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)?
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).
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
Excellent choice! Those are probably my two most used lenses.
Good idea. I was wondering what the heck you needed that thing for when you already had "the II".
I got over my lust for this lens when I moved to full frame
(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.
What Jon said :-)
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?
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.
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
Okay, humor me a moment.
I'm curious... in how many of your pictures is pixel density the limiting factor for you IQ?
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.
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.
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.
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!).
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).
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.
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).
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! []
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote