Thanks jdramirez. I think you're probably right that the 24-105 is the best choice. And yeah, I was assuming I'd get the 24-105 for around $700-750 from a 5D mkiii kit. I actually already had the lens from my 5D3 kit, but sold it to go toward my 70-200 2.8 ii. Might even consider a used one from ebay...

I agree with the 24-105 comparison to the sigma 35... I currently use my 70-200 for video and the IS is definitely noticeable. Also, that is where my questioning of the 24-105 comes into play. I'm afraid that I might end up going back to my 70-200 anywhere I can if the 24-105 is noticeably less IQ (not sure how significant they would compare on 1080p). For a lot of stuff that might work better indoors, we end up having to go outside to be able to frame the shot how it needs to be for the 70-200. 35mm is the perfect length for filling the gap that cant be filled with the 70-200, so that's what has me considering the newer, faster, supposedly-improved-IS 35 f2 against the 24-105.

I've heard that IS matters less at short focal lengths, although for video I think it's still useful. This is one of the videos I saw that got me interested in the new canon 35. The first half is filmed without IS, and then IS is turned on later.

http://youtu.be/tN1Z2Pybl1E

Cannon Man said:

Please buy it! =)
I use it all the time and i can't live with out it.

Click to expand...

hahaha, thanks, but i think i am going to skip it for the time being... now trying to decide between 24 IS, 24 1.4 and 24-70 II instead (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15535.0)

2.8 IS II is fantastic, and if your budget can afford it, i would say get that, never look back and enjoy your images!

;D

EOS M 100-400L + 1.4 extender

1/200 F11 ISO 400


untitled-14-Edit.jpg by CastilloPhotoDesign, on Flickr

Good morning,

as far as my own experinece teaches me - the actual lenses work as well with digital as with analog bodies. There were no problems to be reported at all. The better coating and the improved optics will bring you good results also with the excellent 1V. I use film for b&w shooting various types, and process them myself, so that cost is in good relation to effect.

Kind regards

Joerg

Consider the 28 f1.8 as well. It's much better build quality than either the old 35 and 50 1.4. Real USM AF as well. Very light, totally silent in use, close MFD and very good IQ even @ 1.8 center that is. Some consider the 28mm as an outdated focal length. I tend to like it. It works super as a walk around lens for me. Still considering the new 35 IS though.

AudioGlenn said:

(sigh) I'm returning the 6D today (purchased on Thursday). Decent camera but a little slower and a bit "plastic-y" (minor gripe). You guys were right. I've got to get an identical body. damn... time to save!!!

Click to expand...

As many suggested, using identical bodies is quite easy. I attached 24-70 on one body and 70-200 & 135L on sencond. I was able to sit still and enjoining the show without walking around or swapping lenses(did one between 135L & 70-200 for extra shutter speed though).

JBeckwith said:

My current lens lineup only consists of the 24-105 f/4L and 50 1.8.

I have an offer on the table to sell my 24-105 for about $720. I love this lens but I have been looking to go a little wider for landscapes and also a little longer for portrait work. With Canon's current refurbished pricing I could get both the 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 (non-IS) f/4L for about $900.

This means I would achieve all my goals of having a wider lens, longer lens, and I would still have the 50 to fill the difference all for only about $200 out of pocket. I am curious if anybody has enough experience with any of these lenses to confirm that it would be a worthwhile deal for me or if I should hang onto the 24-105 and stick with my current setup.

Click to expand...

I struggled over similar situation a few months ago. I thought I wouldn't need 24-105 anymore. I bought 17-40L and tried it for a month. I kind of liked it, but it couldn't serve as my general purpose lens. Meanwhile I already sold my 24-105. I missed it so much after it's gone. And guess what? I repurchased it again. I could've given Tamron a try but I really don't prefer third party lens if given a choice. My repurchase price is the same as the sale price of my previous lens. I did lose some commission though.

I do wish I could go wider. But I'm going to wait a little bit this time. 24mm is wide enough for me most of the time.

For portrait, maybe you could get an 85 1.8. or 100 f2. They are both awesome. The 135L no doubt is even better but I don't know if it fits your budget.

So to summarize, I'd keep what you have right now. Get a portrait lens such as 85 1.8 or 100 f2. For landscape, save up and get 17-40 later. Don't get rid of the 24-105.

Congratulations on purchasing the 100 IS macro lens. Look forward to seeing your pics with this lens. I did some research on the Amaran Halo and will stick with using my 580 EX ll and my Gary Fong collapsable diffuser.

dickgrafixstop said:

Anyone use one seriously? I've got a bag of FD lenses that have been unused since my beloved A1 died, and I'd
like to continue using them if possible. I know about the infinity focus limitation and that the glass correction
piece will cost me a stop, but with prices varying from >$20 to <$200 on ebay, anyone have any recommendations?

