Messages

16

Lenses / Re: How's the 70-300L?

« on: March 16, 2013, 11:28:34 AM »

I'm surprised Paul hasn't chimed in yet! Must be busy with other stuff...

17

Lenses / Re: Canon SX50 lens for DSLR

« on: March 16, 2013, 11:27:47 AM »

Full frame super zooms are a rare beast - it's odd that the only L option is the silly sized 28-300mm which isn't really a walk around lens - only alternatives are older stuff like the 28-135 mm which isn't really a wide a range as what's offered on the EF-S range, where you get the 18-135 and 18-200 (which is like having 29-216 & 29-320mm in your hands)

I'd say that there is a market now with the entry level 6D for a range of L superzooms, giving for example a 20-135mm, 24-200mm (black) and continue the 28-300mm product, probably all retaining a variable f stop, with prices at say £600-800 range for the two newer models, maybe with last gen IS ?

The reason FF super zooms are quite rare is the same as why P&S super zooms are quite common. A lens filling a larger sensor that also zooms quite a bit becomes uncontrollably big and unwieldy, and introduces more lens inaccuracies than acceptable. A P&S user wouldn't mind that, and the tiny sensor would be the limiting factor for IQ, rather than the lens. Not so for a FF sensor of today. Even the 28-135, which was quite popular in the film days, is falling out of favor as the high-res sensors expose its weaknesses. The APS-C sensor is midway between FF and P&S, of course, and the APS-C super zooms lie midway in terms of quality as well.
Finally, it is not fair to use the crop factor to compare zoom ranges. Even though 18-135APS-C can be used as a 29-216FF equivalent, the makers still only have to cover a range of 117, not 187.

18

Canon General / Re: Creative Canon Invite for March 22

« on: March 15, 2013, 11:13:57 AM »

Sales (profits) of "lame P&S" fund R&D that goes into DSLR's.(*)
In general, yes, we need Canon (and Nikon and Sony and...) to have profitable P&S products to drive R&D.

well then the future looks very grim and canon should start making mobile phones.

+1.
Nowadays people who want cheap and lightweight P&Ss buy good mobile phones and those who want expensive and bulky ones buy entry-level dSLRs.

19

Lenses / Re: Buy EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II now or wait until September?

« on: March 13, 2013, 08:00:30 PM »

I think the 55-250 is a worthwhile upgrade over the 75-300 for at least three reasons: IS, sharper and better images, and a newer design. I

To be clear, my 75-300 has IS, but I believe the IS on the 55-250 is better as it is of a newer design.

So the advantage might also be how sharp it is by comparison.  They are so cheap, it seems like a good hold over lens compared to living with what I have.  I also wonder if the 55 might be a little nicer as the 75 is often too long.

I imagine the slow focus and focus hunting will be no better.

Does anyone know of any comparisons between these two in terms of sharpness?  The 75-300 IS isn't on Photozone or the Digital Picture.

Thanks for the replies!

I know that your 75-300 has IS but as you correctly guessed the 55-250 has third gen. IS, which is supposed to give a 4-stop advantage. On the other hand 75-300 is the first gen.
As I mentioned, the 55-250 is reasonably sharp (of course it would be silly to compare it to the 70-200 L lenses). It was similar to the 70-300 non-L I owned at the time, which is pretty good up to 200mm.
Finally while the autofocus is slower than ring USM, I guarantee you will find huge improvement over the antique DC motor in the 75-300 IS. And the AF might be slower due to the slower motor but I didn't find any it to be inaccurate or any hunting in normal light. Of course, you wouldn't even use it in low light.
So, that's my 2 cents. I wholeheartedly recommend it to my APS-C user friends who are not looking for L-lenses and don't have the "won't buy EF-S because I will upgrade to FF soon" syndrome.

