Wallet full of $100 bills

<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

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.

---

For sharpness, yes. But I have the sense that color and contrast are better with the 24L II (from both Rick's comments and some images of 35L vs. 135L that Denise shared with me where the 135L and the Sigma 85/1.4 appeared to do better in those areas than the 35L, indicating room for improvement in the 35L's performance.
</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

But the real feel in difference of the two lenses is the DOF. Here is a good comparison, you want a really good background blur on someone standing 4' in front of you.

---

Ahhh...but, do I? If I want a portrait with a really good background blur, I'd likely use a longer fast lens (85/1.2, for example). My current thinking is that for situational low-light shooting - capturing family moments in ambient light indoors - a thinner DoF might be a disadvantage, as those types of shots are likely to include more than one person that I want within the DoF. Thus, the shorter focal length (and correspondingly deeper DoF) may be preferable for my uses.



<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trowski

Here's a couple sample photos I took only 2 days after receiving the lens...Bokeh-licious!

---

<div>Thanks for sharing! Same concern here as my response to Rick, but even more true at 50mm. However, I'm getting more interested in the 50/1.2 for portraits with a larger FOV. With the 85/1.2, it can be challenging to get more than one person in a portrait in a normal-sized room. Plus, there's a rebate available now... </div>
<div></div>
<div>Question for you, Troswki - how's the AF speed on the 50L? </div>
</div>
<div></div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Ahhh...but, do I? If I want a portrait with a really good background blur, I'd likely use a longer fast lens (85/1.2, for example). My current thinking is that for situational low-light shooting - capturing family moments in ambient light indoors - a thinner DoF might be a disadvantage, as those types of shots are likely to include more than one person that I want within the DoF. Thus, the shorter focal length (and correspondingly deeper DoF) may be preferable for my uses.

---

Well, only if you want that person in focus, and still capture enouogh of what is going on around them to get a sense of their location but draw the focus back to that person. I have similar pic I took of my sons graduation with him surronded by people holding up his diploma. The 35mm to me seems like that focal length is a sweet spot for that kind of thing. The only real downside I see to you getting the 24mm is that you will be using it for that one specific use. Since the TS-E will probably be your go to landscape and architecture lens.


Maybe I am wrong on this, and you can correct me if I am since you have the TS-E 24mm now. Even though you don't have autofocus if you manual focus you get confirmation by the focus light in the camera and possibly a tone? If your shooting outside with the TS-E 24mm and your shooting smaller apertures your DOF is going to be so great that manual focus with its confirmation would be adequate. Do you feel this would be the true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Maybe I am wrong on this, and you can correct me if I am since you have the TS-E 24mm now. Even though you don't have autofocus if you manual focus you get confirmation by the focus light in the camera and possibly a tone?

---

It sort-of works. If shift and tilt are centered, you get AF confirmation and metering works - so, if you're using it just as a 24mm MF prime lens, it's fine. As you apply increasing amounts of shift and/or tilt, metering gets progressively less accurate, and once you reach a certain degree of shift or tilt, AF confirmation stops working, too. The metering issue can be solved by taking the meter reading before applying tilt/shift, but that doesn't solve the AF issue. So, the easiest way to use the lens is with Live View, where metering is correct and 10x mag works for focusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

However, I'm getting more interested in the 50/1.2 for portraits with a larger FOV. With the 85/1.2, it can be challenging to get more than one person in a portrait in a normal-sized room. Plus, there's a rebate available now...

---

I only have the 50 mm f/1.8....so all of my thoughts on the 50 mm f/1.2 come from reading in this forum and a few reviews. Part of the reason that I suggested the 50 mm f/1.2 was I recall several people speaking highly of it, such as some of the wedding photographers. I haven't been able to find those threads (the forum search doesn't seem to be working), but I did recallthis discussion (http://community.the-digital-picture.com/image_presentation1/f/14/p/812/46514.aspx?PageIndex=34) between Keith B and Jan in the "Post your best Portraits" thread (about half way down the page).Keith has portrait shotswith the 50 mm f/1.2 and 85 mm f/1.2. Since you are considering it, I thoughtthe linkmight be helpful.

might I suggest a deviation from your listed ideas......


If you'd be so KIND as to just donate the 3300 to me so I can use it to improve my kit.... I will use the funds wisely and get me a 70-200 2.8 IS II and a fast prime like say a 35 1.4L ... I must admit that $3300 might be around $100 short of what the 2 lenses I listed might cost but I guess I can manage to put it up.... [;)]


Of Course I will eternally be grateful for your contribuiton....[:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Question for you, Troswki - how's the AF speed on the 50L?

