Printable View
I just ordered the 70-200 2.8 IS II. This combined with my 17-55 2.8 should satisfy my lens/gear needs for a long time. At least that is what I was telling myself when I hit the "Purchase" button.
Except maybe just a monopod to shoot my 5-year-old doing soccer.
And maybe just a 1.8 nifty 50 for playing with.
And I am just assuming my existing backpack will fit this beast...
it will be rare that a nifty 50 will ever be on your camera - the 17-55 is only one stop slower, if you went to the 1.4 perhaps in LOW light. Extension tubes/macros might be the other place, not the strong suite for the 50/1.8.
I noticed in other posts, it appears you have a T3i (which I also have), if you haven't tried the Magic Lantern software it is certainly worth the free down load.
I have the same two lenses and have done "mini safaris" with just the 70-200 to get practice, etc. I have had a lot of fun doing videos with it. Play w/ the image stabilization in video mode. Try different shutter speeds and take some vids of the kiddos doing the soccer thing. If you can stand a 2 mega pixel image, you have a 30 frame per second option in HD video.
I am having a blast fiddling around w/ the camera, then again I come from the old film days, when we had to buy a separate motor drive to get 3.5 fps or spend big bucks to get 5 fps. and carry around a 4lbs of camera before adding a lens to it, had to either change out 36 exposure rolls or get the 250 frame back and load our own. AND walk to school uphill both ways with newspaper shoes....
I just went and took a quick look at Magic Lantern. Pretty cool. I had not really been thinking much about video at all, but that dowonload seems to make a big difference in low light, and with time-lapse stuff. I did notice the disclaimer at the download button, though, which reads "THIS IS DANGEROUS AND MIGHT DAMAGE YOUR CAMERA. NO WARRANTIES. NO GUARANTEES. DO NOT TAUNT. IF IT BREAKS, YOU GET TO KEEP BOTH PIECES."Quote:
Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles
Thanks for the suggestion. I will look more into it.
Also, after last night's post I had the credit card sitting out on the desk already, so it seemed like a convenient time to go ahead and buy the nifty fifty too. Hey, for $119.00, I can experiment with a prime. Perhaps a little extra bokeh really can bring about world peace, improve the quality of my dog's breath, and let the Penguins win the Stanley Cup.
+1 on the nifty fifty.
I have a 17-40, 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 f4. I still use the 50 1.8. Why? because if I want to take a camera with me, but dont want to lug my 24-70 around with it (and also make my camera setup appear more low-key) I throw the 50mm on there. Small, cheap, light, good images produced with it.
I don't see any reason why not to. I think if you are on the fence about a 100 dollar lens after just pulling the trigger on a 2000+ one, you could justify the bounce for the small amount of space it would take to find a home in your bag.
Dave.
I should note that I have the 17-40 at my disposal, if the wife isn't using it.
I haven't heard anyone having issues with Magic Lantern - the only thing I found is that if I have highlight protect i.e. ISO 200 and set the ISO to 100 in the movie menue it becomes wacky and requires the battery to be removed and restarted (perhaps it is a microsoft product).
I have been using ML for several months and it is really helpful in live view - you will get spoiled w/ all the extra info on the screen.
Everybody should have an EF 50mm f/1.8, if only as a backup to a more expensive 50mm.
Have been using Magic Lantern for some time on 5D2. Was kinda hoping Canon would implement more of its features into 5D3. Sigh. Oh well, hopefully the folks at ML will be kind enough to provide some upgrades for us. Have really gotten lots of use of the time lapse feature amongst others. The video capabilities added are awesome too, though I seldom shoot video. not sure how I could force people to sit through even a short clip without having to worry about forcible confinement charges....
Don't think you need to fret about having space in your bag for the 70-200. Expect it will spend more time on the camera body hanging on the strap.
You can pay more for a UV filter than the cost of the nifty fifty! It is hard to believe how little they cost.
I gotta get a shoulder strap too. My stock Canon neck strap makes the camera smash my sternum already, and with the new heavier lens, it seems like it will be worse. I am waffling on the brand, though. BosStrap, Lens Loop or the Black Rapid. Lens Loop may be in the lead right now. If not, maybe suck it up and go Black Rapid. Or even a guitar strap (for the length) rigged with the screw from Lens Loop or Black Rapid.
Love my Blackrapid RS-4.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Stephen
If you get a UV filter, I'd recommend a B+W XS-Pro mount (MRC or Nano) if using the lens with a FF body. It came as a surprise to me, but the standard F-Pro increases optical vignetting on the 70-200 II.