20

Third Party Manufacturers / New Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM available for pre-order

« on: March 13, 2013, 03:48:12 PM »

At B&H fo0r $ 499:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918894-REG/sigma_30mm_f_1_4_dc_hsm.html

21

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Waiting to Shoot the New Pope with Nikkor 1200-1700mm Lens

« on: March 13, 2013, 02:15:48 PM »

even if it is just for a brief moment? ... COOL

Yeah... you wish!

22

Lenses / Re: Buy EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II now or wait until September?

« on: March 13, 2013, 02:00:20 PM »

I would suggest you have a look at the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. It is the best "non L" telephoto that Canon makes other than their "DO" version which is quite a bit more expensive. If you have the money, the f/4L IS is a fantastic lens.

I'm aware of the 70-300 IS as well and have read good things about it.  I didn't mention it because I thought I was throwing too many lenses out there.

I guess I wonder if the 70-300 IS would be enough of an upgrade over the 75-300 IS to make it worthwhile as opposed to living with it until I can get the L with IS.  Would it be a better choice than the 70-200 w/o IS?  I suppose it depends where and how you are going to use it.  Better optics and faster focusing vs IS. 

Too often I find myself needing more light.  I'm finding it better to push the ISO since I prefer noise to blur, but noise is not so great either.  The real answer would be the 70-200 F2.8 IS and even better with FF, but that's more down the road.

Like I said, I'll likely get the 85 1.8 first since it will offer good range and fast optics that will fill alot of my needs and function as good portrait lens as well.

I'm constantly learning how to pull more and more from my equipment as my skills grow, so it's all good.  Even the best equipment has it's limitations.  The challenge is how to make the most of it and have fun doing it!

I think the 55-250 is a worthwhile upgrade over the 75-300 for at least three reasons: IS, sharper and better images, and a newer design. I tried out a friend's 55-250, and I was surprised how good the cheap plastic toy was! The 70-300 is at best comparable to the 55-250 in the overlapping focal range, has a similiarly slow AF (its not true ring USM, and the micro motor of the 55-250 is acceptably fast for a non-USM) and similar rotating front element. To me, the advantage of a metal mount and additional 50mm in the long end (which, by the way, is the weakest aspect of the lens) isn't worth the more than double price. My personal experience notwithstanding, this is what TDP has to say about the comparison:

The difference between the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens is not as clear. The 55-250 has less play in the barrel than the 70-300, but the 70-300 is more solidly built including a metal lens mount. The 70-300 is larger and heavier. The 55-250 has a more-matte finish. While the focus ring on both lenses turns during AF, the 70-300's focus ring does not manually turn in AF mode. This makes lens hoods and filters easier to install/remove, but makes parking the lens in the most compact size more difficult (though you are not supposed to turn the focus ring on the 55-250 in AF mode either). While the 70-300 has USM AF, it is Micro USM - not Ring USM - and is not greatly different from the 55-250 in AF speed. The 70-300 is compatible with all EOS bodies including full frame film and digital models. To the 55-250's advantage is that it retracts to a smaller size, weighs less and costs noticeably less.

In the image quality department, these two lenses are more similar than in the 70-200 L comparison. Wide open, both lenses are similar in sharpness at the center of the frame, but the 70-300 is generally sharper in the corners - which is not surprising as it is a full-frame compatible lens. Stopping down 1 stop makes a bigger difference in sharpness on the 70-300 than it does on the 55-250 - and this gives the 70-300 a bigger edge at these apertures. The 55-250 delivers better image sharpness at 250mm than the 70-300 does at 300mm. The 70-300 shows less vignetting wide open on a 1.6x body. The 70-300 has less distortion over most of its focal length range.

I'd mention the Tamron 70-300 which is much better than the 70-300 non-L and cheaper, but I think the 55-250 is still a better value for money. And will have better resale value (I am still struggling to sell my mint Tamron with warranty, so go figure!)