---

The AF speed isn't as fast as my other L glass, for example, the 24-105L is faster. I don't own an 85L for comparison, but from what I've read online the 50L is faster than the 85L. If you can get a decent hit rate out of your 85L, you'll probably get similar or better results from the 50L. In the few times I've had time to play with the lens, I've had a decent hit rate with it. It's been a learning experience for me, since the DoF is so much thinner than the DoF at f/2.8 to which I've become accustomed. I seem to get better results every time I use the lens. Since you have experience with the 85L, you should have no trouble with it at all.

Ok, still debating the 35mm f/1.4L vs. the 24mm f/1.4L II. I did some testing with my 24-105mm f/4L on indoor shots (with flash), and looked over my EXIF. I do like the 35mm focal length a lot. 50mm is too long for my purposes now (especially with the 85L in my kit for portraits). Looking back at my EXIF, I have quite a few shots I like at 24mm with the 24-105mm - and it seems that most of them are cropped a bit, meaning 35mm is the better choice overall for focal length.


So, why am I debating? Depth of field. To that end, I have a specific question about which I'd like opinions. Keeping in mind my primary use - low ambient light situational shooting, mostly around the house, and many times with more than one subject - am I better off shooting with the 24mm at f/1.4 and cropping to get the desired framing? By the numbers, I'd need to shoot with the 35mm at f/2.8 to get the same DoF as the 24mm at f/1.4, and of course shooting at f/2.8 negates much of the advantage of an f/1.4 lens for low-light shots...


Opinions appreciated!


--John

John


I think your comment really nails the difference and what separates the two lens in low light doing close up indoor work.


These are my impressions:


I have found doing a crop of either of those lenses to be satisfactory with landscapes. BUT with people, close up the IQ seems to suffer a little when I crop. The wide lenses do not perform as sharp close up as the tele's do. For instance I can go 200% sometimes 400% and still see sharpness and decent IQ with some tele's, but close up with these two wide lenses after 100% it looses it. If its a far away landscape you can go much deeper.


Overall I would say your better of getting 1/3 closer to the subject with the 24mm. That narrow DOF is what makes the 35mm unique really close up, but if its not the effect you want other choices might serve as well.


From what you have described you want the 24mm seems to be the choice, I think if you didn't have so many other options at 24mm you would have already bought it and been telling us how well it performs.


One other suggestion. You might make a side by side chart of the DOF of each at various distances, at 1.4. When you get out about 10' or so the effect really is not as pronounced. So the real difference we are talking about is the real close up work, 3 to 10 feet. Make the comparison and see if it fits what you want to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

am I better off shooting with the 24mm at f/1.4 and cropping to get the desired framing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

By the numbers, I'd need to shoot with the 35mm at f/2.8 to get the same DoF as the 24mm at f/1.4

---

I don't understand, John. In what sense does a 35mm at f/2.8 have the same DOF as the 24mm at f/1.4? Do you mean at the same subject distance, and then cropping the 24 to make it the same angle of view? That seems like a bizarre comparison, but I can't think what else you could mean. And in that case, it would be more like f/2.1, right?


It seems clear that buying a 24 with the idea of cropping is sub optimal. I think that in general zooms do better than primes + cropping. Not only does IQ suffer when you crop, but you make your lens slower- negating much of the advantage of the fast prime (as you yourself say).


If 35mm is the focal length you prefer, I would say it is a no brainer.

Thanks, Rick and Jon.


Jon, yes - I meant same subject distance. Shooting indoors - meaning in our house, in this case, means distances are usually in the 4-10 foot range. If I plug a distance like 6.5 feet into a DoF calculator, I get a 2

John, Sounds like some of your dilemma comes from a lighting issue (need for tighter aperature). Perhaps this could help. [:O]





Merry Christmas





Bob

John


Here are some comparisons I shot this morning.


