Messages

46

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]

« on: October 30, 2012, 09:49:42 PM »

I find a few things interesting

1.  suddenly the 24-105, which used to be too slow, have too much distortion, and be a 'gimmick L' lens is getting a LOT of respect!  (I read so much crap about this lens that i held off buying it for years, and now that i have one i'm so happy.)

I was about to point this out too. 

Yes...it really is the best compromise (i.e. all-purpose) zoom lens that exists for the Canon system, IMHO. The other zooms in a similar range are variable aperture, lack weather sealing & good build quality, and just plain don't deliver good IQ.

47

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]

« on: October 30, 2012, 04:27:20 PM »

Unless...you know, I've picked up an old, used 24-85. It isn't the sharpest lens but man, the SIZE is wonderful. If this new 24-70 is just as compact, they make the aperture constant, add in IS, and keep the price $800 or below, it could be an attractive option for those wishing to travel light. While the 24-105 is not a HUGE lens, it's definitely substantial on all but the biggest bodies (5D/1D series).

48

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]

« on: October 30, 2012, 04:16:55 PM »

I'm trying to wrap my head around such a lens, but I'm really having trouble doing so.

Is this supposed to replace the 24-105? Is the loss of reach (and no gain in aperture) balanced out by a corresponding increase in IQ?

I guess I would understand if it were a non-L version priced under $1K (a budget version of the $2300 24-70 2.8 ) but otherwise I'm just not too sure.

49

Lenses / Re: Travel lens\es on crop body

« on: October 25, 2012, 06:38:55 PM »

24-105, definitely.

The second lens would depend on if you want more wide-angle or you're a telephoto shooter. If you prefer wide, perhaps a 10-22 (although it is EF-S and not weather sealed, it is the only true UWA Canon lens for 1.6x). If you prefer tele, the 70-300L would be a great choice (or 70-200L f4 non-IS if on a budget).

50

Lenses / Re: looking for equivalent to efs 17-55 f/2.8 in EF line

« on: October 24, 2012, 10:35:02 AM »

It's blowing my mind how much better the 24-105 seems to be when mounted on the 5DIII as opposed to my 60D (or the T2i I had before)...it's like I unleashed its full potential.

I mean, it was still a decent lens on the 60D...but it just seems to come alive on the 5D. such a strange feeling...I've heard people on this forum and elsewhere rave about it and went ...but now I understand...

____________

Anyway, having used the 17-55 pretty extensively on the 60D, I'd say the 5D with 24-105 is definitely a step up in quality, if you're in good light. In low light I'd consider the required raising of ISO to be more or less an equalizer in terms of quality. I find 60D 3200 = 5D 6400 for instance. 5D's 6400 probably still maintains a slight edge in my opinion, but you'd really have to view at 100% to tell a difference.

Most find the 24-105 a bit better on a crop.  Assuming, that is, that its a crop with AFMA fine tuning the autofocus.
I love my 24-105mm L on both my crop and FF bodies, its one of the few FF lenses that are supurb on crop bodies as well as FF.

I agree that it's a great lens on both types of cameras.

I will say that the 60D perhaps can get better all-around performance out of the 24-105 because you don't get the distortion at 24mm nor the soft corners at f4...

on the 5D, to ME at least, it becomes a much more versatile lens because 1) it goes wide, making it usable indoors 2) I find IQ around the center to be much better, 3) its superior high ISO capability makes f4 less of a crutch in low-light situations.

51

Lenses / Re: efs 15-85 or ef 24-105L

« on: October 24, 2012, 10:17:01 AM »

24-105 is not wide enough for APS-C.

Eh, depends on what you'll be shooting though. I found it was good enough outdoors...only if you do wide landscape shots will it seem inadequate. Indoors, it's a different story though- 24mm will not be wide enough for group shots in small to medium size rooms.

So...my thoughts- I'd say for general walkaround use, the 24-105 would be my choice. For indoor event photography I'd go for the 17-55 (which is what I used to have)...if you want to do both, and never plan to get an FF camera, 15-85 is a good compromise.

Personally, I didn't care for the 15-85 because of the variable aperture and lack of weather sealing for extensive outdoor use.

52

Lenses / Re: looking for equivalent to efs 17-55 f/2.8 in EF line

« on: October 23, 2012, 08:50:20 PM »

It's blowing my mind how much better the 24-105 seems to be when mounted on the 5DIII as opposed to my 60D (or the T2i I had before)...it's like I unleashed its full potential.

I mean, it was still a decent lens on the 60D...but it just seems to come alive on the 5D. such a strange feeling...I've heard people on this forum and elsewhere rave about it and went ...but now I understand...

____________

Anyway, having used the 17-55 pretty extensively on the 60D, I'd say the 5D with 24-105 is definitely a step up in quality, if you're in good light. In low light I'd consider the required raising of ISO to be more or less an equalizer in terms of quality. I find 60D 3200 = 5D 6400 for instance. 5D's 6400 probably still maintains a slight edge in my opinion, but you'd really have to view at 100% to tell a difference.

