Wallet full of $100 bills

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

the 7D will be superior no matter the light level (more resolution and the same or less noise than a cropped 5D2

---

Good to hear!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

That circumstance definitely applies to focal-length-limited applications (such as bird photography)

---

That was my thinking. My 100-400mm lens will probably be used almost exclusively on the 7D - when I need 400mm, I also need the the additional benefit of the crop factor. (Side note - I'm keeping the EF-S 17-55mm for opportunistic use when out shooting with the 100-400mm.) The rest of my lens collection I am adjusting to suit the 5DII, which will meet the majority of my non-bird/wildlife shooting needs.


Next up...the TS-E 24mm f/3.5<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L II and the 16-35mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L II. [:D] After that, as the actor-turned-Governator said, "I'll be back."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

EF hands down, I think.

---

That's my thinking as well. I know nothing about lens design, but it does not stop me from having an opinion [:)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

he 7D will be superior no matter the light level (more resolution and the same or less noise than a cropped 5D2).

---

Now I am left wondering if I need a 7D to go with 500mm lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Now I am left wondering if I need a 7D to go with 500mm lens.

---

It's the widlife photographer's dream camera, IMHO. If you don't need the fast frame rate, autofocus, or microadjust features of the 7D, you can get the 60D instead, which has a very similar sensor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I'm hoping the lens/flash rebates will start soon...I doubt the TS-E 24mm II will show up on the rebate list, but they did rebate the TS-E 45mm and 90mm earlier this year.

---

The rebates have begun. Lucky for me, they actually put a rebate on the TS-E 24mm II (and TS-E 17mm). [:)] Unlucky for me, my rebates would have been doubled if I'd waited to purchase the 5DII along with the new lenses. [8o|] Ah well, that's life...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I'm hoping the lens/flash rebates will start soon...I doubt the TS-E 24mm II will show up on the rebate list, but they did rebate the TS-E 45mm and 90mm earlier this year.

---

The rebates have begun. Lucky for me, they actually put a rebate on the TS-E 24mm II (and TS-E 17mm). [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img] Unlucky for me, my rebates would have been doubled if I'd waited to purchase the 5DII along with the new lenses. [img]/emoticons/emotion-39.gif[/img] Ah well, that's life...
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

John, I was curious, Why are you interested in a T/S lens. Is it the benefits they offer for architectural work or other genres that you need to correct the vertical and horizontal lines, or perhaps that "artistic" OOF look they can provide for some types of shots.


Again, Just curious,


Bob

Hi Bob,


A little of both. Mainly for the shift to correct architecture shots, but also for tilt in landscape shots (deep DoF without a super narrow aperture). But I'll play with the more artistic aspects of it, certainly!


--John

<span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif; font-size: small;"]I was hoping for the EF 17-40 USM f/4.0 <span style="color: #ff0000;"]L USM to be included in this round. [:(]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Next up...the 16-35mm f/2.8<span style="color:#ff0000;"]L II. After that, as the actor-turned-Governator said, "I'll be back."

---

Ok, back a little sooner than planned. Planning to order the16-35mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]LII and the MT-24EX tomorrow, unless someone wants to talk me into the 14mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L II...any takers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Ok, back a little sooner than planned. Planning to order the16-35mm f/2.8<span style="color:#ff0000;"]LII and the MT-24EX tomorrow, unless someone wants to talk me into the 14mm f/2.8<span style="color:#ff0000;"]L II...any takers?

---

Maybe look a little further in to the future Neuro


It seems I read one of your posts where you mentioned the 35mm F1.4L would be on your list if were updated to II.


I have the 35mm F1.4L, after I got it and the 24mm F1.4L I haven't used my 16-35mm F2.8L at all.


The 16-35mm is the sharpest zoom I have had and it is my favorite you wouldn't go wrong with it. Long term will it fit in your kit.


If I had in my kit, a 35mm F1.4, your TS-E 24mm I would be looking at the 14mm instead of the 16-35mm.


Other wise....with your kit as you have it now I think the 16-35mm F2.8L makes the most sense.

Just get the 16-35, the 14, and the 35 prime. Then there won't be anything left. [:)]

John, you already have the wide end covered---What you need is "BIG GLASS" go for the 600, Nate, Joel and JJ need some serious competition [:O]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Just get the 16-35, the 14, and the 35 prime. Then there won't be anything left.