This is definitely low light, it is the wife's little christmas tree in the front room. I adjusted the WB down on all three. 2800K


First one is the standard, 35mm F1.4, 1/50 ISO 400





[View:http://community.the-digital-picture...neric/utility/http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5290/...d97e7c4f_z.jpg]





This one is 24mm f1.4, 1/50 ISO 400 Croped





[View:http://community.the-digital-picture...neric/utility/http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5203/...f4d1d920_z.jpg]





This is the original 24mm with no crop





[View:http://community.the-digital-picture...neric/utility/http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5085/...20176e99_z.jpg]





The little red and white snow man is the focus point I used in live view at 10x. The picture was shot about 3' 4" from the snow man. The angel is in the front and the shelf runs at a bit of an angle. All were shot off a tripod this morning. The only lighting I had were 4 60 watt light bulbs about 6' behind me in the ceiling fan.


From what I see there is a slight loss in sharpness and IQ with the crop. I also shot a 35mm at F2.8. The shutter speed had to be at 1/13 to get the same exposure. At F2.8 the IQ was superior to both the 24mm and 35mm at f1.4. I can post the F2.8 if you like as well, let me know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

If I plug a distance like 6.5 feet into a DoF calculator

---

Okay- I believe you. I know effective crop factor changes as you get close to your subject, but I didn't know 6.5 feet was close enough to have that much of an effect. I'm surprised, but I believe you (and DOF calculator)


Unless DOF calculator is rounding to the nearest f stop or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

If I need to be at f/2.8 for DoF, that's likely not fast enough for shutter speed

---

You gain no advantage in cropping the 24 vs stopping down the 35. Compare 24 at f/1.4 cropped to 35 at f/2.8: Yes, you need a higher iso with the 35, but with the 35, you're using the whole sensor. The photon noise is exactly the same. In other words, rather than use the 24 mm at f/1.4 and 6.5 feet, just use 35 mm and stop down to f/2.8. Use the same shutter speed and you'll get the same result. (I'm not telling you anything you don't know already, of course).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

But I also agree getting a lens *intending* to crop many of the resulting images doesn't seem like the best idea. Thus my dilema...

---

No dilemma at all. If you want the 35mm angle of view but need the dof of f/2.8- you already have two lenses than can do that quite well. [:)]


(I think what you really want is a lens that has DOF of f 2.8 but light gathering ability of f/1.4. Let me know when you find it... but you won't get there by cropping :) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

You gain no advantage in cropping the 24 vs stopping down the 35. Compare 24 at f/1.4 cropped to 35 at f/2.8: Yes, you need a higher iso with the 35, but with the 35, you're using the whole sensor. The photon noise is exactly the same. In other words, rather than use the 24 mm at f/1.4 and 6.5 feet, just use 35 mm and stop down to f/2.8. Use the same shutter speed and you'll get the same result. (I'm not telling you anything you don't know already, of course).

---

The IQ with the 35mm stopped down to F2.8 is going to be much sharper and superior to the 24mm at F1.4. To get fast enough shutter speed and raising the ISO, it would raise the question would the better sharpness and IQ overcome the bad effect of noise at the higher ISO. If John wants I could set up another sample and test this.

<div>



<div>


Hey Hawk,


Thanks for taking the time to share those test shots. In the first 35mm/1.4 shot, I can see that the angels in the back row are out of the focusing DOF, whereas the angels are more in the DOF range in the 24mm/1.4 cropped version however, I believe that we are now losing contrast between the table cloth and the bricks against the fireplace. I also see less detail in the white snowman table cloth in the 24mm/1.4 cropped version as compared to the 35mm/1.4 Version.


It appears to me that the last one 24mm no crop is the best, with some mild vignetting in the left upper and lower corners.


These shots were taken at 3ft. 4 inches which is very close to the subjects, I believe John would like to use this lens at a more reasonable subject distance of 6.5-7ft. which is essentially doubling the subject distance, which I feel will give significantly different results.


I think it would be interesting to compare some shots at the 7ft. distance with the 35mm/1.4 and then, closer with the 24mm/1.4 in order to achieve the same framing distance, this way we could take cropping out of the equation and we can just focus on DOF, vignetting and barrel distortion. I can't see buying such an expensive lens and then cropping away detail.





Rich
</div>



</div>

Rich


I agree with all your comments and you see it the same way I do, except one which I have inside knowledge on. The vignetting in the upper and lower corners of the 24mm may be the effect of a shadow off the frame of my 52" TV which sets just a little to the left of the frame. How much is shadow and how much is vignetting I wouldn't be sure, but it wouldn't be right to take it in to consideration.


The DOF is much shallower with the 35mm, I did the test at 3' because the closer you get the more it highlights the difference with the DOF. At 7' the difference in DOF will be much less, I would guess the difference in crop quality will not change.