Click to expand...

Check out Ed Mika at www.edmika.com he also has listings on ebay. My understanding is that his are the best...
Good luck!

expatinasia said:

Hobby Shooter said:

Rienzphotoz said:

M.ST said:

I think that the S4 Zoom is a game changer and the end of the entry level compact cameras.

Click to expand...

:-\

Click to expand...

I disagree, simply because of the price. I have a regular S4 and for the price of that I could get three or four entry level point and shoots.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that's not the point. Here, Nokia and Samsung are now taking the camera-side of the phone to the next level and I can only see it getting better and better as we move forward.

Just imagine if your S4 which costs hundreds itself - could take pictures as well as a Sony RX 100 or RX1. You will always need to carry a phone with you, but you do not always need to carry a point and shoot. There would be your answer.

The Nokia EOS is supposed to be coming out soon, which will be very interesting.

Just imagine if Sony stuck a phone on the back of a RX100 (or the new RX100 ii or is it going to be RX 200). And why not? It is a very small camera as it is.

When Samsung first came out with the Note people (all the pro reviewers etc) blasted it for being too big. I never thought so, as much of what I do on the phone is surf the net and message which is easier on a phone the size of a Note than it is on something much smaller.

Batteries are getting smaller and lasting longer, so if a manufacturer can come out with something that takes pictures as good as a RX100 (or even a RX1 - wow) and allows calls, surfing apps like whatsapp etc then I guarantee that that will be my next phone purchase and I would bet millions others would too (though there would be different market segments like any product and I am not saying everyone will spend US$2XXX on a phone camera).

We are not at the beginning of a new cycle, and I find it very interesting indeed.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. It's obvious that more and more people are using their phones as their only camera. I opposed the statement that this would kill the low end market. More advanced integrated devices will make it to the market and it's exciting. I hqve a Note myself and am very satisfied with it.

I use my EF 70-300L primarily for shooting pictures of my (very quick) Jack Russell terrier. I can stand off a ways, frame the shot as she moves and then zoom in at the last second. The AF is very responsive. By being farther away, I can be more innocuous and won't affect her behavior. When she is completely oblivious to where I am, she is more herself. I can move from tight portrait to environmental action shot in no time. It's the range, the weight and the balance of the lens that really comes in handy. I sold my 70-200 f/4 IS because the image quality of the two was indistinguishable (contrast and color on the 70-300L actually seems a bit better). I am above 200mm focal length most of the time and shoot primarily at f/8 for sharpness. The 70-300 is great for me (on a 5D2 which supposedly can't shoot action).

The shot below is actually MUCH crisper than this....

you can't unless everyone starts calibrating their monitors

scottkinfw said:

I'm not an expert..

The 5DIII with the 24-105 plus flash (when needed) is great.
The 7D yes. However a crop body with the 70-200 may be a bit too long depending on the size of the venue.
what do others think?
A second flash might be good to have, but that is a lot of clunky stuff to carry.

Click to expand...

I don't even try to say I'd be an expert, if I was I might not need to ask for opinions. I'm just a happy hobbyist, and instead of inventing the wheel again, I'm hoping to learn from other peoples' experiences.

But I don't see how the 70-200 would be too long on crop, especially as the 24-105 almost seamless continue from there. I don't know the size of the venue, but I'm sure the 24-320mm will cover anything. Bit wider might be nice on occasion, but 24 on FF does quite good work too.

And if I'm carrying already 2 bodies, it's not really different size-wise if I have flash on both, compared to flash on one. If the venue seems small/tight, I might drop the 70-200 and shoot mostly on 24-105, and maybe for some candids I'll change the 70-200 on 5D. I've been hoping to get double-RSS straps, but too late now. Have to deal with the standard straps.

serendipidy said:

IslanderMV said:

Calling the flock

Tree Swallow - Martha's Vineyard
100-400 mm

Click to expand...

Great shot! Looks like hubby's getting an earfull ;D

Click to expand...

What a big mouth you have grandmother!

tron said:

Last year I was shooting at an archaeological place and I dropped my 24 TS-E 24mm II.
Immediately I put my foot and decelerated its fall a lot. It landed at a wooden floor. It had its cap.
Nothing happened not even a scratch on the plastic areas 8)

I still try to figure how on earth my 5D2's screen was damaged. Screens are inside and cannot in any way be harmed by a dropping lens (I hadn't put any finger inside).

Anyway I happened to have a Grid Screen which I hadn't used yet. So I replaced the screen and everything was as good as new

Click to expand...

lucky. I dropped a Tilt Shift (not sure if it was the 17 or 24) but it split into 2 pieces. First claim ever - but insurance gave me $ to buy a new one.

