DO NOT show me those pictures...I'm jealous [:P][:D]
Printable View
DO NOT show me those pictures...I'm jealous [:P][:D]
No, I'll never have as much gear asVincent Laforet, nor be as good a photographer. While I agree that it'spossibleto take great and inspiring pictures with a beat up old Minolta and some Velvia film, it's not likely to be possiblefor me - and I'm not going to make a life out of photography, nor a living from it. But I enjoy it as a hobby, and having good gear helps me get the most, and the most enjoyment, out of my hobby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Wait, Brendan, wait...I thought you said gear alone couldn't take a good picture, right? Which is it?? [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by barba
Great idea! Jon has a valid point, though - my wife and I used to travel a lot (Central America, Africa, etc.), but having a baby curtailed that sort of thing for a while. But, our 'baby' is two now, and after a test run a couple of months ago (cross-country flight for a week in San Francisco), we're ready to start traveling again. In fact, the next trip is already planned, and the funds are all set aside and earning a bit of interest for now - we're going to China early next year.
[:)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
DITTO! Since almost the same linewas used on me not too long ago, I could not have responded any better!Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I can't help but shake my head and chuckle when I read stuff like this! On a forum such as this one, why the heck wouldanyone even need to justifytheir desire, ability to financially afford, or level to deserve various gear is BEYOND ME!
For some, one camera and one or two lenses is fine but for me, if I only wanted and enjoyed having one lens, I probably would have stayed with my point and shoot. The enjoyment that can be attained from having a variety of lenses and other various gear is what makes this hobby so interesting and enjoyable for me, skill or no skill.
I know nothing about golf but I do know Tiger Woods doesn't play golf with oneclub and one ball and neither do theengineers I work with ...they are a far cry from being professional golfersbut they still go out to the golf course with their bag of clubs (and continue to buy more) and have a grand ol' time!
Just my 2 cents! [:P]
Denise
Oops...I forgot to mention that I plan on getting the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and Tokina 12-24mm and maybe the Canon 135mm as soon as possible just for the fun of it!
Denise
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
<div>In that case, Brendan, you'd better not look at Bryan's gear listposted in the Reviews section. As you may know from his bio, photography is not his day job, but that's quite a collection of gear... Of course, without access to all that gear, he couldn't write the excellent reviews which we've all come to depend on!</div>Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddt0725
I'm not a golfer, but when I lived in San Diego (the county with the highest number of golf courses per capita), I worked right across the street from the Torrey Pines golf course in La Jolla, where the Buick Invitational is played every year. I can't count the number of foursomes of middle-aged, out-of-shape men whacking away at golf balls and slicing them into the rough or right off the cliffs into the Pacific Ocean, having a grand time doing so, and doing it using bags full of top-of-the-line custom-fitted Calloway or other high-end clubs.
But enough of the off topic stuff. [;)]
Denise, enjoy your upcoming lenses!!
Denise
I started out with a Canon 20D 6 years ago. I had the 17-85 mm as my main lens, and went without a kit lens. I thought it was a perfect match. I was a beginner/newbie. I could not get ANY decent indoor low light shots, so I bought the 50mm f1.4 based on Bryan's recommendations here, and I was stunned at the difference. I also bought the (then) new 580 EX flash. And it opened up a whole new arena.
18 months ago I took a trip to europe for 3 weeks, and based on Bryan's recommendation, I bought the Canon EFS 10-22, as I knew I would need something to capture the "Vista's" as close as my eyes were seeing. It was a very good call, and some of my best shots ever are with this lens, even today. The 10-22 is ROCK solid. I cannot imagine not having this lens. It is that good on a 1.6 crop Canon body. I cannot speak to the tokina iteration, but I here some negatives everywhere I ask, or read about. Bryan included.
In October 2009 i saw the 7D announcement, and I took the plunge, as I had a lot of Amex membership miles, and I used them for the 7D and the EFS 17-55 f2.8, and my jaw dropped to the floor with this combination. I don't do a lot of pixel peeping, i just take shots, and the combo offered more than i asked for.
