't wait for their 85mm f/1.4 art line lens (assuming they will actually make one).  If it's as good as the 35mm, it could be an awesome alternative to the 85mm f/1.2L.

Isn't the current Sigma 85/1.4 already an awesome alternative to the 85L?

79

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: future of sigma art line

« on: February 05, 2013, 10:08:58 AM »

I would like to see 24-105mm f4 OS. The Canon version is a bit date, and still expensive; and eventually it will be discontinued, which would leave us only the very expensive 24-70 f2.8 and the slighlty less expensive 24-70 f4 IS. So a Sigma alternative in this area would be very nice, and also a big hit, if Canon really discontinues the 24-105.
The price of a decent standard zooms is a deal breaker for me to going full frame. First I would have to strech my budget to go with a 6D, and then I have to invest another grand into a standard zoom. So I'm still hoping for a nice 70D (like the 50D, just with a modern sensor and wifi+gps).

Depending on where you live, this information mightn't be very helpful, but right now via B&H you can get a 6D + 24-105L kit for a mere $2450.00, with free shipping and, unless you're in NY, no sales tax - which strikes me as being a remarkable bargain.

80

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF 28 f/2.8 IS for $549 at Adorama

« on: February 04, 2013, 02:53:42 PM »

These primes are reportedly exceptional optically and are probably fairly exceptional for video use because of a amazing stability.

But yes, I think I will stick with my Tamron 24-70 VC.,

That makes sense to me.  I'm sure the new IS primes are good, but primes with IS that are no faster than 2.8 (or 2 in the case of the new 35mm) would have to make clearly better photos than the Tamron, which includes all three focal lengths plus much more at the same aperture and similar vibration control all for less than the price of two of the Canons - and, evidently, does a really good job in the process. 

81

Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm f/2 IS Review

« on: February 04, 2013, 10:08:06 AM »

this guy has some real-world samples of the 35mm f/2 IS: http://eyvindness.zenfolio.com/35mmf2isusm/h4ed589de#h4f0f869e

I do see the slight ringing effect in the bokeh but overall it looks good.  I'm also annoyed by the fact that the reviewer in this video can't get his stops right ... he even refers to the lens as an f/2.8 at one point.

need to see some head-to-heads between this lens and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 before we can determine which one has the better overall image quality.  I'm fairly sure that sharpness will favor the Sigma, but I'm not so sure about other things.  and I know it's a niche usage, but I really wish some of the reviewers would take a look and see how the coma and astigmatism on these lenses are.

I'm glad to see someone mention coma and astigmatism.  I'm interested in a fast 35mm lens and, as I would mainly be using it to take photos in low light outdoors, hand-held, in situations where there are often fairly small, bright points of light, coma is a dispositive issue for me.  Most reviewers seem to ignore it, and lenstip, who don't, haven't gotten around to this lens yet.  So far the only review I've seen which mentions coma is Rockwell's, where he says: "To my surprise, this aspheric Canon 35 IS does have some coma at f/2. It gets better at f/2.8, and is gone completely by f/4.  This is only about as good as the previous 35mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.4 L at the same apertures."  He provides no samples, but if it's really like other two Canon 35mm lenses, I won't be tempted.  Per Lenstip, the Sigma is much better than those two in this regard (and, apparently, just about everything else - though if the samples in The Digital Picture's review of the f2 IS are typical, it wins among 35mms for bokeh, followed by the Sigma).

Anyway, has anyone seen any reviews which address coma in the 35mm f/2 IS?  Better yet, does anyone have any first-hand experience of this?

Thanks in advance 

82

Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms

« on: February 01, 2013, 11:41:44 PM »

The thing to know about the 6D, is it's not really considered a 'professional' camera as such. Sure, it's a fine camera, but features and build quality is generally not up to 'pro'. Heck, Canon only calls the 1D-series as 'pro' cameras, everything else isn't.

When you say 1 stop better, are you just talking about sensor noise performance or AF sensor performance? Even though the center point AF sensor works fine with f/4 lenses, I believe it also has a double cross-point sensors there which are likely only available on an f/2.8 lens. Thus, you still get the point where your AF will likely be improved by having an f/2.8 lens, even if you take the shot at f/4 or f/5.6, even in available light.

That may be true, but I will note - for whatever it's worth - that my 70-300L, at 300mm (where it's quite far from 2.8!), focuses flawlessly on my 6D (center point AF) in *very* low light (including in a situation where a Nikon D600 I was trying simply wouldn't focus at all even with a f/1.8 lens attached).  Whether less well-designed/made slow(ish) lenses could do as well I can't say....

83

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Help to make my decision.

« on: January 31, 2013, 04:21:31 PM »

Help me to make right decision, I've been shooting with 7D now +2 years and been looking for moving to FF. Basically what my gear includes now is 7D with 17-55 F2.8 and basic kit 15-135 that is not used like at all.. and now shooting with 7D these couple years I've noticed that my pictures are almost 50% portraits and 50% landscapes, cityscapes etc.

What should I do, been looking for to get 5D Mark II?

Unless you can get a 5DII for considerably less than a 6D or don't have much interest in shooting in low light/high ISO (or the other features listed by Marsu42), and because you don't have any lenses that will fit a FF camera, I would suggest you forget about the 5DII and instead consider a 6D & kit lens (i.e., 24-105L) - there are (or recently have been) very good deals featuring such a kit, and that lens is a good one to start with.  If you *do* like shooting in low light, the 6D will amaze you (of course, coming from a 7D you would likely be amazed by the 5DII as well, but the 6D is even better).  The anti-6D brigade strike me as protesting a bit too much....

84

Lenses / Re: Advice...lens for my new Canon 6D

« on: January 31, 2013, 03:44:46 PM »

Hello,


I just purchased Canon 6D. I need advice on what is the best lens to buy for portrait photography...or what kind of lens I am lacking?

These are the lenses that I already have:

Canon EF 50mm 1:1.8 II
Canon Zoom EF 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6 V USM
Canon Zoom EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III

any advise would be great! Thanks!!

Lots of lenses make good portrait lenses (assuming by that you mean subject isolation + background blur), though which are most recommendable depends in part on what sort of portraits you're going to make and under what conditions.  If you'll be fairly close, you'll want a shorter focal length (but probably not less than c. 70mm) and faster aperture.  If you're going to be farther away, 200mm could be fine.  Classic portrait primes are fast 85 and 135mm lenses.  I'm especially partial to Canon's 100L and 135L and Sigma's 85mm 1.4, but either the much less expensive non-L Canon 85 or 100 might be a safer place to start, depending on your budget.  Then again, you already have lenses which include those focal lengths.  Do you want/need shallower focus?  If nothing else, you can use the lenses you have to get a sense of which focal length you would prefer for portraits if you decide to go with a prime.

As for your second question - what am I lacking? - that's really up to you.  Have you ever wished you had a lens that went wider or longer?  Are you unhappy with the qualify of photos you take with the lenses you have?  You would likely see an improvement (both in the resulting photos and the pleasure of simply using the lenses qua bits of machinery) if you replaced your zooms with, say, a 17-40L and 70-200/300L (it doesn't matter if you lack something between 40 and 70).  Or with a 24-105L and 100-400L. Or you could go wild and get the 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II.  (And if you like the idea of making your camera as small as possible, you might consider the wonderful 40mm pancake lens.)  If you're lucky enough to live somewhere with a good selection of lenses to rent - e.g. in the U.S. and thus will access to lensrentals - you could always experiment and see what you're (not) missing.

85

Software & Accessories / Re: RAW Pics processing programs for 6D

« on: January 31, 2013, 09:26:12 AM »

Lightroom 4 does an excellent job with 6D RAW files (just as it does with the RAW files from any other camera I've used; I also have DxO 8, but I don't think it's as good).

86

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

« on: January 30, 2013, 11:24:20 AM »

As others have said, you will notice differences as the light goes down and/or ISO goes up.  If you don't expect to shoot at ISOs higher than c. 800, you will see few differences (aside from the obvious ones of crop magnification and depth of focus) if you start out with the correct exposure.  If you need to tweak highlights or shadows, you can get more out of a RAW full-frame image. 

As for the superior features the 5DIII has compared to your 650D, how much do they matter to you?  They don't much to me, which I why I decided to supplement my 5DII with a 6D rather than a 5DIII; and the 6D is even (albeit only marginally) better than the 5DIII in low light.  Had you asked for such advice, if those features don't matter much to you either I would suggest returning the 5DIII in exchange for a 6D (I would probably want to keep the 650 D as a back-up for such an important trip; or, if this is affordable, a second FF camera such as a second-hand 5DII).

87

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D or 5D Mark III

« on: January 29, 2013, 11:28:12 AM »

You mentioned you were interested in low-light photography. In that case, the 5D2 will not fit your needs, but the 6D would beautifully (as of course would the 5D3). I love my 6D for it's low light capabilities and while the 5DIII does more, you can put the money you save on buying a 6D rather than the 5D3 on or toward another lens. I guess it all comes down to whether you'd really get the use out of the extra features of the 5D3 more than you'd get from another lens.