---

That was my first thought as well.


If person had oneof every L series lens, then every situation that arrises would be covered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

If person had oneof every L series lens, then every situation that arrises would be covered.

---

<span>Let's<span> call that an <span>aspirational<span> goal... [:D]


<span>In<span> the short term,
though, I'll have enough cash for one more lens to bring on my upcoming China
trip, on the order of ~$1600. I'm considering the <span>following:

• <span>EF<span> 35mm f/1.4L -
  indoor, low-light lens; was hoping for a <span>MkII<span> of this <span>lens.
  
  
• <span>EF<span> 24mm f/1.4L II - indoor, low-light lens; recent
  comparisons (thanks Rick and Denise) suggest color/contrast are better than the
  35L, weather sealing is a <span>plus.
  
  
• <span>EF<span> 24-70mm f/2.8L - rounds out my 'holy trinity' of f/2.8
  zooms (16-35mm II, 70-200mm II), wish it had IS, would I <span>really
  take this and the 24-105mm f/4L <span>IS?
  
  
• EF 135mm f/2L - seems like this one is perpetually on my list, but not sure I'd bring it on a trip with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II already in the bag.
  
  
• <span>Accessories instead (or in addition, depending on the lens)<span>- 82mm<span>K&auml;semann<span>CPL, 82mm Singh-Ray <span>Mor-Slo<span>
  (5-stop ND), something else?

<span>As always, thoughts/opinions are appreciated!


<span>--John

Sorry John -


I need a recap here. What do you already definitely plan on taking with you from what you already have "in stock" other than the 70-200mm?


Denise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

<span>In<span> the short term, though, I'll have enough cash for one more lens to bring on my upcoming China trip, on the order of ~$1600. I'm considering the <span>following:

• <span>EF<span> 35mm f/1.4L - indoor, low-light lens; was hoping for a <span>MkII<span> of this <span>lens.

• <span>EF<span> 24mm f/1.4L II - indoor, low-light lens; recent comparisons (thanks Rick and Denise) suggest color/contrast are better than the 35L, weather sealing is a <span>plus.

• <span>EF<span> 24-70mm f/2.8L - rounds out my 'holy trinity' of f/2.8 zooms (16-35mm II, 70-200mm II), wish it had IS, would I <span>really take this and the 24-105mm f/4L <span>IS?

• EF 135mm f/2L - seems like this one is perpetually on my list, but not sure I'd bring it on a trip with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II already in the bag.

• <span>Accessories instead (or in addition, depending on the lens)<span>- 82mm<span>K&auml;semann<span>CPL, 82mm Singh-Ray <span>Mor-Slo<span> (5-stop ND), something else?

<span>As always, thoughts/opinions are appreciated!

---

John


The 24mm F1.4L at F1.4L doesn't give you that tight DOF that the 35mm gives you. I find the 24mm on the FF 5D Mark II to be more of a group photo lens indoors. While the 35mm can get a little tighter for individual shots. EIther one would serve you well, but if I had your TS-E 24mm I would probably go with the 35mm F1.4L just to have a wider range of diversity.


The 24-70mm F2.8L. You know many people love it. I bought a 24-105mm F4L and took it back after three days and got the 24-70mm instead. Althought, I perfered it over that lens with my Kit I haven't used the 24-70mm in a year now. The only use it is had is when I let the wife take it with her on a trip. My style of shooting I wouldn't use it. If you get either one of the two above, and take your 16-35L and your 70-200mm F2.8L II you have four lenses I would pick up before I concidered using the 24-70mm. I vote no on this one.


EF 135mm F2/L great lens, thought about getting one myself, but like you mentioned. Why bring it if you have the 70-200mm F2.8L II. For today a no vote, yes to just have one.


As for the Accessories I own the Kasemann. But I have no real thoughts on it as it is the only one I have.


I think you are set. The only other thought I would have if I were going to China would be this lens Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon T* ZE Lens . Looking at some of the sample pictures Brian posted as samples the color and contrast look outstanding. I have never been to China, but some of the pictures I have seen it could be quit colorfull and I would want to pull that out as much as possible. I have been a mouse click away from buying this lens a half dozen times in the last 6 months. But....with your TS-E 24mm you will probably have it well covered.