I then started doing a lot of event situations, and needed more reach in the low light arena, so i bought the EF 85mm f1.8, and am amazed with this lens, and use it more than any other right now. It is that good, and it is cheap. I started to get the lens GAS ( gear aquisition syndrome ), and then ordered the the EF 135mm f2, as I wanted more reach, and low light abilities. THIS IS THE BEST LENS I HAVE. It is amazing. Even on my 7D.
In early January, I bought the esteemed 70-200 f4 IS, and am thrilled with it's weight and IQ when light is available, I thought about the f2.8 iteration, but due to weight and price, relented to the f4 iteration. I am glad I did. I have primes that cover what I need in low light, and the f2.8 iteration I rented for a week was a bear too manage weight wise. I am not a fan of nose heavy.
I recently added the 200mm f2.8 prime, and am amazed at the IQ/ per buck ratio. No IS, but with a good mono, or tripod, and outstanding lens.
I have some to realize that glass is everything. I am still using my 20 D with the glass, and I get more out of that combo than most folks will ever believe. Don't get me started on what the 7D brings to bear. It is the best bang for the buck SLR ever invented. And the video is to die for.
You are making great headway in the DP environment, and your pictures bear that out.
Invest in glass, and you will always be happy
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacManUS
Thanks, MacManUS(?)! Iam a firm believer that better glass can never hurt ...well, maybe unless it is as heavy as the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS! [:P] I debate back and forth over that one! Such an absolutelybeautiful lens but I am a pretty small gal ...maybe you helped move the 135mm f/2 ahead of that one!
I took a peek at your bio and saw the photo of your little cutie ...may I ask which lens you used to take that photo? You captured those big brown eyes beautifully and I love the blurred background..an overall wonderful photo! Hmmm, John, maybe we have another lens to add to our list!
I think John is doing a wonderful job at trying to round out his lens collection to capture as many memories as he can of his little girl and vacations him and his wife share together!
Denise
Personally I think you have too many lenses. On an APS-C my choice is n. 3) but to keep the 17-55, I think you seldom use the 10-22, so you can decide to keep it or sell it, to sell the 200 f2.8, you will never use it after purchasing the zoom, not to buy the 50 mm f1.4, you already have the 85 f1.8, that is superior to the other lens for indoor portrait.
Your traveling package will be 7d + 17-55 + 70-200 + 100 Macro+ extender. NO bad at all
Thanks again to everyone for your advice and input!
<div>I spent many years teaching medical students, and I often told them, "Your first instinct is usually right." In this case, it was for me. Today, I picked up a CF monopod (used via Craigslist, but indistinguishable from new and for less than half the cost of a new one). I also ordered myEF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L IS II USM from B&H today - it will be in my hands on Friday. </div>Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
<div></div>
[:D]
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
Nice! Have fun mate. I'll have my new 5D mkII and 24-70 f/2.8 on Friday as well - I'll spare a thought for our collective excitement when unwrapping the box. [:D]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
Looking at that made me cry. I want ONE of the TS-E lenses... he had them all. WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYY???
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Congrats!!! Fantastic decision...I am sure you are going to enjoy both very much!
Denise
P.S. You ever want to sell any of that "like new" craigslist gear ...you know where to find me! [;)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacManUS
Wow thats a lot of lenses. I'm pretty happy with my 5d II, 24-70, and 70-200 2.8 IS. That being said I'd love a:
- 180 mm macro with IS
- 14-24 UWA Zoom from canon with IS (to rival nikons
- the new 70-200 mark II
- 24-70 with IS
- 1Ds mark IV
- 400 2.8 IS
<div>Soseeingas only two of the lenses on my wishlist are in production and seeing as I'm still paying off what I have my two lenses are enough for me. (:</div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
It's my favorite lens. I think you'll like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Just the kind of reckless abandon I like in a surgeon.
Hey wait. Do I know you? You're not Professor Tucker, are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Not last time I checked, no. [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
I do like the 70-200 II!! [:D] It's really a fantastic and fantastically sharp lens - from my limited testing, it's at least as sharp as the 200mm f/2.8L prime!
Here's a shot of a cooperative kestral from my walk around a local Audubon preserve last weekend (~50% crop):
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/Kestral_2D00_Crop.jpg[/img]
EOS 7D, EF70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II USM @ 200mm, f/4, 1/320 s, ISO 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob williams
That same walk around the nature preserve, trying to manage gripped 7D+70-200 and toddler, convinced me that the Canon neck strap was not the way to go. Thanks again for this great recommendation, Bob. I picked up a BlackRapid RS-4 on Tuesday and used it yesterday on a family outing - it's excellent!
<div>--John</div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
It's just that I took an anatomy class at UC Davis, and Professor Tucker repeatedly said the same thing. Maybe it's an anatomist thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I'm enjoying mine as well. And my wife has onlychastisedme a few times for spending all that money. Easily worth it. :)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Ok, you're scaring me a bit - the degrees of separation just became a lot fewer. Actually, I think Richard might have picked up that saying from the same place that I did. When you wrote 'Professor Tucker' I dismissed that, as Tucker isn't exactly a rare surname. But I was teaching at UC Davis when he joined the faculty there (1994/95, I think), and my research lab was in MS-1A. It was a favorite saying of one of the senior faculty members in the medical gross anatomy course in which we both taught. I also taught a few lab sections of the undergrad anatomy course (CHA 101, IIRC?).
Feel free to start a Conversation if you'd like to reminisce!
Wait... a crop sensor affects the "effective aperture" too (i.e., f/2 on full frame is equivalent to ~f/4 on a crop sensor)???
I have never read that anywhere before... but then again, I've only been toying around with this stuff for about a year now :)
Most people are aware that a larger sensor
1) gives a narrower dof
2) gives less noise at a given ISO
2 in effect makes our lenses expose faster. For example, if ISO 1000 on the 5DII has as much noise as ISO 400 on the 7D, then we can use a 2 1/2 times faster shutter speed with the 5DII while getting the same noise by using iso 1000 instead of iso 400. Thus 2 could be rewritten as
2') allows us to use higher shutter speeds while retaining the same amount of noise.
Most people are aware of 1) and 2) in a qualitative way. What most (except those on this forum) don't realize is that when you move to full frame, the amount by which the DOF decreases and shutter speed increases is exactly the same as if our lens f number was divided by the FOVCF.
In short, the answer is yes when it comes to DOF and fast exposure.
For close up shots (near 1x magnification), DOF does not follow this rule, but then, most of us stop down for macros anyway.
Hmmm... interesting. I think I get it, but I need to wrap my head around it for a few hours to really be sure. :)
Out of curiousity... is that all assuming the same number of pixels in the two sensors (FF vs. crop)?
For DOF and photon noise, the number of pixles is irrelevant.
That is, unless use a pixel size to define the size of your circle of confusion when computing DOF. In this case, yes. Same number of pixels. (Ie, the circle of confusion size should be scaled by sensor size).
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Ok, so I ended up going with 6)EF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L IS II +EF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]LIS.
The 70-200 II zoom is simply an awesome lens, and I've really been liking the 24-105mm as an outdoor walkaround lens for 'memory shots' of family outings (it gets left at home on photo-specific outings).
As both wickerprints and Mark suggested, I just sold my EF 200mm f/2.8L prime (literally, a couple of hours ago!). I spent some time shooting with it over the weekend, and even though it's a great lens I just wasn't thrilled with the results - I found myself missing the IS of the zoom at twilight, and some informal testing showed that the zoom focuses just as fast, and is actually sharper than the prime! I'm still a little disappointed (seller's remorse?), since the prime was a nice, light (relatively speaking), and fairly inconspicuous lens. But, I'll get over that - it helps that since I bought it used for a great price, I actually made a profit on the sale, in addition to getting a few months' use out of the lens.
But now, I've got more $100's in my wallet, and besides that, I've got this nice 72mm B+W MRC UV filter (which I bought for the 200mm prime but kept). So, now I'm thinking...that 72mm filter needs a nice, new prime lens to attach itself to... [:P]
I now have a broad coverage range of f/2.8 zooms (17-200), so I'm attracted to something fast, probably faster than f/2 (although the 135mm f/2L remains on my list, it's not near the top). I'm thinking in terms of indoor, ambient light shots - f/1.4 or faster.
I was thinking of the 35mm f/1.4L for that, but looking over my EXIF data from indoor shots, I find myself a little worried that 35mm might actually be too wide - a lot of my 17-55mm lens shots are at 50-55mm. But I'm not certain that it's too wide, and it's pretty easy to take a couple of steps closer indoors.
Then there's the 50mm f/1.2L. I agree with Bryan's statement in his review that it's not really a 'good value', especially compared to the 50mm f/1.4. But I have the $, and I know that I'd primarily be using that lens between f/1.2 and f/2, where it bests the 50mm f/1.4 in the sharpness department (in addition to offering better bokeh and color/contrast across the board). Also, I'm a bit concerned about the focus shift issue with that lens. Plus, the 50mm f/1.4 is still a very nice lens...
Finally, there's the 85mm f/1.2L. (Keith, you may have something to say about that - I see from another thread that you just ordered one). I already have the EF 85mm f/1.8 - selling that would cover the difference between the other L primes and the 85L, and the rebate helps, too.
So, more choices in the $1400-1800 range:
1) EF 35mm f/1.4L
2) EF 50mm f/1.2L
3) EF 85mm f/1.2L II (and sell the 85mm f/1.8...or not?)
4) EF 50mm f/1.4 + EF 135mm f/2L
5) Just wait - Mk II versions of the 35mm f/1.4L and/or the 50mm f/1.4 will be announced for Photokina, and I'll kick myself in the butt if a new version is released so soon after buying one
Thoughts and suggestions will be appreciated!
--John
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Excellent choice! Those are probably my two most used lenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Good idea. I was wondering what the heck you needed that thing for when you already had "the II". :) (Yes, I know it is lighter than the II, but it it is so much less versatile...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I got over my lust for this lens when I moved to full frame :) On the 5DII and for the kinds of pictures I take, f/2 is almost always fast enough. When it isn't, I reach for my 50mm f/1.4.
(I still have deep respect for the 85 f/1.2, but I don't need to own it just now :))
Consider the 5DII, dude. It would be like getting a whole new set of fast lenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
What Jon said :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
I hear you (and Mark). I'm reluctant to go FF right now, because:
- I like the 'crop factor' for wildlife
- I like the AF system of my 7D (I stepped up from a T1i in large part for better AF, and I feel like the 5DII would be stepping down again)
- I don't see myself carrying 2 bodies anywhere (but I could see having a FF body I use around the house and for portraits, and the 7D which I'd take out for wildlife shooting). It would make travel choices more difficult...
- There's no FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
A 24-70mm f/2.8 IS might be a game changer for me. Else, I'd probably wait and take the plunge on a 1DsIV in the future, or hope for better AF in the 5DIII...
Right now, with a pretty new (and excellent) 7D, it's difficult for me to personally justify a second body, and relatively easy for me to justify more lenses.
Thoughts on the lens options?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Well, the 85 1.2 has kind of been that dream of mine for about 3 years. I can't gush over it yet. I'll have it either Friday or Monday. I'm looking forward to using it on both 5D and 7D. On the 7D it will be a 136 at f/2 (DOF wise, I think).
The 35L is a lens that blows me away though. I love the MFD with the shallow DOF you can make intriguing photos out of anything. and wide portraits and full body stuff it is mind blowing. I've only used it on FF though. As far as a MKII version, I don't think Canon is in a hurry, most still consider it better than the 24 MkII. The only thing they can really improve upon is CA and the rubber gasket around the mount.
I was also kicking around the idea of 50mm. I had the Canon 50 1.4 and never liked it. If you are use to L lenses the 50 1.4 just doesn't feel good. The image quality is just okay with wide apertures. I just had a conversation with Shelky about the Sigma 50 1.4 and I think that is route I'll go if I get another 50mm. Unfortunately for you that is a 77mm filter. I'd like to have the Canon 1.2 but I don't want to drop $1500 when I have the 35 and 85. My EXIF tells me I shoot 30-35 most with 50-60 running 2nd on my 24-70. So I'll sneaker zoom the differences.
But for you I'd definitely listen to the EXIF info and go with the 50. If that is your sweet spot that is your sweet spot. I think you end up with the best shots when you feel natural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
You have too many lenses for me to have any thoughts :)
Seriously... I think you have general purpose covered. If I had exactly your equipment, I would get a MP-E 65 next, but probably if you wanted one of those, you'd have one already. You might consider a tilt-shift lens, but probably you don't want one of those either, or you would know it.
My most desired lens missing from your list is the 200 f/2 (followed closely by the 300 f/2.8), but that is expensive.
The fact that you like the crop factor of the 7D indicates you might want more focal length. Going longer than 400mm is costly, but it might be worth it. The 400 f/5.6 prime gives much better IQ than the 100-400 zoom, and better IQ amounts to more reach (because you can crop more).
And of course, a f/1.2 lens would give you something you don't currently have. In choosing between the 85 and the 50, you should consider the odd correction of the 50 f/1.2 which (you are probably aware) is responsible for both the greatest weaknesses ("focus issues" and less than top-notch sharpness) and greatest strength (awesome bokeh).
IMO the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 isn't that great... I wouldn't get the 50 f/1.2 unless I *really* loved that bokeh (which I do... but not enough :) ). On the other hand, the larger difference between f/1.8 and f/1.2 makes a stronger case for the 85.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Okay, humor me a moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I'm curious... in how many of your pictures is pixel density the limiting factor for you IQ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Are you worried about # of focus points or tracking accuracy? These are legit issues, but the single-shot accuracy of the 5DII af is, IMO, at least as good as that of my 1DII. Have you tried the 5DII af? Other than for action, I don't think you'll find it lacking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Exactly. I think the 5D vs 7D use cases are pretty distinct. You don't have to carry both at the same time to get the benefits of both. Yes, you would have to pick one for travel, though, but hey. Life is tough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
The 17-55 f/2.8 is effectively a 27-88 f/4.5 on full frame. So the 24-105 IS wider at the wide end, longer at the long end, and effectively faster than the 17-55. What more do you want?
Okay, thanks for humoring me, and please ignore my pestering if it bothers you :)
Thanks, Keith. Great point (one I've made to others) about listening to the EXIF data. I think some testing might really help - shoot for a day around the house with the 17-55mm set to 35mm, a day with it set to 50mm, and a day with the 85mm f/1.8, and see what I think.
I'm still a little concerned about the 50mm lens selection, if that ends up being the focal length of choice. I'm not sure I'd be happy with the Canon 50mm f/1.4 - as you say, build quality and especially the micro USM/clutch for FTM, as well as softness wide open. I'd also be worried about the Sigma's reported AF issues - did Jan just get lucky? The Canon 50mm f/1.2L has the focus shift issue - but then, I'd likely be shooting at f/1.2 anyway so that may be a non-issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
No desire for ultra-macro or tilt-shift right now. For the time being, most of my shooting does not allow the patience I think those lenses deserve. But, as you say - I don't have any fast lenses at this point (thus, my current debate!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
More often than I'd like - for small perched birds, even 400mm x 1.6 requires cropping. I have a few nice 16x20" and a couple of 20x30" frames/mats, and for the relatively cheap cost of prints ($16-25 at mpix.com), I rotate them out fairly frequently. So, cropping then printing large place real limits on pixel density (if I did mostly 4x6" prints at Target, I guess we wouln't be having this discussion).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Principally tracking accuracy. Even the T1i did pretty well for single shots with the center AF point (althoughI think AF microadjustment on the 7D has helped with my f/2.8 lenses).But even for single shots, I often use selected off-center AF points, and I like that the 7D has all cross-type sensors, vs. just one in the middle. Partly, it comes down to the fact that the 5D2 has an AF system from 2005 (the original 5D's), and the 7D has one from 2009.
A related issue is shooting rate - for 'around the house' shots I keep the 7D in low-speed mode (3 fps), but for wildlife I use the full 8 fps, and I'd miss that capability with the 5D2's half-as-fast rate. But, I could deal with that if the tracking system was better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
I was actually waiting for you (or someone else) to raise this issue - I almost replied to it as an unasked question in my previous post! 3mm wider is not really much wider, 17mm longer is not really muchlonger, and half a stop is not really much faster. So, what you're telling me here is that I can get basically the same lens on FF that I love on crop (but with more distortion and vignetting on FF). That's nice, but to play devil's advocate, then why get FF? I'd want FF because an f/2.8 lens on FF is 'better' than an f/2.8 lens on a crop body, not FF so I could use an f/4 lens instead of an f/2.8 lens on a crop body. Thus the need for a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS.
