Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.

[jon_charron]

Ummmm I dont quite think you understand the concept of DOF here flash and DOF are two completely mutually exclussive aspects. ie flash has precisely zero effect on DOF. DOF is a function of the lens and sensor the flash simply provide light for the exposure.

I understand DOF and the fact that a FF sensor has thinner DOF than crop with same lens.  I think I am misunderstanding the relationship between flash and DOF, but after years of taking photos, my recollection  is that flash will bring slightly more into focus than without it.  Could be wrong.  I admit I switched to a crop back about 6 years ago and have done most of my shooting with that, but even my 35mm film days I recall a flash bringing more into focus.  I know the flash stops action and brings the subject into focus, so I'm thinking my mind is fooling me in the light's relationship to DOF.

In any case, I'm not concerned about DOF.  2.8 on FF and a flash should be fine for this kind of photography.  I'll still have my subjects plenty in focus, and I can always turn it to f4 if DOF is too thin.  If f4 is the only option in the Canon line, then hopefully that works.  If not, I'll sell it and try the Tamron.  For video, that thinner DOF a 2.8 provides would be much more valuable.  I wish Canon made a wide zoom L lens that was 2.8 IS or faster.

[jon_charron]

Well if you must have 2.8 and IS in a FF compatible mid range zoom you have only one choice, it's the tamron. I own it, is it perfect?  No, but what lens is?  For what you spend its fantastic.  You can spend an awful lot more for maybe a 10% iq improvement with the canon 24-70ii but you lose IS and a cool grand in the process. considering what you posted you shoot I don't see your clients really caring too much. After all anything you give them is a thousand times better than the millions of (insert any modern smartphone here) pictures they have been taking and adding crappy Instagram filters to.

Those aren't my clients, and at a professional event or wedding reception, I need something sharp.  Those are unretouched low-res jpegs, but they are pretty sharp RAW out of the camera considering the style.  They would not have been near as good with an inferior lens.  The 17-55 is sharp, and I strive for sharp images and to own sharp glass.  I have tried a 24-70L II on a 5D II at a wedding with a flash, and I struggled to get the same kind of shots, especially as easily as I did with my 7D and the 17-55 2.8 IS.  Again, some of that may have been the 5D II's inability to focus as sell in low light, but IS had plenty to do with it. 

I'm not afraid to spend money on glass.  I had several L lenses.  If the 24-70II would work for me, I would gladly pay the dough to get one.  And I'd pay even more again for IS.   In the end I'll likely need to get another 17-55 anyway, as I plan to get C100/300, BMCC or Scarlet by summer, but a 17-55 won't fill the need of event photography if my body is the 6D or 5D iii.  I'll try the 24-105L as a good compromise and sell it or keep it as a video only lens if I have to.

[jon_charron]

One of the regulars here -- sorry, I don't remember which one -- often makes the point that the 24-105 on full frame is superior in every way to the 17-55 on a crop. It's wider and longer, you can get a shallower depth of field, and you get less noise.

Every way but one...you lose the f/2.8 high precision center AF point.  A very worthwhile trade, IMO.

I wonder how that will effect the ability for the 24-105 at f4 to focus quickly on a face in very low light with the 6D?  Does the 6D not offer a precision center focus point that will work with this lens at f4??

[TrumpetPower!]

True -- assuming, of course, the camera itself has an f/2.8 high precision center AF point. If I remember right, the Rebels at least don't, even if Jon's 7D does....

Rebel bodies starting with the XTi/400D have a high-precision f/2.8 center AF point, although the 'high precision f/2.8' part if the cross-type point is a single-orientation line sensor. The T4i/650D got the 40D/50D/60D AF sensor with the dual-cross center point similar to the 7D's center point.

Didn't know (obviously). Good to know. Thanks!

...not that I'm likely to shoot with a Rebel any time soon....

b&

[Drizzt321]

Going up to f4 made a huge difference and was not really an option.  DOF is not a concern for this type of shooting, especially since flash will punch out the DOF anyway.  My concern with the Tamron is well...it's a Tamron,

Ummmm I dont quite think you understand the concept of DOF here flash and DOF are two completely mutually exclussive aspects. ie flash has precisely zero effect on DOF. DOF is a function of the lens and sensor the flash simply provide light for the exposure

the tamron fear is totally understandable however.

the f4 on full frame is essentially going to give you the equivalent as the 2.8 on your crop
on the 5Dmk3 at events even shooting iso 16,000 is fine where as with crop its 1600 maybe 3200 at a push
iso 16000 on the 5dmk3 takes about the same NR and processing as 1600 does on crop IMO

The Tamron uncertainty is understandable, but I have used the lens, and it's quite a nice lens, especially when you throw in the price. AF on it moves a small bit slower than many of the rest of the L lenses, but build, optically, IQ, and VC (Tamron's name for IS) are all very good, on part with the vast majority of L lenses.

That said, using a flash I'd say you hardly need any kind of IS unless you're dragging your shutter way slow (which it looks like you're doing), but the subjects you are hitting with the flash will still be in pretty good exposure due to having a relative ton of light being reflected back to the sensor compared to the surroundings.

So if you're really concerned, go for the Canon 24-70 v2, otherwise I'd rent the Tamron and try it out. You'll find it's quite heavy actually, although I believe the 24-70 v2 is pretty heavy as well.

[wickidwombat]

Ummmm I dont quite think you understand the concept of DOF here flash and DOF are two completely mutually exclussive aspects. ie flash has precisely zero effect on DOF. DOF is a function of the lens and sensor the flash simply provide light for the exposure.

I understand DOF and the fact that a FF sensor has thinner DOF than crop with same lens.  I think I am misunderstanding the relationship between flash and DOF, but after years of taking photos, my recollection  is that flash will bring slightly more into focus than without it.  Could be wrong.  I admit I switched to a crop back about 6 years ago and have done most of my shooting with that, but even my 35mm film days I recall a flash bringing more into focus.  I know the flash stops action and brings the subject into focus, so I'm thinking my mind is fooling me in the light's relationship to DOF.

In any case, I'm not concerned about DOF.  2.8 on FF and a flash should be fine for this kind of photography.  I'll still have my subjects plenty in focus, and I can always turn it to f4 if DOF is too thin.  If f4 is the only option in the Canon line, then hopefully that works.  If not, I'll sell it and try the Tamron.  For video, that thinner DOF a 2.8 provides would be much more valuable.  I wish Canon made a wide zoom L lens that was 2.8 IS or faster.

another thing i thought of was do you really need the zoom?
what about the new canon 35mm f2 IS I can see this on a 6D being a pretty killer combo for what you shoot
I tried one out but went for the sigma 1.4 instead as i was after the sharpness over the IS but I can definately see why you want the IS and it still is a really well built lens
I'd have a look at what focal lengths you typically shoot, from those posted they look alot like around about the 35mm range

flash doesnt bring anything into focus though it just makes in focus objects it lights sharp due to the very high effective shutter speed given by the instantaneous flash burst

[jon_charron]

That said, using a flash I'd say you hardly need any kind of IS unless you're dragging your shutter way slow (which it looks like you're doing), but the subjects you are hitting with the flash will still be in pretty good exposure due to having a relative ton of light being reflected back to the sensor compared to the surroundings.

So if you're really concerned, go for the Canon 24-70 v2, otherwise I'd rent the Tamron and try it out. You'll find it's quite heavy actually, although I believe the 24-70 v2 is pretty heavy as well.

Yes.  Dragging the shutter and shooting rear curtain at Events.  Using more light is not the answer.  I want the ambient to expose and not be affected much by flash and all but very near the lens to stay in motion and be blurry.

[jon_charron]

another thing i thought of was do you really need the zoom?

Yes.  What zoom does in a constant aperture lens like the 17-55 is allow you to set your camera exposure and flash output manually for the room, then use the zoom to frame while trying to maintain the same distance to the subjects you want to capture.  You can also fine tune that by how you hold the flash, and in my case, the bounce attachment I use.  I'm usually bending it and shaping it with my teeth if I need to widen or intensify light.

If that doesn't work I move closer or farther or if it's a drastic change, I change the exposure slightly - first by changing the shutter because it's fastest and at my finger tips, and then if necessary, bump the flash a bit up or down.  I try not to mess with the ISO and aperture much and need to keep the shutter reasonably show to get the looks I want.  When I'm working, this all happens very fast and I can sneak in and out and get candid shots very easily.  Even if I need a second shot to adjust, I can usually bounce out before people really start to pose.  I don't have any others uploaded but I'll look to see a better example.  IS is indeed a MUST.  At least for me.  I'll see how the ISO plays, but having better ISO and lower noise is something I'll want to take advantage of if possible.  It would suck to just crank it up and get what I had before, but I'll take that if it's all I can get. 

[Drizzt321]

That said, using a flash I'd say you hardly need any kind of IS unless you're dragging your shutter way slow (which it looks like you're doing), but the subjects you are hitting with the flash will still be in pretty good exposure due to having a relative ton of light being reflected back to the sensor compared to the surroundings.

So if you're really concerned, go for the Canon 24-70 v2, otherwise I'd rent the Tamron and try it out. You'll find it's quite heavy actually, although I believe the 24-70 v2 is pretty heavy as well.

Yes.  Dragging the shutter and shooting rear curtain at Events.  Using more light is not the answer.  I want the ambient to expose and not be affected much by flash and all but very near the lens to stay in motion and be blurry.

Well, as I said, IS doesn't seem as important for this situation. You're moving the lens anyway, so with IS on it'll attempt to compensate for that.

[jon_charron]

That said, using a flash I'd say you hardly need any kind of IS unless you're dragging your shutter way slow (which it looks like you're doing), but the subjects you are hitting with the flash will still be in pretty good exposure due to having a relative ton of light being reflected back to the sensor compared to the surroundings.

So if you're really concerned, go for the Canon 24-70 v2, otherwise I'd rent the Tamron and try it out. You'll find it's quite heavy actually, although I believe the 24-70 v2 is pretty heavy as well.

Yes.  Dragging the shutter and shooting rear curtain at Events.  Using more light is not the answer.  I want the ambient to expose and not be affected much by flash and all but very near the lens to stay in motion and be blurry.

Well, as I said, IS doesn't seem as important for this situation. You're moving the lens anyway, so with IS on it'll attempt to compensate for that.

Trust me.  It's important.  The difference is quite remarkable.

[Drizzt321]

That said, using a flash I'd say you hardly need any kind of IS unless you're dragging your shutter way slow (which it looks like you're doing), but the subjects you are hitting with the flash will still be in pretty good exposure due to having a relative ton of light being reflected back to the sensor compared to the surroundings.

So if you're really concerned, go for the Canon 24-70 v2, otherwise I'd rent the Tamron and try it out. You'll find it's quite heavy actually, although I believe the 24-70 v2 is pretty heavy as well.

Yes.  Dragging the shutter and shooting rear curtain at Events.  Using more light is not the answer.  I want the ambient to expose and not be affected much by flash and all but very near the lens to stay in motion and be blurry.

Well, as I said, IS doesn't seem as important for this situation. You're moving the lens anyway, so with IS on it'll attempt to compensate for that.

Trust me.  It's important.  The difference is quite remarkable.

Really? That's interesting. Do you have any comparison shots where you have IS on, and then IS off with similar subjects/exposure/etc? I'd be very interested to see the difference.

[jrista]

I crank the ISO up and still can't get the keeper rate as high at 1/1600 and higher using f4 compared f2.8.  2.8 always wins when both have IS and the ISO is similar stops.  Maybe it's more a focusing issue.  I certainly came to know the intricacies of the 7D while I had it and used to kind of irritate the BIF guys with the bigger F4 lenses at times when shooting side by side, especially in the golden hour.

That's the point.  Sensor size does not affect exposure.  Shooting at 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200 on APS-C, if you switch to f/4 and keep 1/1600 s and ISO 3200, you'll have half as much light per unit area hitting the sensor.  Same would be true with the teeny sensor on my PowerShot S100. 

What sensor size does affect is the amount of noise at a given ISO.  So compared to 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200 on the 7D, you could shoot the FF camera at 1/1600 s, f/4, ISO 6400 and have lower image noise (better IQ) or you could shoot at 1/3200 s, f/4, ISO 12800 and have similar IQ to the 7D shot at f/2.8, ISO 3200 - i.e., a faster shutter speed with the slower lens and equivalent IQ.

Here's a shot with one of one of those 'bigger f/4 lenses' at dusk on an overcast day, FF camera and ISO 6400.  Same shot on a 7D would be unusably noisy (and in this case, f/2.8 isn't an option...). 


EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM, 1/250 s, f/4, ISO 6400

Wow, great photo! It's amazing that is ISO 6400...that setting is completely unusable on the 7D, even in relatively good light. I was just replying to someone the other day who proclaimed that the notion that small pixels increase noise is a "myth"...I'd love them to see this photo. It kind of proves my point...higher noise with smaller pixels is most certainly not a myth....there just isn't enough light per pixel to compare to something like the 1D X (assuming similar framing, anyway...although even with a center crop on the 1D X and a full frame with the 7D, downsampling won't completely mitigate the higher noise of the 7D's smaller pixels.)

I would actually be curious to know if you pushed ISO even higher, 12800, whether that would saturate the sensor more, and with a little post-process pullback, might actually result in less visible noise...

[EvillEmperor]

I crank the ISO up and still can't get the keeper rate as high at 1/1600 and higher using f4 compared f2.8.  2.8 always wins when both have IS and the ISO is similar stops.  Maybe it's more a focusing issue.  I certainly came to know the intricacies of the 7D while I had it and used to kind of irritate the BIF guys with the bigger F4 lenses at times when shooting side by side, especially in the golden hour.