I would be happy to try the test at 7', or other distances if John wants. I will wait to hear John's response to see if there would be any other variables he would like to take in to account.





Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

The IQ with the 35mm stopped down to F2.8 is going to be much sharper and superior to the 24mm at F1.4.

---

No question about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

To get fast enough shutter speed and raising the ISO, it would raise the question would the better sharpness and IQ overcome the bad effect of noise at the higher ISO.

---

That's what I wast trying to explain- there is no noise advantage in using f/1.4 at lower iso if you crop. Using a higher iso increases photon noise, but so does cropping. Assuming you end up with the same DOF and use the same shutter speed, the two will balance exactly. So from a photon noise point of view, it does not matter at all if you increase DOF by cropping or stop down. But stopping down tends to improve IQ, while cropping tends to hurt IQ. Thus my point was that it makes more sense to stop down than crop.


Really- to get the 24 f/1.4 with the idea of cropping it makes no sense at all to me. The 24 is unique and expensive because it is fast and wide. Why would anyone want to turn it into a longer slower lens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

That's what I wast trying to explain- there is no noise advantage in using f/1.4 at lower iso if you crop. Using a higher iso increases photon noise, but so does cropping. Assuming you end up with the same DOF and use the same shutter speed, the two will balance exactly. So from a photon noise point of view, it does not matter at all if you increase DOF by cropping or stop down. But stopping down tends to improve IQ, while cropping tends to hurt IQ. Thus my point was that it makes more sense to stop down than crop.

---

Jon



The only problem with stoping down, is that in low light you may already be at a high ISO to get a fast shutter enough shutter speed at F1.4. Loosing those few stops might be the difference in a pic with camera shake and one good one without.
I agree with you though, I do not think the 24mm with a crop is a good alternative. At least not one I would be happy with the IQ. Best option still is to take a few steps forward and use the 24mm.


Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

The only problem with stoping down, is that in low light you may already be at a high ISO to get a fast shutter enough shutter speed at F1.4. Loosing those few stops might be the difference in a pic with camera shake and one good one without.

---

Perhaps I was unclear, but what I was trying to explain is that one can get the same shutter speed and the same photon noise with the 35 at f/2.8 as with the cropped 24 at f/1.4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Best option still is to take a few steps forward and use the 24mm.

---

It depends on what perspective you want. If you want the perspective as the cropped 24 (as John has stated that he does), I would suggest using the 35. If you want the perspective of the full 24, well... step forward and use the 24.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Using a higher iso increases photon noise, but so does cropping.

---

Correct, a 1.6 crop camera has the same noise as a full-frame if the DOF is the same. And if the sesor has the same technology, the 7D and 5D II have almost the same noise at the same DOF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

The only problem with stoping down, is that in low light you may already be at a high ISO to get a fast shutter enough shutter speed at F1.4. Loosing those few stops might be the difference in a pic with camera shake and one good one without.

---

Yes, you will need a f/2.8 exposure but the noise will be the same as f/1.4 on a 1.6 crop camera. All you do is raise the ISO and you have the same result.


Take a look at Bryans noise crops, the 7D is about 1 1/3rd stopps noisier than the 5d II


John.

Thanks, Guys!


I thought there was a flaw in my logic - obvious once you pointed out the effect of cropping on noise.


Despite my hopes to the contrary, the elegant yet occasionally frustrating laws of physics have reduced this to a simple choice of the most appropriate focal length for my needs - and that's 35mm.


Merry Christmas to All!


--John

[quote user="neuroanatomist"]


- am I better off shooting with the 24mm at f/1.4 and cropping to get the desired framing?


[/quote]


Definitely not. If you think about it, it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

the elegant yet occasionally frustrating laws of physics

---

Love it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

the only time that cropping (or using a smaller sensor) is going to give you a real benefit in DOF is when bellows factor is significant, and it isn't in these circumstances.

---

Interestingly (to me, anyway), even taking bellows factor into account, cropping gives no DOF advantage. The "effective crop factor" changes as you get close up, but with a given DOF, you still get the same amount of noise. The same is true of diffraction: with a given DOF, you get the same amount of diffraction no matter how much or little you crop.


You can't win. (But on the upside, you can't lose). The elegant laws of physics do not favor one sensor size over another- if you have the right lens, you never need to crop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

even taking bellows factor into account, cropping gives no DOF advantage.