For me, I think the bottom line of the 1.6x vs. FF debate is one of timing. I'm very happy with my 7D, and I don't feel that it limits me (at least, not in ways that lenses can't solve). I can envision adding FF, but not switching to FF, in the future. That is a consideration in my lens choices (in fact, that was one of the less important but still relevant drivers in my recent 24-105mm f/4L purchase - I wanted at least one wide/normal lens that I could use if I suddenly decided to go FF).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Your feedback is neither 'pestering' nor just 'humoring you' - I really appreciate the time you take to respond, and your insights on these issues!
Thanks! [:D]
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Okay, as long as you don't feel pestered. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
The real reasons for going full frame are first, that the IQ is better (especially on the fast end, but I'd be shocked if the 25-105 didn't have better IQ on full frame than the 17-55 on the 7D) and second, for many lenses there is- unlike the case of the 24-105- no 1.6x counterpart. For you I would add a third: you have a lot of lenses, and each will become like a new lens when coupled with a bigger sensor (some will turn into something similar to a lens you already have [:)], but probably most wont )
Fast lenses really have dramatically better IQ on full frame. I mean, just compare the 85mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2 to the 135mm f/2 @ f/2 or the 50mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2 to the 85mm f1.8 @ f/1.8
In each case, the much cheaper slower lens is clearly better even before cropping... just imagine how much different they are after throwing away 60% of the f/1.2 image. Not that I'm telling you anything you don't know already, but why pay a large premium for a small speed and/or iq increase when you can get a large speed and iq improvement on all of your EF lenses by getting a larger sensor? It seems to me that anyone considering buying an f/1.2 lens for a cropped body either for better IQ than the non L counterpart or just for the extra speed would drooling to have a camera that would make the 85mm f/1.8 perform about like a 50mm f/1.2, but with IQ that is far better yet... or if that isn't enough, make the 85mm f/1.2 perform like a 50mm f/0.75.
Sure, there are times when you want the reach and the autofocus of the 7D. But there are times when you don't. In fact, I'll bet most of the times you want to use really fast lenses are times when you don't need that reach and af as much.
I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to put a 50mm f/1.2 on a crop body. But for those of us with a more general lust for lens speed, full frame makes a lot of sense.
I've said it before, but I can't help repeating myself: it's too bad canon doesn't make a reasonably priced ff camera with a very high end af. I would gladly play the price of a 7D + the price of a 5DII for a 5DII with a 7D-like af.
Okay, that's enough pestering for one day [:)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I put a spec of gaffers tape on my 70-200 at the 85 mark just for this reason (since it didn't have a 85 designation). I wanted to make sure it wasn't just the romance I was spending $1900 on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Jan said he bumped the micro adjustment to +9 and has been happy ever since. If I though 50 was my sweet spot, I wouldn't think twice about getting the 50 1.2L. I am the perfect case scenario for idiosyncrasies of that lens. I've always preached character over perfection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
I was asking myself the same question [A] Perhaps the Sigma's from Europe are just better [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Correct, but truth to be said, Canon lenses need adjustments as well. Perhaps not that often, I haven't done it yet, but I heard different from others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
50 is my sweet spot, but I still couldn't justify a) the price of the 1.2 and b) the enormous price-difference towards the 1.4 and the amount of "better"lens you'd get for it. If I had the budget to buy the 50mm 1.2, I'd still buy the 11.4 and add an additional other lens [A]
Hopefully the weather gets better soon so I can use my gear more often [H]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Here comes my reverse pestering... [;)]
I won't argue that FF offers better IQ in terms of substantially lower noise even at relatively low ISO settings. But in other ways, IQ probably suffers a bit even with good lenses (since sharpness and light both often fall off as you move to the edges of the image circle projection, and distortion increases at the periphery, and 'corner' on a crop sensor is 'mid-frame' for the image circle of an EF lens.
