What will be your next lens - and can you post a photo to explain why?

[Steb]

I would buy a 70-300L today to replace the 70-200/1.4x combo for this application (I would keep the two optics for other purposes), but the "reversed" placement of its zoom and focus rings puts me off.

Have you actually tried it? I have both lenses and I find it quite easy and instant to switch between both placements. Anyway I love the 70-200/2.8 so much that I accept carrying more size and weight most of the time and my 70-300 gets much less use.

This is also the first Canon white (to my knowledge) that doesn't include the tripod ring with the lens. Again, weird.

As far as I know it is the same for other more lightweight whites, like the 70-200 f/4.

 

[JonAustin]

This is also the first Canon white (to my knowledge) that doesn't include the tripod ring with the lens.

I would buy a 70-300L today to replace the 70-200/1.4x combo for this application (I would keep the two optics for other purposes), but the "reversed" placement of its zoom and focus rings puts me off.

Have you actually tried it? I have both lenses and I find it quite easy and instant to switch between both placements. Anyway I love the 70-200/2.8 so much that I accept carrying more size and weight most of the time and my 70-300 gets much less use.

To Steb & Neuroanatomist : My mistake, re: the 70-200/4's also not shipping with tripod rings. I should know better, as I owned a 70-200/4 non-IS for about 3 years before upgrading to the 2.8 IS version.

Steb: Thanks for your feedback about your experience with the 70-300. I haven't counted it out entirely; as I mentioned, I'm waiting for the anticipated release of the 100-400. If I do spring for the 70-300, the first thing I will do is test its performance vs. the 70-200+1.4x, to see how the image quality compares.

 

[Click]

The 600 f4 L II ...to get more reach.

Stand by for the picture, I just ordered the lens today.

 

[expatinasia]

If I do spring for the 70-300, the first thing I will do is test its performance vs. the 70-200+1.4x, to see how the image quality compares.

I hope that's the Kenko 1.4x you are talking about as the Canon does not* work with that lens.

*Disclaimer. Some will tell you the lens does work with the 1.4X Canon, but that is ONLY if you first push the lens out to 300. It is not advisable to use it this way.

 

[Loswr]

If I do spring for the 70-300, the first thing I will do is test its performance vs. the 70-200+1.4x, to see how the image quality compares.

I hope that's the Kenko 1.4x you are talking about as the Canon does not* work with that lens.

*Disclaimer. Some will tell you the lens does work with the 1.4X Canon, but that is ONLY if you first push the lens out to 300. It is not advisable to use it this way.

Re-read...he's talking about comparing the 70-300 vs. the 70-200 + 1.4x, and the Canon 70-200 lenses are compatible with Canon TCs.

 

[expatinasia]

Re-read...he's talking about comparing the 70-300 vs. the 70-200 + 1.4x, and the Canon 70-200 lenses are compatible with Canon TCs.

Very true. My mistake, I had misread it to mean adding the 70-300 to the 1.4X, I have no idea how that happened. It's been a crazy few weeks. Thanks for pointing my mistake out though.

 

[aj1575]

My next lens will probably be the new Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 IS Macro. I still have an old Sigma 18-125 from when I bought my 350D, but is used very seldom because the lens is not really good. I will upgrade my body this year, and with the body I will also buy a new standard-zoom. The EF-S 15-85 is also nice, but the lower price and weight of the Sigma together with the faster aperture and macro capabilities make it the better choice for a everyday lens.

Also on my list for new lenses are the Sigma 30mm f1.4, as a replacement for the EF 35mm f2. Sigma improved the minimum focusing distance for the 2nd generation, which was a killer to me in the first one.

Then there is also 8-16mm again from Sigma which looks interesting, I just have the feeling that I need something wider than the EF-S 10-22. But I will wait with this one until Sigma rolls out the second generation. There are always some nice improvements, and I think it can't be that long until they upgrade it.

 

[tofik]

My next lens will be 24-105 or 24-70 (i don't know which canon 2.8 or 4, tamron). Why ? Bacause I don't have universal lens like this. For street photo will be the best (i think).

 

[AmbientLight]

The next lens for me will most likely be Canon's fish eye zoom. Sometimes even a 14mm is not wide enough, so that's my reason.

What you do not see in that shot of a small hotel in Muscat is that the building surrounds the pool on all sites with the same kind of Arabian architecture style. The latter is what got me to take the shot in the first place, because that pool plus building setup goes back to very ancient roots.