Can you explain what you mean by low-light capabilities? And why would the 5DII not fit his needs for that? I never had any issues with my 5DII in low light settings. Quite the opposite actually. I'm not sure how the 6D is even better with that. But even if that is the case I doubt that that has more practical implications than the 6D's lower x-sync speed, missing 1/8000 and the small plasticky form factor.
The 5DII is not only a bargain at this point - at least for my needs I'd still consider it the better camera. The MarkIII of course solves all those issues pretty much but still comes in with a much higher price tag and I'd only shell that out if I'd really need the additional features and upgrades over the MarkII. I'm in no rush with that personally.

The advantages the 6D has over the 5DII in low light are considerably less noise (slightly less noise than the 5DIII too, for that matter) at high ISOs (though coming from any APS-C camera the 5DII will seem pretty amazing) and slightly better focusing in the dark (though the 5DII has usually impressed me there, too).  Otherwise, the photos you take will look much the same whether it's 5DII or III or 6D - though of course, depending on what you shoot, focus accuracy may be higher with one vs the others.  (It may seem a small detail, but I find the silent modes of the 6D and 5DIII a big improvement over the 5DII - I get embarrassed noisily clicking away with my 5DII in churches, museums and other quiet places.)   While he's still in the US the original poster may want to rent these cameras and find out just which features he would(n't) miss.  For my purposes a 5DIII doesn't have $1000 worth of advantages over the 6D, so I just bought one of those (currently $1900 at B&H).     

88

Lenses / Re: Can You Beat it?

« on: January 28, 2013, 12:17:57 AM »

EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM @ just under $800?

I don't own any L glass.  For this price it looks like a good first L lens for my FF camera.

What do you think?

If you want 200mm, like primes and don't need IS, don't hesitate.

89

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Roadmap for 2013 [CR2]

« on: January 27, 2013, 04:42:49 PM »

• It continues to shock me that Canon is top of the line for lenses, AF, and ergonomics (in my opinion), yet it continues to have poor sensors compared to the competition.  I don't put too much faith in those DXO scores, but the dynamic range data out there, particularly in low ISO, gives compelling reason that Sony/Nikon sensors are a solid step ahead of Canon's.  Heck, in some of these tests we're seeing lower price point sensors beat the Canon counterparts (D600 trumping the 5D3, for instance).

How many of those complaining about Canon's "poor" sensors have done a real world comparison as opposed to reading lab reports?  I own a 5DII and a Rebel and recently rented a 5DIII and, together, a 6D and Nikon D600 and spent a few days switching between the D600 and 6D.  Not once did I think the image created by the D600 looked better than its 6D counterpart, (I tend to prefer the colours conjured up by Canon, and I'm inclined to attribute the greater sharpness of the Canon photos to the superiority of the Canon lenses, but who knows?), and I found the D600 a pain to use.  The Nikon sensor may have superior dynamic range, but I was able to restore detail to blown-out highlights in LR4 at least as well in the 6D as I was in the D600.  The D600 may allow for better detail retrieval at the opposite end of the spectrum, but that's not something I tend to do and in the couple of photos I tried the differences struck me as trivial.   Others may feel different, depending on how/what they shoot.  But I certainly didn't come away from the experience with sensor envy, let alone Nikon lens envy (as for Nikon's ergonomics...); rather, I just bought a 6D.   

(I have no comment on the relative virtues of current crop sensors; I used to own a Pentax K-5, which probably had the best sensor of any crop DSLR, slightly better in low light than that in my Rebel - the trouble is, you have to put up with inferior focusing, generally inferior lenses etc., etc.)

90

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Roadmap for 2013 [CR2]

« on: January 27, 2013, 04:21:47 PM »

It would be nice to have an update on the 50mm f/1.4 - at least I am curious about it.

What would be the improvement in a new 50 f/1.4 have over the old one?
As an amateur the current lens works pretty well for me. Took a picture just yesterday. Very low light. Only source was a flatscreen. No NR applied.

oh that´s simple.

AF that does not break that often.
the 50mm f1.4 is one of the lenses where the focus breaks quite often.

better border sharpness.
better sharpness at f1.4

less bokeh fringing.
better bokeh overall on FF cameras.

the lens is good but that does not mean there is nothing to improve.

+1

Better control of coma would be nice, too.