That's the point.  Sensor size does not affect exposure.  Shooting at 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200 on APS-C, if you switch to f/4 and keep 1/1600 s and ISO 3200, you'll have half as much light per unit area hitting the sensor.  Same would be true with the teeny sensor on my PowerShot S100. 

What sensor size does affect is the amount of noise at a given ISO.  So compared to 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200 on the 7D, you could shoot the FF camera at 1/1600 s, f/4, ISO 6400 and have lower image noise (better IQ) or you could shoot at 1/3200 s, f/4, ISO 12800 and have similar IQ to the 7D shot at f/2.8, ISO 3200 - i.e., a faster shutter speed with the slower lens and equivalent IQ.

Here's a shot with one of one of those 'bigger f/4 lenses' at dusk on an overcast day, FF camera and ISO 6400.  Same shot on a 7D would be unusably noisy (and in this case, f/2.8 isn't an option...). 


EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM, 1/250 s, f/4, ISO 6400

Wow, great photo! It's amazing that is ISO 6400...that setting is completely unusable on the 7D, even in relatively good light. I was just replying to someone the other day who proclaimed that the notion that small pixels increase noise is a "myth"...I'd love them to see this photo. It kind of proves my point...higher noise with smaller pixels is most certainly not a myth....there just isn't enough light per pixel to compare to something like the 1D X (assuming similar framing, anyway...although even with a center crop on the 1D X and a full frame with the 7D, downsampling won't completely mitigate the higher noise of the 7D's smaller pixels.)

I would actually be curious to know if you pushed ISO even higher, 12800, whether that would saturate the sensor more, and with a little post-process pullback, might actually result in less visible noise...

It is a great photo, but (with all due respect to Jon) iris noisy, grainy, and soft. I'm not sure how you don't see that.

[verysimplejason]

24-70 F2.8 (I/II) or 24-70 F4 or the Tamron version.  24-105 F4 IS is also a nice match.

[jon_charron]

I crank the ISO up and still can't get the keeper rate as high at 1/1600 and higher using f4 compared f2.8.  2.8 always wins when both have IS and the ISO is similar stops.  Maybe it's more a focusing issue.  I certainly came to know the intricacies of the 7D while I had it and used to kind of irritate the BIF guys with the bigger F4 lenses at times when shooting side by side, especially in the golden hour.

That's the point.  Sensor size does not affect exposure.  Shooting at 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200 on APS-C, if you switch to f/4 and keep 1/1600 s and ISO 3200, you'll have half as much light per unit area hitting the sensor.  Same would be true with the teeny sensor on my PowerShot S100. 

What sensor size does affect is the amount of noise at a given ISO.  So compared to 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200 on the 7D, you could shoot the FF camera at 1/1600 s, f/4, ISO 6400 and have lower image noise (better IQ) or you could shoot at 1/3200 s, f/4, ISO 12800 and have similar IQ to the 7D shot at f/2.8, ISO 3200 - i.e., a faster shutter speed with the slower lens and equivalent IQ.

Here's a shot with one of one of those 'bigger f/4 lenses' at dusk on an overcast day, FF camera and ISO 6400.  Same shot on a 7D would be unusably noisy (and in this case, f/2.8 isn't an option...). 


EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM, 1/250 s, f/4, ISO 6400

Wow, great photo! It's amazing that is ISO 6400...that setting is completely unusable on the 7D, even in relatively good light. I was just replying to someone the other day who proclaimed that the notion that small pixels increase noise is a "myth"...I'd love them to see this photo. It kind of proves my point...higher noise with smaller pixels is most certainly not a myth....there just isn't enough light per pixel to compare to something like the 1D X (assuming similar framing, anyway...although even with a center crop on the 1D X and a full frame with the 7D, downsampling won't completely mitigate the higher noise of the 7D's smaller pixels.)

I would actually be curious to know if you pushed ISO even higher, 12800, whether that would saturate the sensor more, and with a little post-process pullback, might actually result in less visible noise...

It is a great photo, but (with all due respect to Jon) iris noisy, grainy, and soft. I'm not sure how you don't see that.

That's not my photo.  I think it's a 6400 ISO shot from neuroanatomist.

Here is one of mine of a Pelican. This is a very small, fairly low res jpeg uploaded to my blog which resizes and messes with the resolution of the photos.  The clean jpeg is MUCH sharper.  It was taken with a 7D and a 70-200 2.8 IS L II shot at 200/f2.8 @ 1/1600th I believe and maybe 640 ISO using a Better Beamer.