Messages

1

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/4L IS vs 24-105L

« on: June 15, 2013, 04:48:39 AM »

Good points Zv.

Interesting, I went the other way.  I had the 24-105 and 70-200 and found with the overlap I tended to use the 70-200 mainly at 200mm.  So I sold it and got the 200 prime which is lighter, smaller and less conspicuous than the zoom.  I have a two month trip through Europe (including northern Norway) and the Rockies coming up in a month.  My travel kit is just the 24-105 and 200 prime (+1.4x).  I expect to take 90% of the photos with the 24-105.

I would like a smaller 24-xx, but with the extra range of the 105, I can get by with just the 200.

Cheers

2

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/4L IS vs 24-105L

« on: June 15, 2013, 02:26:24 AM »

And  finally, the 24-70mmf4L is a much smaller lens than the 24-105mm f4L.

Earlier in this thread Jack noted:
"What drives me since getting back into photography after many years of absence is all the commentary based on personal attachment or brand bias".

I too value unbiased advice.

From Digital Picture:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM Lens   21.2 oz   (600g)   3.3 x 3.7"   (83.4 x 93mm)   77mm   2012
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens   23.7 oz   (670g)   3.3 x 4.2"   (83.5 x 107mm)   77mm   2005

Frankly, 1 1/2 ounces and half an inch does not make it "much smaller".  Its about 1/10th lighter and 1/8th shorter.

3

Lenses / Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4

« on: June 09, 2013, 04:12:48 AM »

One thing not mentioned is lens flare.  I had a non-IS 70-200/4 for years, but could not shoot into the lght, especially with the sun in the frame, without having objectionable flare.

I don't have this problem with my 70-200mm f/4 ... perhaps your filter caused the flares (or the lack of one)?
[/quote]

While I keep filters on most of lenses most of the time, I remove them when shooting into the light.  Here is the best photo of a series shooting into the rising sun.  The subsequent photos when the sun rose further were unusable (and deleted).  This was 200mm @ 5.6 on a 5DII.

4

Lenses / Re: 70-200L f/4 IS vs 70-200L f/4

« on: June 05, 2013, 03:17:30 PM »

One thing not mentioned is lens flare.  I had a non-IS 70-200/4 for years, but could not shoot into the lght, especially with the sun in the frame, without having objectionable flare.  This is one of the reasons I sold it - my 200/2.8 prime is much better.
Here in New Zealand the IS version is almost twice the price of the non-IS.  While IS would be nice, its not worth the premium for me.  Weather sealing is not important to me.  Apart from flare, I was happy with the resolution of the lens on crop and FF.
If I would be buying one of these zooms again, I'd go for the 70-300L, as the reach is important to me on FF.

5

Lenses / Re: Tele for backpacking

« on: June 03, 2013, 06:19:04 AM »

This summer I'm doing a lot of photography-focused backpacking in mountains and forests. My primary considerations for choosing gear are handheld IQ, weight & pack space, and preference for weather sealing (when possible/practical). So far, I'm just about set on taking a 6D, 17-40L, 100L macro, and nifty fifty. Something tells me I'm going to need an option for more reach (animals), but the 400mm 5.6 available to me seems out of the question due to size. In the past I've used a 70-200 f/4 non-IS, but that was on a 7D.

Appealing to this forum's collective knowledge and experience, my question is whether I can get a 300mm+ lens weighing less than 800 grams that will beat the IQ of just cropping photos from the 100L. Or should I try and make do with the 70-200? Any thoughts? Thank you!

The length of the tele will depend on the sort of animals you will see and the importance in getting photos of those animals.  If the primary purpose is backpacking, then keep weight low.  If the purpose is wildlife photography, then this will dictate what you take.  It will then determine how long the lens needs to be.  I have the 400mm 5.6 - a great light weight lens, but after several days hiking you will feel each ounce.  And few wildlife photos happen by chance - they need to be planned inn terms of location and time of the day.  Are you prepared to disrupt your hiking for targeted wildlife photography.

I'm trying to have a buck each way this summer when I will do some hiking in Norway and Sweden and then in BC, Canada.  I will take a 5DII with 24-105.  My "wildlife lens is my 200/2.8 prime, plus 1.4x teleconverter.  Testing has shown the combination to produce excellent image quality (but I don't know how it compares to a 70-300L).  I will take a 25mm extension tube, which also works well on the 200 to take me to 1:3.  My 400/5.6 will stay home.  This leaves me with a kit that I have no qualms hiking with.

Cheers

6

Landscape / Re: Sunset landscape

« on: May 15, 2013, 05:23:47 AM »

Sunset tonight down on the beach below our house.
5DII, Samyang 14mm 2.8, 1/60 f8 ISO 400.  Graduated filter in LR 4 darkening the sky above the horizon.  Added vibrance and clarity but no added saturation.  The white speck in the sky halfway above the island is the crescent Moon.

7

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D + Samyang 24 Visits Badlands Milky Way Extreme ISOs

« on: May 08, 2013, 02:56:57 PM »

Do you think you'd like to try a tracking mount? That, with image stacking, would allow you to do longer exposures and lower ISOs (or smaller apertures) for a less noisy result.

Can't see how that would work.  The camera needs to be fixed or the landscape foreground will move.  Longer exposures, including exposure stacking would give star trails, which would ruin this lovely photo.

A great shot, well composed with the foreground.  For my personal taste, I would reduce the exposure a little.  I use a Samyang 14/2.8 on my 5DII wide open for 30sec at ISO 3200 for Milky Way photos.

8

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: dissapointed 6d 100mm f2 and 24mm 2.8 (non l)

« on: May 06, 2013, 03:25:59 PM »

I remember disappointment going from my 20D to a 5D (mkI).  The RAW files needed a fundamentally different approach to get the best out of them.  I suspect it is the same with your 400D / 6D comparison.  As others have said, RAW files need processing, otherwise they will be flat.

I doubt very much that it is a focus problem (unless you have a really sick camera).  The 24/2.8 is not one of Canon's best lenses, but the 100/2 is very good.  So I doubt it is your gear.  Spend a little more time in processing.

9

Lenses / Re: How about a new 28-135mm?

« on: May 03, 2013, 08:01:07 PM »

I was happy with the 28-135 on film.  I was happy with the 28-135 on my 20D (matched nicely with 10-22). Hated the 28-135 when I went to a 5D. Replaced it with a 24-105 - huge difference.

See what Canon did when they "updated" the 24-105? Produced a 24-70/4 with less range, similar quality and double the price.  I say leave the 24-105 alone.  Be careful what you ask for when updating the 28-135!

Me, I'd rather have a 17 prime (2.8 preferable, but f4 okay) as the 20/2.8 I had was not great, and there are plenty of reports on the limitations of the 17-40 at 17mm.

10

Lenses / Re: Recommendations for a 180mm macro?

« on: May 03, 2013, 07:49:07 PM »

I know that this does not relate to the lenses you mentioned, but... I'm happy with my EF200/2.8L on a EF25mm extension tube for butterflies and flowers- you get to about 1/3 lifesize.  Lightweight, fast focusing, great bokeh when near wide open.  Sharper than my 70-200/4 with tube.  But no IS.  For anything smaller I use my 50/2.5, but the distance is too close for critters.  FWIW, I tried the Canon life-size converter (brings the 50/2.5 to 1:1) with the 200.  This increases shooting distance a bit, but does not increase maximum magnification much, is no sharper, and does not allow AF.

11

Lenses / Re: Macro lens or attachments to make my current lenses go macro?

« on: April 30, 2013, 09:58:07 PM »

Now the three photos at 1:3
50 focused to 1:2
50 focused at infinity with EF25mm extension tube
50 focused at ininity with lifesize converter.

12

Lenses / Re: Macro lens or attachments to make my current lenses go macro?

« on: April 30, 2013, 09:55:41 PM »

Here 1000 pixel vertical crops of the original images.
First the two photos at 1:3. 50mm focused at 1.5 ft with 250D, then 50mm focused at 0.89 ft (no close up lens)
I note that the second photo is not focused at the same point as the first (bit of a rush over my lunchbreak!).

13

Lenses / Re: Macro lens or attachments to make my current lenses go macro?

« on: April 30, 2013, 09:45:09 PM »

14

Lenses / Re: Macro lens or attachments to make my current lenses go macro?

« on: April 30, 2013, 09:44:00 PM »

Here are some comparison shots:
50mm 2.5 @ f8 and ISO 100.  I used f8 as it appeared that the OP used something similar in the ring shots.  f8 provides sufficient depth of field and a soft background.  All focused on the centre of the same flower.  Live view (so mirror locked up) and 2 sec self-timer.
Large fine, downsized to 1020 pixels high  (I have the original files)

1.   1.5 ft (min focus of 50mm f1.4
2.   1.5 ft with Canon 250D close up lens
3.   0.89 ft (27cm) to give similar magnification (1:3)
4.   0.75ft (23cm) 1:2
5.   Focused at infinity with 25mm extension tube
6.   Set at similar magnification 1:2 with life size converter.
The last two are in the next post.

15

Lenses / Re: Macro lens or attachments to make my current lenses go macro?

« on: April 30, 2013, 05:31:43 PM »

There is no quality loss when using tubes. It is only air inside of them and no glass. You loose 1-2 stops, and you have an extreme narrow depth of field, but you will get youre macro.

Lenses are generally optimised optically at infinity.  I have the 50/2.5 macro.  It has a floating element system, which means it changes optically as it focuses closer, so at 1:2 its not the same as at infinity.  It is better when focused to 1:2, than focused at infinity with the EF25mm.  It is also better at 1:1 with the life-size adapter that has glass than with my EF25mm extension tube.  Simple lenses such as the nifty fifty simply rack the entire optical system further from the focal plane.

However, the (slight) reduction in optical quality may be acceptable.  This will vary between lenses.  My 70-200/4 (non-IS) is definitely less sharp than my 200/2.8 when used with the EF25mm extension tube. Indeed, I suggest that for the OP, extension tubes would meet his needs optically and financially, but a close-up lens would be easier when busy on the job.

I'll do some comparison shots in a few hours of the 50/2.5 with extension tube, life-size converter and with 250D closeup lens.

Cheers