23

Lenses / Re: Tried Canon 200-400f/4L IS today & asked the price, told it didn't exist :-)

« on: March 11, 2013, 11:47:07 PM »

Shoot! Just downgraded myself from a Rebel to an Eos M

24

Lenses / Re: Tried Canon 200-400f/4L IS today & asked the price, told it didn't exist :-)

« on: March 11, 2013, 11:44:32 PM »

Wow.  I thought... eh maybe if it comes around 5 or 6K... I might be able to swing it... but that is just crazy big.

Swinging it might cause fatalities...

25

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

« on: March 11, 2013, 06:21:54 PM »

since the RAW image has to be acquired and converted to jpg even when shooting RAW only.

When a RAW image is captured, a JPG conversion is done in-camera to create a small preview image, and that JPG preview is saved within the RAW file container.  That JPG preview is what you see on the rear LCD of the camera after the shot, and importantly, it's what's used to generate the histogram data and the highlight alert if you use those features. 

It's worth knowing, because many people think that the in-camera settings are totally irrelevant if recording RAW images - that's mostly true (long exposure NR is an exception), but if you make exposure decisions (e.g. ETTR) based on the histogram, the settings for Picture Style (contrast, etc.), ALO, HTP, white balance, etc., are all applied to the JPG preview image and the histogram data/blinkies, and that can affect your exposure decisions.  Some people actually use a modified Picture Style that makes the JPG image more closely resemble the RAW file in terms of exposure.

Makes a lot of sense now that you've explained it. Thanks, that was very helpful.

26

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

« on: March 11, 2013, 02:15:37 PM »

It is kind of surprising that you get jpeg but not raw in the highest speed mode. This suggests that is it _some_ (e.g. bus) bandwidth that is the limitation, and not the number-crunching needed to develop into jpeg.

As suggested above, the reflex mirror seems to impose the 12 fps limit as MLU is needed for 14 fps.  The fact that only jpgs are written at 14 fps does suggest a limitation in the write capabilities, since the RAW image has to be acquired and converted to jpg even when shooting RAW only.

27

Pricewatch Deals / Re: 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Refurbished for $1699

« on: March 11, 2013, 01:47:21 PM »

Well, after waiting several months for the refurb discount and stock availability of the 70-200 II to coincide, I broke down and bought a used one. And now it is becomes available in plenty (was in stock until last night, so for a long time since it started)... Ah well, I paid the same amount, so I guess it's okay...

28

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR1]

« on: March 08, 2013, 02:40:20 PM »

From a marketing perspective, it seems like they'd go backwards in that sense. Bringing back the era of 1D and 1Ds lines but with new names and APS-C instead of APS-H.

Exactly.

... it feels like a step backwards- what will Canon achieve with a low-light capable, excellent AF, fast frame-rate APS-C body- didn't they have all that in an APS-H body in the 1DIV already? What can be gained additionally other than the ability to use EF-S lenses?

It is hilarious that people get hooked to the argument they like and ignore the main forum topic. I think if Canon wanted to, they could implement a higher voltage battery in the current 7D-sized body. I do believe they have a reason to move away from APS-H and a non-FF 1d-style body. It is possible that 7DII will have an integrated grip, maybe as one variant, but I feel it is highly unlikely Canon will sell an APS-C body at a higher price point than the 5DIII merely on the basis of fps and AF speed.

29

Lenses / Re: EF or EF-S for 7D/70D

« on: March 07, 2013, 06:13:43 PM »

You get the best of EF by getting the sweet spot center, you get a wider selection, you get weather sealing more often, you get might quality build, you get lenses that work on EF and EF-s, and more.

The sweet spot center issue is mostly theoretical for the 17-55/15-85 vs 17-40 question. Both the EF-S lenses are sharper all through even compared to the "sweet spot center" of the 17-40.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
(Mind you, my own 17-55 is much sharper than the tested sample).

Wider selection? Not in the standard zoom for crop sensor range. I think it's only the 17-40 and the 16-35 II in the EF lineup.

Weather sealing= Agreed, if that matters to you. I am assuming you have your non-weathersealed APS-C camera in a plastic baggie or something like that.