 

[Deva]

The next lens for me will most likely be Canon's fish eye zoom. Sometimes even a 14mm is not wide enough, so that's my reason.

Oddly, although I do have the 8-15mm, I still would like to get a 14mm - because whilst the fisheye is wonderful, the "fisheye" effect needs to be used with care, with only vertical and horizontal lines passing through the centre of the lens remaining straight. Hence I can do landscapes, but to keep the horizontal level, it has to be in the middle of the frame.

As an example, in the shot below, I was slightly off, and so I got a curved horizon.

 

[Zv]

Most likely it will be the Sigma 35 1.4, just waiting to sell my 85 1.8 and then I'll use the money towards the siggy. I need something for low light situations. Sorry no pics.

 

[Mr Bean]

The 600 f4 L II ...to get more reach.

Actually, ask me this question in 12 months and this will be my answer

 

[Deva]

Yep, I think the digital age has more or less removed the need for shift/tilt, unless you specifically want to shoot and work from one frame, which some people do.

At Building Panoramics we've moved ours on now.

Having looked at your website, I can only say that I aspire to be able to take pictures as beautiful as yours. If you hadn't said, I would have assumed almost all of the building pictures were taken with a TS lens, so I'm intrigued that you don't. What do you use to correct the perspective?

Am I right in thinking that most make use of (carefully managed) HDR as well?

Many thanks, Deva and Mr Bean. We use photoshop CS6 most of the time to correct perspective. You are absolutely right; all our images are just as you describe, carefully managed bracketed exposures hand blended in photoshop. We do not use an HDR program.

I have always read that software correction of perspective does not produce a good a result as a TS lens - which makes intuit sense, as by definition any stretching will have to involve interpolation. This, indeed, is why my lens shopping list has a TS at the top - which could start to look like a shaky choice if you haven't found the need (I recognise that TS lenses also bring benefits in terms of DOF which, at least in terms of an increase, software cannot (as far as I know) compensate for).

Does this mean that in your experience, modern software perspective correction produces results as good using a TS lens? Is that the only reason why you don't use them anymore?

 

[JonAustin]

Oddly, although I do have the 8-15mm, I still would like to get a 14mm - because whilst the fisheye is wonderful, the "fisheye" effect needs to be used with care, with only vertical and horizontal lines passing through the centre of the lens remaining straight. Hence I can do landscapes, but to keep the horizontal level, it has to be in the middle of the frame.

As an example, in the shot below, I was slightly off, and so I got a curved horizon.

Deva: I get your point, but in your sample photo, I actually like the curved horizon.

 

[Deva]

Oddly, although I do have the 8-15mm, I still would like to get a 14mm - because whilst the fisheye is wonderful, the "fisheye" effect needs to be used with care, with only vertical and horizontal lines passing through the centre of the lens remaining straight. Hence I can do landscapes, but to keep the horizontal level, it has to be in the middle of the frame.

As an example, in the shot below, I was slightly off, and so I got a curved horizon.

Deva: I get your point, but in your sample photo, I actually like the curved horizon.

I think sometimes it works better than others - I agree with you that in this case, I quite like it myself, possibly because it picks up on the curves of the flowers, and is slightly masked by the curve of the bay (so the far distant horizon isn't smiling/frowning). The fisheye demands careful composition to get it to work well - but when it does, it gives a very different perspective which I very much enjoy using.

 

[AmbientLight]

Oddly, although I do have the 8-15mm, I still would like to get a 14mm - because whilst the fisheye is wonderful, the "fisheye" effect needs to be used with care, with only vertical and horizontal lines passing through the centre of the lens remaining straight. Hence I can do landscapes, but to keep the horizontal level, it has to be in the middle of the frame.

As an example, in the shot below, I was slightly off, and so I got a curved horizon.

Deva: I get your point, but in your sample photo, I actually like the curved horizon.

I think sometimes it works better than others - I agree with you that in this case, I quite like it myself, possibly because it picks up on the curves of the flowers, and is slightly masked by the curve of the bay (so the far distant horizon isn't smiling/frowning). The fisheye demands careful composition to get it to work well - but when it does, it gives a very different perspective which I very much enjoy using.

Actually I don't think it is a negative feature that you have to frame carefully with a fish-eye lens, as I do like to spend some time thinking about framing before I shoot anyway.

Thanks for all the positive comments regarding Deva's fish-eye sample picture and of course thanks to Deva, because these comments actually support my view that this lens provides some very nice creative options.