53

Lenses / Re: 40mm 2.8 backfocus on 60D?

« on: October 23, 2012, 08:25:54 PM »

All other lenses focus fine, though. (I have had occasional issues with backfocus on the 17-55mm 2.8, but I don't have that lens any more) I recently tested the new 24-70 2.8 II lens on it and there was no problem...

54

Lenses / 40mm 2.8 backfocus on 60D?

« on: October 23, 2012, 08:08:04 PM »

Just want to see if this was/is an issue with anyone using this lens on a 60D...

I sent the first 40 back because of EXTREME backfocus. The next one I got seemed to be ok at first (at the time I got it), but now I notice it backfocusing again. It seems to be more or less fine near MFD, but as I get farther away from the subject, the further off the focus is. It's not as bad as the first one but it's still enough to get OOF shots at 2.8. Even at 5.6 it is noticeable because the sharpest point of the picture is still behind the selected focus point, giving the picture a softer look...


A bit frustrating...as the 60D does not have an AFMA/autofocus correction function, I've had to figure out other ways to compensate for this unfortunate phenomenon. I've had on/off success with turning the lens focus ring clockwise a bit after focus, before taking the shot...but it is really tough to manual focus with the 60D especially from a distance. The other option is to use Live view mode for critical shots...but it can be slooooow (if not nonfunctional) in low light.

I've also got a 5D but this lens is really for the 60D as a travel combo. thoughts?

55

Lenses / Re: Should I sell my 70-200L vii for the 85mm 1.2?

« on: October 21, 2012, 01:04:42 PM »

As far as I'm concerned you'd have to pry the 70-200 out of my cold, dead hands. lol

I did try the 85 1.2 at the store and found it delivered amazing quality with little effort. However, the focusing was sloooow.

Given a personal choice the 70-200, to me, is MUCH more versatile. The 85 strikes me as a specialty lens (excels at studio/posed portraits, forget about anything moving), but then again, some people need that kind of performance.

56

Lenses / Re: Help me decide; keep my 35L or get a 50L?

« on: October 20, 2012, 05:38:10 PM »

I'm in the SAME, EXACT situation you are. I was using the 35L with the 60D and love it, but once on the 5D it's a bit wider and suddenly I'm not quite liking it as much. a 50mm feels more natural...but then I tried a 50L on the store 5D and noticed some backfocus around f2.8 or so...and optically it really wasn't blowing me away...I like that it's weather-sealed, though (the 35L isn't).

What to do? :p

57

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Full Frame Sharper Than Crop?

« on: October 19, 2012, 06:27:33 PM »

I can only speak from my personal experience, but as far as I can see the answer is a resounding YES, IT IS.

I've got a 5DIII and a 60D. Indoors, the 5DIII totally crushes the 60D when it comes to sharpness & detail capture, even with the same lens. The 60D images tend to have a rough quality to them, even at reasonably low ISOs, and the 5D is just much cleaner. It becomes indistinguishable from 60D only from ISO 6400 up- but then again you wouldn't even USE the 60D at those ISOs...

Haven't tested outdoors in great lighting yet, but I'd think the difference might be less obvious there.

58

Canon General / Re: Rockwell knocks one out of the park (no kidding)!

« on: October 18, 2012, 12:13:39 AM »

I've said this in the past - you can get great results out of any camera, as long as you stay within the camera's limitations. The more advanced the camera, the fewer limitations it will tend to have, which could expand creative freedom. For flowers, buildings, etc. that stay still, one can do that (quite amazingly, I may add) with an iPhone. But for anything that is moving, particularly in low-light? Much, much tougher. Again, the photographer works within the limits of whatever he/she has.

I think it just comes down to whatever you like to shoot. As a hobbyist, I'm not looking to create masterpieces or professional work- having said that, I still want to use the best tools I can afford so I can have as much freedom as possible with the highest IQ I can get. Hardly think that makes me any sort of "artist" or whatever you call it. I bet I'm not alone in this thinking, either.

P.S. Some of my favorite shots didn't come out of my DSLR, but from my P&S, iPhone, even old film camera I threw out a long time ago. You just kinda have to be at the right place at the right time sometimes

59

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8L II USM Zoom Ring Smoothness

« on: October 17, 2012, 09:52:18 PM »

There is a bit of stiffness, but....I like it that way.

60

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS-M to Ship Today in North America

« on: October 15, 2012, 12:52:14 PM »

Curious to try it out. Wasn't blown away by the sample images I saw on Flickr, though...was originally going to get this camera right away but have decided to hold off and spend that money towards a true upgrade instead.

BUT...I still wish to replace my P&S (a Canon SD950IS) with something small that takes high-quality pictures. It's funny, now my iPhone can take photos comparable in quality (given good light) to the SD950IS...I had high hopes that the M would be the replacement I was looking for. I may still get one eventually, maybe once the price goes down a bit...