Build quality= I am a bit curious about this one. I know people like metal-bodied lenses but I am sure plastic lenses like the 15-85 and 17-55 will stand up to a lot of abuse. In fact, synthetic polymers are often more resistant to impact damage. Of, course the 17-40 and 16-35 has better ergonomics, but then you are comparing an L to a non-L. In case of the 17-40, you are paying for ergonomics whereas you are paying for IQ in case of the 15-85.

Future proofing? That is a vague concept. Who really knows about the future? I wouldn't be surprised if 100MP 20x zoom 1 billion ISO @ 20 fps is available in cell phones in a few years! Then all your EF lenses will be pretty darn redundant!

30

Lenses / Re: EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Upgrade?

« on: March 07, 2013, 03:42:29 PM »

Hello all,

I'm a "serious" amateur with not much money.

I'm starting to branch out into some easy working gigs (family portraits, pet photos, baby photos), nothing too pro, mostly just a taste to see if it's something I want to dive into more seriously (I THINK I'd really love to do wedding photography, but that's a little beyond my skill at the moment).

I have a 650D/T4i, a VAST upgrade to the 1000D/XS I shot for years with. Since it basically has the same sensor as the 7D it takes what I consider to be very nice pictures.

I long ago upgraded from the kit 18-55mm to the 18-135mm. I found the difference dramatic. My T4i came with the kit 18-135mm STM lens, which is rated even better then the original 18-135mm IS, but frankly image quality wise I don't see a vast difference (it is shaper at wider apertures, but not by a huge amount).

That said, the 18-135mm STM is still a kit lens, and while it is an amazing single lens solution for travel, I do wonder if it's "good enough" for outdoors portait type shoots, especially if people starting paying me money.

So, with all that said, I've looked into things and ALOT of people recommend that a good "next step" is the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6. It's not L glass obviously, but it is supposedly quite an upgrade from kit glass.

Would I notice much of a difference? I know there are other a couple other common options, but they are all quite a bit more expensive:

EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8

The 15-85mm is about $200 more then the 17-85.
The 17-55mm is WAY more, obvious since it's much faster, constant aperture. Alot of people say that lens is a L without the L designation.

According to DXOMARK there isn't much difference between my 18-135 and the 17-85 or 15-85. But alot of people say that DXOMARK isn't very close to real life. The 17-55 DOES score much better, but it's out of my price range, plus I don't like being limited to 55mm on the long end.

So, any advice? Is the 17-85 worth the upgrade? Should I stick with my 18-135 and save up for better glass?

Thanks for any advice!

I was in a similar position a year ago. I had the 28-135 and felt the need for a 15/17-XX lens. I bought the 17-85 but in a few months decided to upgrade.
My main reason for upgrading wasn't so much image quality as it was low-light performance. So I ended up buying the 17-55 after trying both the 15-85 and the 17-55.

In your situation, I give the following suggestion based on my (humble) experience:

The 15-85 is better at the wider end, with much less distortion (at 15mm, compared to the other one at 17mm) and is quite sharp wide open. I believe the image stabilizer is also a generation newer, and the build is much nicer. However, the IQ of the 17-85 is quite acceptable, especially if you stop it down 1 stop. In fact, I think some of the criticism of the 17-85 is unjustified- I quite liked the lens and my copy was actually comparable to the 15-85 wide open (although I hear there is some sample variation there). However, the price of the 15-85 is more than double (used)- so if it is a question of buying a 17-85 now or waiting for 15-85, I'd go with the former. In fact, you can use the extra cash to get an 85/1.8 or a 50/1.4 (depending on your preferred focal length for portraits) and that'd be better for outdoor portraits anyway.

If you do upgrade later, then I'd pass on the 15-85 and go for the 17-55. Of course, you mention the shorter range is an issue for you- I admit it irritates me as well- I'd have preferred it to be 85mm, but what can one do about it! The f/2.8 IS clinches it for me.