Yes, i am well aware of the joyfull amount of stuff FF gets with wider lenses, that's the reason i am getting it.
The 70-200 is definetly on my radar at some point, but not atm. I have spent my time more than enough past few years on flickr etc. looking the pictures i maybe someday learn to take. It is just now that i finally have the money to invest, start with this end of the lens and then, when hopefullu my knowledge and skills improve look forward.
I am glad you found the advice helpful. Hard to go wrong, perhaps slightly better. I am clearly a fan of the 16-35 f4. I don't miss the stop to 2.8 and it is the lens that pretty much stayed on the "R" the whole trip, unless I was doing the huge multi shot panos.
I just uploaded 3 waterfall pics that I promised earlier today and you should be able to download the full sized jpg. sharpening was set to "fine detail" in DPP4 (4,1,1). (https://www.flickr.com/gp/77760916@N05/W0b7wE) will take you to the 1st. They were shot w/ the 16-35 at either 1/6 or 1/8 shutter speed on the 5DsR. These were handheld as had I had my tripod (long hike more of a scouting trip) I would have had yet longer speeds. So a sea level couch potato, hiking 25 minutes+ then scrambling up a waterfall and doing longish shutter speeds on a very high resolution sensor - I am very happy w/ the sharpness, etc. Not my favorite waterfall shots these are really more of a real world demonstration of the IS in the 16-35 f4
Last edited by Busted Knuckles; 09-24-2015 at 02:33 AM.
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
Why a 16-35 if you're getting a 14? [Side note: I recently revamped our wide-angle lineup. We'd already gotten down to a 16-35/2.8II and a 14/2.8II, but there's two shooters under this roof, but I knew my wife had gotten the "11-24 itch" after I rented it OOPS. Not willing to ditch the 14/2.8 before the 16-35/2.8, the 16-35/2.8 got sold locally for $900 and I got the 16-35/4IS just before the rebates ran out, then got her the 11-24, so the 14/2.8 became the "2.8/specialty/remote" lens. She's happy with 11-24 and 24-105 on a 5D3, I'm happy with a 16-35/4IS as a workhorse and an old-model 24-70 when -35 isn't enough but 70-200 is too constricting.]
Although I'd say it's good to know your future roadmap, I'd say there's also the reality that you're (probably) going to buy one lens at a time, so why not debate who's on first, and what's on second, and just say I don't know's on third.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
Well i currently have following hardware:
Canon eos 550D, Tamron 18-270 and sigma 150-500. Bought that samyang 14mm f/2.8 to have something to use and train for the current body, since i am pretty much using the 18mm only from the tamron, to shoot my landscapes etc. And the samyang was dirt cheap :P.
I am currently also looking a tele lens to get as a pre-owned version and allready have run into couple good options price wise. Just trying to find out how they perform with 2xIII extender. Easy to find the 1.4xIII extender comments and pictures but not that much info with 2x extender.
What i have currently been looking is ef300 f/4 IS just no idea how it performs with the 2xIII extender. There is also ef300 f/2.8 IS usm also in decent price and what i understand, this lens is performer with both extenders and i think the 600mm is definetly enought currently for me. (well there is the ef400 f/2.8 is usm too, but that is still bit on the pain side on my budget)
Tele lens is still just in inspection phase, because i am pretty sure, that at some point i do realise that the sigma 150-500 is getting "old" =)
Last edited by Karsaa; 09-24-2015 at 07:16 AM.
Really nice waterfall shots indeed and shows really well the lenses and R's capabilities.
Hi Karsaa,
I recently made a comparison that might be of some use to you.
I own the 300 mm f4 and the 2x iii. ( I use the 2x iii mostly for the 70-200mm f2.8 ii.) I recently received a few days rental of the 300mm 2.8 ii as a gift. It takes the 2x iii very well. Naturally I wanted to see the comparison of these two for some real-word shots. Bryan already has great comparisons under standard lab conditions.
I already knew the 300 f4 plus 2x iii gives lots of color fringing on edges with hard contrast, so I looked for a subject that would not pose that problem. These hydrangeas were roughly 20 meters distant. There was plenty of late afternoon sun. The flowers were not really very attractive, but they seemed suitable as test subjects.
These were shot a few minutes apart on the 5D iii. For each of these I selected the sharpest of 3 handheld shots. I processed each in DPP to produce the sharpness and contrast that seemed best for that individual shot. The 300 f4 seemed to need and to tolerate a little more sharpening and contrast. These were then cropped to width 2048 pixels (roughly a 50% view) before jpeg conversion.
My impression is that the 300mm 2.8 is better, but I was surprised that the difference was less than I expected. I would expect a bigger advantage for the 300mm f2.8 for subjects with very hard edges.
I was also pleasantly surprised that the physical balance of the 300 f2.8 was good, so that the extra weight was very manageable.
300mm f4 2x iii at f8 by Danny Watson, on Flickr
300mm 2.8 2x iii at f8 by Danny Watson, on Flickr
300mm f4 2x iii contrasty edges by Danny Watson, on Flickr
Last edited by Minerve101; 10-07-2015 at 12:19 AM. Reason: more equal exposure for top and added example of fringing
Wait, this finally computed in my brain....you're buying a 5DsR, and you're shopping for off-brand telephoto lenses based on how well they take a 2x TC? Go buy a 7D2 already and whatever telephoto you want, it'll just be memories anyway, right?
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
From the rockwell's amateur list ...Polarizer over UV filter... i actually have to do this with my tamron lens, for some reason the bloody polarizer don't stick to the front of the objectiveonly to the UV.....
Finally today had the day when was able to press ORDER button. After long thoughs and feelings desided to go on light version of the lenses.
The winners were Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM and Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD.
Naturally will be looking also if there is any good offers for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, just managed to miss the canon's get money back offer.
Now just wait wait to get my hands on the new stuff =)
Congrats on the new gear. Look forward to your impressions and pics
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote