New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Canon Thread - Page 134

post #1996 of 2682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon L View Post

35 f/2.8 IS is a terrible idea!  Firstly, you really don't need IS at 35mm, and going by Canon pricing for their new IS primes, it will be priced near $900, which would be crazy.  And it will only be a slow f/2.8 prime.  

 

...

 

That, and a 85mm f/`1.4 like Nikon, Sigma, Samyang without the huge size, price, focus-by-wire, and slow AF of 85 f/1.2L II.



Depends on how you use the lens.  For indoor handheld architectural work (think touristy stuff inside cathedrals, museums, etc), the IS would be great, especially if its 4-stop IS like most of the current IS systems.  You could conceivably take 1/2 exposures handheld!  You're not wrong that f/2.8 is a bit slow; f/2 would be even better!

Personally, I hate the 50mm focal length (on full frame).  I think it makes photos look very blah.  But that's just me.  You take your 50mm f/1.4 II and I'll take my 35mm f/2.8 IS. beerchug.gif

 

What's wrong with the 85mm f/1.8?  It basically meets your requirements other than missing a 1/2-stop of speed.  In fact, I own the f/1.8 and not the f/1.2 for all the reasons you list.  Optically, it is very, very good but it is just missing some of the build quality of the L.


Edited by leftnose - 4/13/12 at 2:13pm
post #1997 of 2682
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftnose View Post


What's wrong with the 85mm f/1.8?  It basically meets your requirements other than missing a 1/2-stop of speed.  In fact, I own the f/1.8 and not the f/1.2 for all the reasons you list.  Optically, it is very, very good but it is just missing some of the build quality of the L.


85 f/1.8 is a great lens, but as the test shots I posted above show, just a little faster would push the bokehliciousness towards 85L a tad, and that may be enough for me personally to just sell off the 85L with all its qirks and keep one 85mm.  

 

Having used f/2.8 4-stop IS, the IS does not improve the bokeh nor help stop action for moving subjects in dim light.  I would love it for video use, but otherwise, pound for pound, I'd rather have f/stop over IS.   

 

post #1998 of 2682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon L View Post

85 f/1.8 is a great lens, but as the test shots I posted above show, just a little faster would push the bokehliciousness towards 85L a tad, and that may be enough for me personally to just sell off the 85L with all its qirks and keep one 85mm.  

 

Having used f/2.8 4-stop IS, the IS does not improve the bokeh nor help stop action for moving subjects in dim light.  I would love it for video use, but otherwise, pound for pound, I'd rather have f/stop over IS.


Speaking of which, I really want this shirt: http://www.digitalrev.com/product/bokehlicious-t-shirt/MTAwMDYzMw_A_A

 

post #1999 of 2682

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftnose View Post

 

I love the 35 f/2.  35mm on a full frame camera is, by far, my favorite focal length and, in fact, I own both the f/2 and the f/1.4.  I had the f/2 first but didn't sell it when I upgraded.  Even owning both of the lenses, I still use the f/2 a lot.  It is just so small and convenient.  If it had a USM focusing, it would be the perfect lens for me.  There's just something so satisfying about shooting with a prime lens!

 

 

Those shots look great... nice setup!  Need to save my pennies.

post #2000 of 2682

ive been using the stock lens and once in a while a 1.8f as it was pretty cheap. whats a good budget all arounder upgrade from the stock 18-55? to be used with a t3i.  Thanks!

post #2001 of 2682

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lungStruck View Post

 

 

Those shots look great... nice setup!  Need to save my pennies.

 


Thanks.  The people shown in the shots are all friends and in such circumstances, I tend to use the f/2 instead of the f/1.4.  When there's a professional photographer in the room I find snaping photos with the little f/2 instead of the huge f/1.4 gets more natural responses from people who know who I am an don't see me as a "threat."  This is also why I don't use a big flash or a battery grip.

post #2002 of 2682

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by caracara08 View Post

ive been using the stock lens and once in a while a 1.8f as it was pretty cheap. whats a good budget all arounder upgrade from the stock 18-55? to be used with a t3i.  Thanks!