Here's an example of what I mean, from photozone.de distortion tests of a lens we both have:
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS @ 24mm on 1.6x crop body EF 24-105mm f/4L IS @ 24mm on full frame body
http://www.photozone.de/images/8Revi...distortion.png http://www.photozone.de/images/8Revi...distortion.png
To me, the 1.8% barrel distortion at 24 mm with the 24-105mm on a 1.6x crop is not ideal, but tolerable (about the same as the EF-S 17-55mm @ 17mm). The 4.3%"massivebarrel distortion"(PZ's words, not mine)at the wide end of thethe 24-105mm on a FF body is why, if I go full frame, I'll be using a 24-70mm f/2.8 and not a 24-105mm f/4 (and why I said earlier that the release of a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS is so important to me) - the 24-70mm lens suffers much less distortion.
Likewise, according to PZ's numbers with the EF 85mm f/1.2L II, it has 1% barrel distortion and 1.8 EV of vignetting @ f/1.2 on a full frame body, but just 0.2% (negligible) and 0.8 EV of vignetting @ f/1.2 on a 1.6x crop body. Now, that small amount of barrel distortion isn't a big deal, and vignetting on a portrait lens may not be a negative - but, my point is that even an excellent fast prime like the 85mm f/1.2L II has a 'sweet spot' that a crop body exploits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Here, I have to say that your examples don't seem to illustrate your point - how does a shot of an ISO 12233 chart with an 85mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2 using a FF body, being less sharp than a shot with a 135mm f/2 @ f2 using the same FF body, show anything about comparing crop sensor IQ with FF IQ. In other words, an 85mm f/1.2 lens on a 1.6x crop is not the same as a 135mm f/2 lens on a FF body - they are different lenses with different characteristics.
You would have been better served by pointing me to a comparison of the 200mm f/2L IS on the 5DII vs. the 7D - that comparison shows a slightly better IQ with that fast lens on FF, but I wouldn't call it dramatically better. Had you pointed me to that comparison, I would have probably pointed you to a similar comparison, the200mm f/2L IS on the 7D vs. the 1DIV, where the 7D has slightly better IQ than the 1DIV, and then I'd have been patting myself on the back for getting slightly better IQ with a camera that costs $3400 less!!
Ok, that's probably enough overanalyzing for one day.
Anyway, I've said before and I'll say again that I'm almost certain I'll get a FF camera at some point in the future. But for now, I'm thrilled with my 7D so I'll build out my lens collection. I'm not adding any more EF-S lenses to that collection, and the two EF-S lenses that I have are ones for which there is no FF equivalent. I added the 24-105mm to fill a specific current need - an outdoor walkaround lens with weather-sealing for 'family memory' type of shots - if/when I go FF, I'll likely sell that lens in favor of a 24-70mm (did I mention that I want IS on that?!?). I'm keeping future use on FF firmly in mind as I round out my lens collection.
Thanks again for the great discussion, Jon - feel free to 'pester' more tomorrow!!! [:D]
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Getting back to your original questions and being the totally non-analytical person that I am, I think you should at least narrow your choices down to #3 & #5. First off, you know you are going to want the Mk II as soon as it hits the stores and your going to have one sore butt after kicking yourself so many times if you don't wait it out! As for #3, I LUST for this lens and it is on my never will be able get list! Well, maybe never!
Denise
Hey John, I know the 85L is awesome and all but it has a weird focus mechanism (yeah, I don't known the tech photo term) that makes it AF much slower that than non-Ls including the 85mm 1.8. the 50mm f/1.2 is weather sealed and doesn't have the crap AF of the 85L. To me, it's between the 50 and 85L: which focal length do you prefer? The 135 f/2 is now not as valuable, now that you have the 70-200 II.
Waiting for the Mark II versions is not a good idea. the best gear is the gear available to you NOW.
Good Luck!
brendan
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
I guess that would explain all the raving reviews.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
I meant this speaking from John's perspective. Personally, Jan you made me a believer in the Sigma 50 1.4 for the price It fits nicely in between my 35 and 85.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Usually very true but since John just purchased a couple very nice lenses, spending time enjoying them should make the wait less painful than purchasing the 35mm or 50mm now & having improved versions come out in September.
Denise
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Unless your losing money or potentialclients, for example:
- you don't have a long enough lens for your sports photography
- you need a 1.2 lens for low light indoor wedding receptions
then there is noinherentreason to not wait forsomethingyou'd rather have. Plus as long as you have your general range covered you can always rent what you need for special occasions.