Krob78 said:

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:

Krob78 said:

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:

I used the 24-105L for years, but after owning the 24-70VC for a few months I sold the 24-105L. The Tamron is the better lens in almost every way. The Tamron stays on my 6D a good percentage of the time. For landscape, it has less distortion, is slightly wider (although listed the same), far less vignetting, better color rendering, and then it has a lot of advantages for wide aperture shots. I find the bokeh rendering great on the Tamron:


Resurrection by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Stopped down it is a great landscape lens. Nicely sharp!

As the Ice Forms by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Click to expand...

Dustin, thanks for posting these images and your opinion on the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC. I've been contemplating this lens since I picked up my 5D3 a few months back. I've been going back and forth between this and of course the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L.

Your images here take a little of my concern away. Can you tell me about the fit and finish on the lens and how it feels on your camera? Is the zoom ring smooth like an L lens? Stuff like that I'd be interested in knowing...

Thanks,
Ken

Click to expand...

Ken,.
have a pretty decent kit (see my signature), but this lens is my most used tool. It is just very flexible and produces consistently great images.

Click to expand...

Thanks Dustin, that's exactly what I was looking for. You've made up my mind! I was going back and forth over this and the 24-70mm f/2.8L.

I just sold my 24-105L and I liked it a lot but I never really loved it. I love all my other lenses. I wanted the 24-70mm 4/2.8L but never pulled the trigger, as I really like having IS. Especially with low light situations even with the 5d3 and it's capabilities. I'm 53 now and I do often see some oof from shaking a little bit on a few non IS lenses I've used or borrowed from friends, even on my 85mm... So I've wanted the IS.

I'm glad Tamron came out with it, do to the price point, just had some trepidation where all I've owned mostly has been L glass, I just didn't know what to expect but wanted it to be a fantastic lens that I would not regret purchasing over the 24-70mm f/2.8L.

I think you answered my questions, thanks again for your time!

All the best,
Ken

Click to expand...

My pleasure

I shot quite a bit with the 35mm f/2 & found it wanting just like some of the previous posters. Colors were blah (we can fix that, right?), corners weren't very sharp, blah, blah, blah.

I thought I'd get the 28mm 1.8 to upgrade. And it was better. But after a week or two it was buried in my bag & seldom made an appearance. I eventually sold it.

BUT, I just picked up the 28mm f2.8 is. I've taken maybe 400-500 photos so far, in various situations, and although I wouldn't say I've throughly tested it- I love it! I heard a lot of "too slow for a prime", "don't need the IS", "why did Canon even make this lens?" And I agreed with those thoughts (at least the 1st two). But I found shooting with it much different than what I thought. Sharp wide open, very good colors (a lot less post work) & the IS does come in handy given the relatively slow speed for a prime. Honestly, I can't think of a situation where I'd rather go back to 28 1.8. And of course the fact that I paid about the same or less for the 2.8 ($400 brand new) than the 1.8 is currently going for on a number of sites certainly helped.

Since you seem to be sold on the focal length my advice, go to you local shop and test both lens. Take some test pattern shots with both lens. Shoot some inside, lower light photos. Be sure to shoot some test shots with bright colors & some outdoors shots (if you and your camera guy are on good terms).

After you get home and compare the shots I think you'll know which one you'd prefer. Or just buy both when you find a good enough deal. Shoot for a few weeks with each and sell the one you don't want. I found that almost always makes the decision easier, and often cheaper, than renting..

Good luck & happy shooting with whichever lens you end up with, take care.

Re: Canon refurb shop.... Just picked up 2 600EX RTs.... Even though it said " out of stock"......what I did was to refresh page or update page every 10-15 seconds and on the 3 rd refresh, there it was..." in stock". Try it!

AndersBorg said:

Thanks for your help!

I figured it out now!

Anders

Click to expand...

I see, said the blind carpenter as he picked up the hammer and saw

very nice. Great image

You could go small and light - SL1 or even an M if the new firmware comes out and is as good as Canon claims.

I also handled one at my local Costco. To me it felt so small that it didn't balance well with the kit zoom lens. Not enough body to hold on to. It might feel right to me with the 40 pancake, but I have an S-90 and a T2i for those times when I need a small camera. I don't see the SL1 filling any useful role for me and since the sensor is nothing special, it's a big yawn here.

Thanks again for all the help. There's no one perfect answer so reviewing all options I rented the 100-400. My final rationale was the rental fee being similar to what a polarizing filter would have cost for my 200 prime (and I already have a 77mm polarizing filter). Almost bought the 70-300, but I think I'd rather wait to see what version II of the 100-400 might be like. Lots of soccer and band events ahead and I think I just coached my final soccer game after 10 years of coaching leaving time for massive amounts of future pics.