Good Luck


Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

<div id="ctl00_ctl00_content_content_ctl00_fragment_121 6_ctl01_ctl00_PostForm__QuoteText"]


Sorry John -


I need a recap here. What do you already definitely plan on taking with you from what you already have "in stock" other than the 70-200mm?


Denise
</div>

---

Denise, didn't you hear. He is taking all his gear and us so we can carry it around for him. [:P]

Oops - that would help!


Was planning on:

• Gripped 5DII
• EF 16-35mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]LII
• EF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: #ff0000;"]LIS
• TS-E 24mm f/3.5<span style="color: #ff0000;"]LII
• EF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]LIS II
• EF 1.4x II Extender
• Speedlite430EX II
• PowerShot S95

A pic of the packed Lowepro Flipside 400AW is HERE; the backpack fitsin a Storm im2500 hard case, in case I'm forced to check the gear. Tripod will be packed in regular luggage, strapped to the backpack while walking around.


EDIT: I'm a bit bothered by the fact that there's nothing faster than f/2.8 there, since I'm not planning on taking the 85L.

I get to carry the 5D II, the TS-E 24mm &amp; the 85L!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

As for the Accessories I own the Kasemann. But I have no real thoughts on it as it is the only one I have.

---

I have one in 77mm, just looking at adding one to fit the larger thread diameter of the TS-E 24mm and 16-35mm II lenses. Likewise with the Mor-Slo - I haven't found anything darker than Singh-Ray's 5-stop ND in a round/threaded filter to fit 82mm threads. I'm not a fan of Singh-Ray mostly due to their price, marketing style (too much hype for my taste) and their lack of available technical detail where what little is provided is questionable (e.g. from their FAQ - "Are your filters multi-coated?No. We have carefully evaluated multi-coating of filters, and in our opinion, the benefits are negligible, and outweighed by several disadvantages." - so...are the uncoated or single coated? what disadvantages are they talking about?). But for that application they seem to have the only game in town, short of a square-mount holder and the backordered Lee Big Stopper.

Awww darn ...I guess I can't carry the 85L since you don't plan on bringing it along!


I think I recall your mentioning that this wasn't totally a photography trip ...I'd hate to see your arsenal bag if it were!! I think you are very well set for lenses and I would vote for the more accessories that you mentioned.


With what's left, you can always put toward my Christmas present! [:D]

Denise

Hi John,


Whatabout a lens not on your list, the 50 mm f/1.2 <span style="color: #ff0000;"]L<span style="color: #000000;"], for your China trip.It would give you the fast aperture you want and I can see using that focal length indoors and out. It would also give you a fast lens right in the middle of the range where your next fastest is f4. I have also been a little surprised that you aren't at least bringing your 7D as a second camera body. I am sure you have thought this through and have excellent rationale (both on the 50mm and the 7D), but to me, it takes the same lenses and gives you 1.6x more reach, built in flash in case you want to travel lighter,and also a second body if your 5DII has issues. I would be more tempted by the 7Dthan the 1.4x extender.


Justsome thoughts,


Brant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

I have one in 77mm,

---

It may not matter, but the 24mm f1.4L II is 77mm. The 35mm is 72mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

<span>In<span> the short term,
though, I'll have enough cash for one more lens to bring on my upcoming China
trip, on the order of ~$1600. I'm considering the <span>following:

• <span>EF<span> 35mm f/1.4L -
  indoor, low-light lens; was hoping for a <span>MkII<span> of this <span>lens.

• <span>EF<span> 24mm f/1.4L II - indoor, low-light lens; recent
  comparisons (thanks Rick and Denise) suggest color/contrast are better than the
  35L, weather sealing is a <span>plus.

• <span>EF<span> 24-70mm f/2.8L - rounds out my 'holy trinity' of f/2.8
  zooms (16-35mm II, 70-200mm II), wish it had IS, would I <span>really
  take this and the 24-105mm f/4L <span>IS?

• EF 135mm f/2L - seems like this one is perpetually on my list, but not sure I'd bring it on a trip with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II already in the bag.

• <span>Accessories instead (or in addition, depending on the lens)<span>- 82mm<span>K&auml;semann<span>CPL, 82mm Singh-Ray <span>Mor-Slo<span>
  (5-stop ND), something else?

<span>As always, thoughts/opinions are appreciated!