---

Am I calculating it wrong? Here is what I get:


78.9mm DOF for 28.8x36mm sensor size, 0.0287mmCoC, 1.36m focus distance,50mm lens, f/2.08 (effective), 1.038 bellows factor


38.6mm DOF for194x245mm sensor size (8x10 view camera),0.195mm CoC, 1.36m focus distance, 340mm lens, f/14.67 (effective), 1.333 bellows factor.






<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />




<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

Am I calculating it wrong?

---

I'm not sure- by bellows factor, do you mean 1 + n, and by f (effective) do you mean f * bellows factor? If so, these two lenses have different apertures.


My point was that if aperture is the same, subject distance is the same, and framing is the same, then DOF, exposure speed (or amount of noise with a given exposure time), and diffraction will be the same. There is no advantage in using a larger or smaller sensor, and thus no need to crop to get more DOF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Thanks, Guys!


I thought there was a flaw in my logic - obvious once you pointed out the effect of cropping on noise.


Despite my hopes to the contrary, the elegant yet occasionally frustrating laws of physics have reduced this to a simple choice of the most appropriate focal length for my needs - and that's 35mm.


Merry Christmas to All!


--John

---

John


I decided to shoot our christmas gathering today with both lens. First half with the 24mm and the second half with the 35mm. After it was all said and done I have to say with this type of shooting (tight quarters, low light, front living room) I would grab the 35mm first for sure now. A couple of reasons.


I shot both at ISO 1600, with apertures between 1.4 and 2.2, I tried to keep the shutter speeds at about 1/100 to 1/125. Both using the 5D Mark II.


First the framing of a people event close quarters, the 35mm was obviously better. Less distracting back ground. But this focal length is the obvious, but not the real thing that bothered me.


The other thing I have noticed and I didn't expect this. After downloading and going through the images. The 24mm are noisier. (without any croping or anything else done to it) The 35mm looked a lot more acceptable to me in this particular situation at the higher ISO.


Rick

Thanks, Rick! That's very helpful information, and definitely supports my decision to go with the 35L. I also did some shooting on Christmas Eve with the the 16-35mm f/2.8L II set to either 24mm or 35mm, and found the 35mm focal length to be preferable.


Odd about the noise - I can't see focal length per se making a difference. Perhaps the extra background included with the wider angle of view led to more dark areas - that would make the same amount of noise look more noticeable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Odd about the noise - I can't see focal length per se making a difference. Perhaps the extra background included with the wider angle of view led to more dark areas - that would make the same amount of noise look more noticeable.

---

Thats possible and was my thinking as well. More area letting light in, less light on each specific subject maybe? I have lenses mounted on two different 5D's. Both cameras shooting at the same time with the same light were metering exactly the same way. It comes up with the same shutter speed at the same aperture on both. The 24mm takes a 77mm filter and the 35mm takes a 72mm maybe that has some thing to do with it.


I suppose it could have been the difference in the 5D's but I really doubt it, I checked all the settings and both were identical. I doubt it is the case because my main 5D was on the 24mm. If one performs better than the other I would say it does.


I might run a few tests for myself later tonight just to confirm this for future reference, so I will know for sure which one to grab if I have a low light place to shoot.


Have fun with the new 35mm when you get it.





Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

I'm not sure- by bellows factor, do you mean 1 + n, and by f (effective) do you mean f * bellows factor? If so, these two lenses have different apertures.

---

Yes, that's what I meant, and now I see what you're saying. But even if the apertures are the same and the DOF is the same, doesn't bellows factor mean the larger sensor will get less light (and therefore have more noise for the same DOF)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

But even if the apertures are the same and the DOF is the same, doesn't bellows factor mean the larger sensor will get less light (and therefore have more noise for the same DOF)?

---

No.


While it is true that the bellows factor has a greater effect on the larger sensor than the smaller, thus giving it slower exposure (as compared to what you would expect if you didn't take bellows into account), it also has a greater effect on DOF in the larger sensor than the smaller. The two effects cancel exactly.


I did some calculations to convince myself that this is true (or maybe I did the calculations for diffraction, I don't remember exactly), but a friend (who isn't in to photography but is a lot smarter than I am) pointed out an easier way to see this. With a given framing and subject distance, DOF, diffraction, and exposure are all a functions of aperture alone, and thus in the battle between DOF and exposure time or DOF and diffraction, sensor size does not matter at all.

That