---

Stop playing games, John, and just grab the lot. [:)]


Barring that- for your trip, I would say that you'll probably be shooting a lot of non-moving or slowly moving stuff (buildings, people posing), right? So I think with the 25-105 IS (my favorite travel lens hands down), you don't need the 24-70 in addition. So I'd want another prime instead.Plus, if you're bothered that you have nothing faster than f/2.8 (as I would be), the 24-70 doesn't fix that. I think most people like to include context when traveling, so I'd suggest one of the wide primes rather than the 135 f/2 (which is pretty much the same on ff- IQ issues aside- from the 85 f/1.2 on aps-c, and the same on apsc as 200 f/2.8 on ff... I realize you aren't bringing the 7D, but I guess if you wanted those focal lengths you would).


Accessories are boring, so I won't comment on them :)


This leaves the 24 or the 35, a personal decision. Personally, I would go with the 35- esp if it was going to be my only fast lens.

Hi John,


I would vote for the 35/1.4 for indoor shots on FF, especially if your family is going, because I think the 24/1.4 would distort facial features too much. You have 24mm covered with the TS-E and 16-35mm/2.8 and if you need a longer exposure for outdoor use then you can use your tripod.


Rich

G'day John,


If you really want to drop some coin on more glass and we all do and would if we could, I tend to agree with Brant.[I] The 50mmF1.2 would be a very good inclusion.


Space is always an issue and if I had to cut things down I would suggest to go along with the 5DMK2,as a three lens dream bag,


16-35mmF2.8


50mmF1.2


70-200mmF2.8


Then if I could add to that bag, I would put in the 24mmTSE and the 7D.


A wide fast zoom is always my most used lens on holidays, I have the 24mmF1.4 ll[Y] and think you should definitely get one, but probably don't need it for this trip. And as for the 35mm, I think anyone considering thisfocal lengthshould probably wait and see how good the new Zeiss[H] is that comes out in February.


Cheers,


Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve U

And as for the 35mm, I think anyone considering thisfocal lengthshould probably wait and see how good the new Zeiss[img]/emoticons/emotion-11.gif[/img] is that comes out in February.

---

Anyone willing to put up with manual focus, that is.

I don't own the 35/1.4 or 50/1.2, however I do own the 85/1.2 and the 24-70mm f/2.8, so I am familiar with these focal ranges.


I would say that the 35mm range on FF is a better environmental lens than the 50mm, especially on a trip like this to another country.


When John returns from his trip, he will be able to use his 7D with the 35mm/1.4 and get close to 50mm.


Then he will have 35mm on the 5DII and 55mm on the 7D.


If he buys the 50mm, then that will be 50mm on the 5DII and 80mm on his 7D which will be somewhat redundant, because if he wants to shoot at 80mm, he most likely would select his 85mm/1.2 on the 5DII.


So, I think that the 35mm lens will be a more versatile purchase for both of the bodies that he owns, as well as a better storytelling lens for his trip.





Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

It may not matter, but the 24mm f1.4L II is 77mm. The 35mm is 72mm.

---

<div>


It matters a bit, since I figure the filter into the cost of the lens, and I have a spare 77mm B+W MRC UV which reduces the cost differential between the 24L and the 35L.
<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

I would be more tempted by the 7Dthan the 1.4x extender.

---

Well, the TC fits in the bag a whole lot more easily than the 7D. [:P]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Whatabout a lens not on your list, the 50 mm f/1.2<span style="color:#ff0000;"]L<span style="color:#000000;"], for your China trip.

---

<div>Good suggestion! The thought crossed my mind, but I had decided against the 50/1.2 previously (opting for the 85L), partly due to reviews of the lens (favoring bokeh over sharpness, etc.). I'll revisit that decision...</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Barring that- for your trip, I would say that you'll probably be shooting a lot of non-moving or slowly moving stuff (buildings, people posing), right? So I think with the 25-105 IS (my favorite travel lens hands down), you don't need the 24-70 in addition. So I'd want another prime instead.Plus, if you're bothered that you have nothing faster than f/2.8 (as I would be), the 24-70 doesn't fix that. I think most people like to include context when traveling, so I'd suggest one of the wide primes rather than the 135 f/2

---

</div>
<div></div>
<div>Good points, thanks! </div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>[Y]</div>
<div></div>
<div>I'll keep thinking!</div>
</div>
</div>

John,


Look up we both posted at the same time.


Rich

G'day Jon,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Anyone willing to put up with manual focus, that is.

---

Yes it does sound a little pre-historic, IQ is rumored to be very good so I just put it out there as a consideration sinceJohn mentioned the 35mm1.4MKll that may or may not happen.


It does seem a little incongruous that in a fast, reportage, urban portrait style lens like the 24 and 35mm 1.4's, that you wouldn't have fast AF. But Zeiss seem to go their own way here and their acolytes seem to swear by them, saying they deliver color and contrast not found in any other lens. (except maybe John'smanual focus24mm TSE)


Back to topic, the 50mmF1.2 gets my vote for this trip.


Cheers,


Steve

Oops, John posted while I was composing, his analysis as usual is very compelling. I think I

<span style="font-size: small;"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

<div><span style="font-size: small;"]Good suggestion! The thought crossed my mind, but I had decided against the 50/1.2 previously (opting for the 85L), partly due to reviews of the lens (favoring bokeh over sharpness, etc.). I'll revisit that decision...</div>
<span style="font-size: small;"]

---

<span style="font-size: small;"]The reveiws and comments I have read about the 50mm f1.2L it seems there are alot of negative comments and reviews. That is the reason I never bought one.


<span style="font-size: small;"]I always look at the negative review comments first, to see what people are saying bad. The number of people complaining about the 50mm L are d<span style="font-size: small;"]isproportionate to the number of people complaining about the 85, 35 and 24mm L's.


<span style="font-size: small;"]I have thought a few times about taking a chance on on the 50mm, because some people seem rather happy with the lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

The reveiws and comments I have read about the 50mm f1.2L it seems there are alot of negative comments and reviews.

---

Take what I say with a grain of salt, but I believe this is because the negative reviewers don't understand the 50 f/1.2.


My understanding (possibly wrong) is as follows: like the Zeiss 85 f/1.4 and the Canon 200 f/1.8, the 50 f/1.2 is corrected "incorrectly" (overcorrected or undercorrected, I'm not sure which). This hurts sharpness, causes focus issues (focal lengths at different f/numbers are slightly different, causing problems if you focus wide open then stop down to shoot), and hurts foreground bokeh. This is done on purpose to improve background bokeh to a level of awesomeness you cant get with a "correctly" corrected lens.


The idea is that in a well corrected lens, an oof image is a convolution of a disk (or shape of aperture blades when stopped down) with an in focus image. But by varying focal length slightly in the radial direction along the lens, a point of light beyond the focal plane (background) becomes a center-weighted disc (convolving with a center-weighted disc gives superior bokeh) while a point of light in front of the focal plane (foreground) becomes an edge-weighted disc (giving bad bokeh).


Reviewers might not realize that the lens made a design compromise in favor of bokeh at the expense of sharpness. If sharpness is more important to you than bokeh, then don't get the 50 f/1.2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Take what I say with a grain of salt, but I believe this is because the negative reviewers don't understand the 50 f/1.2.


My understanding (possibly wrong) is as follows: like the Zeiss 85 f/1.4 and the Canon 200 f/1.8, the 50 f/1.2 is corrected "incorrectly" (overcorrected or undercorrected, I'm not sure which). This hurts sharpness, causes focus issues (focal lengths at different f/numbers are slightly different, causing problems if you focus wide open then stop down to shoot), and hurts foreground bokeh. This is done on purpose to improve background bokeh to a level of awesomeness you cant get with a "correctly" corrected lens.


The idea is that in a well corrected lens, an oof image is a convolution of a disk (or shape of aperture blades when stopped down) with an in focus image. But by varying focal length slightly in the radial direction along the lens, a point of light beyond the focal plane (background) becomes a center-weighted disc (convolving with a center-weighted disc gives superior bokeh) while a point of light in front of the focal plane (foreground) becomes an edge-weighted disc (giving bad bokeh).


Reviewers might not realize that the lens made a design compromise in favor of bokeh at the expense of sharpness. If sharpness is more important to you than bokeh, then don't get the 50 f/1.2.

---

You may be right, people have expectations that this lens does not full fill. I would have not known about sharpness sacrificed in favor of bokeh, and have never heard this explanation before.


But to me, I would have thought the 50mm would have been designed the opposite way. That sharpness would be the most important, since 50mm is supposed to have the closest view to what the human eye would see, with little or no lens distortion (or so I have read).


When I read reviews I am very wary of what I read. But I find one indicator the number of negatives from one lens as compared to other lenses. For instance at B&amp;H there are hardly any negatives on the 35mm, 1 on the 24mm and a few on the 85mm, but a lot on the 50mm. It doesn't mean those reviews are correct, but like you say there are other reasons that the customer didn't understand.


Thanks for the explanation, and, I think you may have talked me out of wanting one. I like my bokeh creamy and subjects razor sharp. I want my cake and eat it to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Thanks for the explanation, and, I think you may have talked me out of wanting one

---

Really? I talked myself *in* to wanting one :) But I think people should understand the lens before deciding to buy it.


Like the 85 f/1.2, the 50 f/1.2 is a portrait lens. So the bokeh thing makes sense to me. But then it leaves a gap in canons lineup: there is no real premium general purpose 50mm lens (though I think the 50 f/1.4 isn't bad)

The term Daniel has used to describe the 50L

I too was initially turned off by the many of the negative reviews of the 50mm f/1.2L. Most seem to complain about back-focusing, but more recent reviews claim that this problem has been fixed. I decided to go for it and get the lens only about a month ago. So far I've been very happy with my decision. Here's a couple sample photos I took only 2 days after receiving the lens. Wish I could show you more, but I've been so busy I haven't taken many photos lately at all. I look forward to using this lens at Christmas.


50mm f/1.2L on 5DII - 1/80 @ f/2 ISO 400


http://trowski.com/files/2010-12-15/IMG_1160.jpg


50mm f/1.2L on 5DII - 1/40 @ f/2 ISO 500


http://trowski.com/files/2010-12-15/IMG_1170.jpg


Bokeh-licious! Considering the background was only a few feet from her, I'm very impressed, and this was at f/2. I also look forward to trying out a lot more shots at lower apertures. Some complain that the 50mm f/1.4 is sharper above f/2.8 than the f/1.2... but who cares, I didn't buy the lens to shoot at f/2.8 and above. Below f/2.8, you won't get better than the 50mm f/1.2L.


DigitalRev just did a review of the 50mm f/1.2L, and they seem to echo many of the positive comments of recent reviews. They can get a bit sidetracked at times, and especially in this video, but I usually find them entertaining and informative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Digital Rev Review

It's actually quite sharp at 1.2. The focus point is well defined and sharper than a bag of stanley knives. At its widest apertures, it's one of the best performing 50mm's for DSLRs.

---

Digital Rev Hands-on Review of the Canon 50mm f/1.2L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

My indecision about the 35L vs. 24L II stems from the fact that it seems the 24L II delivers better optical quality and has better build quality (weather sealing), but the 35mm focal length might be more useful. For one thing, I need to do some more shooting around the house with the 24-105mm set to each focal length.

---

A thought: Since you have the 5DII and 7D, the 24L II would serve as a 24mm on the 5DII and nearly a 35mm on the 7D. I know it's not quite that simple since there are some DoF issues, so the 24mm on the 7D isn't exactly like the 35mm on the 5DII, but I just thought I'd throw the idea out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

My indecision about the 35L vs. 24L II stems from the fact that it seems the 24L II delivers better optical quality

---

Roger's has this to say about the 24 mark II: "Overall its a clear improvement on the original. But I&rsquo;ll be honest: its still not quite as good as the 35 f/1.4. Close, but not quite."


I get the same impression looking at Bryan's charts, but it is so close I wouldn't even consider IQ as a differentiating factor. In real wold use, I'm very impressed with the IQ of the 35.


As for build quality, I really love the look and feel of the 35- more even than most L lenses (in fact it may be my favorite L in this regard- and I've owned eight or nine others- including a couple with weather sealing). If you prefer the 35mm focal length, I say go for it (unless you really need weather sealing)


The one problem with the 35 is that the hood is rounded, so if you set it down upside down it falls over. But hey- one puts up withidiosyncrasieswhen dealing with genius.

I would have thought the 50mm would be the King of the FF walk around prime lens, not designed to be a portrait lens. If I wanted portraits I would go for the 85mm F1.2L.


John


When I said the image quality was better on the 24mm, that observation came from almost a year of use on both. And it really is more of a feeling after looking at thousands of pictures from both rather than an actual side by side comparison. The difference in the two is very slight, a normal person wouldn