 

Depends on what you find lacking with the 18-55, I suppose.

 

The 17-55/2.8 is well-regarded, and has IS... but is expensive for an EF-s lens.

 

Or if you are looking for more zoom range, the 15-85 is also pretty decent.

post #2003 of 2682
Quote:
Originally Posted by caracara08 View Post ive been using the stock lens and once in a while a 1.8f as it was pretty cheap. whats a good budget all arounder upgrade from the stock 18-55? to be used with a t3i.  Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadCow View Post

Depends on what you find lacking with the 18-55, I suppose. The 17-55/2.8 is well-regarded, and has IS... but is expensive for an EF-s lens. Or if you are looking for more zoom range, the 15-85 is also pretty decent.

 

You can consider third-party lenses as well. There are many quality alternatives to the 17-55/2.8 from Tamron and Sigma. For Tamron, I recommend the non-VC version of their 17-50/2.8, but for Sigma I recommend the newer, 17-50/2.8 OS. I find the Tamron to be a very good performer, especially for the price. It doesn't have image stabilization, but it's really not all that necessary if you know what you're doing and keep the shutter speed above 1/80th or so. I don't have experience with the Tokina 16-50, but I've heard it's built like a tank. Having had a Tokina 11-16, I can definitely vouch for that.

post #2004 of 2682
Quote:
Originally Posted by caracara08 View Post

ive been using the stock lens and once in a while a 1.8f as it was pretty cheap. whats a good budget all arounder upgrade from the stock 18-55? to be used with a t3i.  Thanks!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadCow View Post

 

 

Depends on what you find lacking with the 18-55, I suppose.

 

Also depends on what you consider "budget."  I think the 15-85 as mentioned above is probably the most logical upgrade over the 18-55 as anything EF-S that is a substantial upgrade (17-55) is considerably more expensive.

 

You might also look at EF full frame lenses like the 28-135 IS.  You will loose quite a bit on the wide end but gain a ton on the telephoto end.  You can also use the lens on any EOS camera should you decide to upgrade your body at some point in the future.

post #2005 of 2682

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftnose View Post



Depends on how you use the lens.  For indoor handheld architectural work (think touristy stuff inside cathedrals, museums, etc), the IS would be great, especially if its 4-stop IS like most of the current IS systems.  You could conceivably take 1/2 exposures handheld!  You're not wrong that f/2.8 is a bit slow; f/2 would be even better!

Personally, I hate the 50mm focal length (on full frame).  I think it makes photos look very blah.  But that's just me.  You take your 50mm f/1.4 II and I'll take my 35mm f/2.8 IS. beerchug.gif

 

What's wrong with the 85mm f/1.8?  It basically meets your requirements other than missing a 1/2-stop of speed.  In fact, I own the f/1.8 and not the f/1.2 for all the reasons you list.  Optically, it is very, very good but it is just missing some of the build quality of the L.

 


The newer Canon IS primes are pretty much made to fill the gap Canon's got in the video market for their lenses. For real pro usage, Zeiss has been eating Canon's lunch since the inception of the 5DII. That's why they're in the focal lengths that they're in. Canon is hoping to get the jump on Zeiss by offering their excellent IS for hand-held stuff.  Shooting video at lower than 2.8 is a intensely frustrating due to the insanely thin area that is in focus.

 

Getting one for still-photography isn't a terrible idea, but it's good to keep in mind the target audience... it's not the best usage of cash. Relying on IS for a steady shot instead of really learning proper posture and moving your craft forward by holding perfectly still during a shot will benefit you so greatly in the future.

 

I moved slowly up through a variety of primes, and now use the Canon 1.2L as my only lens unless I'm shooting video at work... in which case it's only for VERY specialized types of shots. I shoot only in 1.2 unless I have a reason to do otherwise; the DOF factors very specifically in the kind of work I like to do. I've never wanted IS for any of my ambient light photography since I started shooting 1-2 hours per day with it.

 

IMG_0106.JPG

 

IMG_0455.JPG

IMG_4728.JPG

IMG_4705.JPG

IMG_5742.JPG

IMG_6387.JPG

 

EDIT: These are direct from camera, by the way. I do not edit, except the occasional crop / tilt when I'm not shooting straight.


Edited by Mercuttio - 4/25/12 at 8:38pm
post #2006 of 2682

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercuttio View Post

Getting one for still-photography isn't a terrible idea, but it's good to keep in mind the target audience... it's not the best usage of cash. Relying on IS for a steady shot instead of really learning proper posture and moving your craft forward by holding perfectly still during a shot will benefit you so greatly in the future.

 

I'm not sure your comments were aimed at me but you quoted me so I'll comment.  I may be new to this thread but I am not new to photography.  Many years ago, I won a national competition sponsored by Illford and have had significant training all the way through high school and college.  I really do know what I'm doing behind a camera and, occasionally, I luck into a good shot.  My father was actually a student of Walker Evans and I've had a camera in my hands since I was very young and I remember my father telling me to be sure I stood very still while taking a photo with the then new disc film camera he had given me (so this was mid-80s and I was born in '81). I've never posted in this thread because I only have so much time in the day for internet forums and I like to follow the large threads in which I participate.  I believe you and I have had discussions in the watch thread about Speedmasters.

 

If you review my original comments, I would love to have a 35mm IS for indoor still shots.  I'm not talking about a shot at 1/10; I can do that handheld with a 35mm lens and get a very high percentage of keepers.  I'm talking about taking 1/4 - 1/2 sec. exposures and maybe even slower with a monopod.  I shoot a 5D2 which I don't like to use past ISO 1600.  Can you imagine what you could do taking 1/2 sec. images at ISO 1600?  Even looking at your images above, your style would benefit from it as well as only two of the subjects shown are in motion.

 

You mention a 1.2L.  50mm or 85mm?  I'll just assume 85mm for the sake of my argument.  Imagine if Canon released an 85L III with faster focusing and 4-stop IS.  You wouldn't jump all over that lens?  That's what a 35mm IS would be for me.

 

BTW, I do PP my images in Lightroom.  To me, that's half the fun of taking photos and it lets me do the things that I did so many years ago in wet darkrooms with old school contrast adjustments and real burning and dodging.  I don't take my images past Lightroom into Photoshop or anything but I tweak almost all of my keepers.


Edited by leftnose - 4/26/12 at 6:28am
post #2007 of 2682

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftnose View Post

 

 

I'm not sure your comments were aimed at me but you quoted me so I'll comment.  I may be new to this thread but I am not new to photography.  Many years ago, I won a national competition sponsored by Illford and have had significant training all the way through high school and college.  I really do know what I'm doing behind a camera and, occasionally, I luck into a good shot.  My father was actually a student of Walker Evans and I've had a camera in my hands since I was very young and I remember my father telling me to be sure I stood very still while taking a photo with the then new disc film camera he had given me (so this was mid-80s and I was born in '81). I've never posted in this thread because I only have so much time in the day for internet forums and I like to follow the large threads in which I participate.  I believe you and I have had discussions in the watch thread about Speedmasters.

 

If you review my original comments, I would love to have a 35mm IS for indoor still shots.  I'm not talking about a shot at 1/10; I can do that handheld with a 35mm lens and get a very high percentage of keepers.  I'm talking about taking 1/4 - 1/2 sec. exposures and maybe even slower with a monopod.  I shoot a 5D2 which I don't like to use past ISO 1600.  Can you imagine what you could do taking 1/2 sec. images at ISO 1600?  Even looking at your images above, your style would benefit from it as well as only two of the subjects shown are in motion.

 

You mention a 1.2L.  50mm or 85mm?  I'll just assume 85mm for the sake of my argument.  Imagine if Canon released an 85L III with faster focusing and 4-stop IS.  You wouldn't jump all over that lens?  That's what a 35mm IS would be for me.

 

BTW, I do PP my images in Lightroom.  To me, that's half the fun of taking photos and it lets me do the things that I did so many years ago in wet darkrooms with old school contrast adjustments and real burning and dodging.  I don't take my images past Lightroom into Photoshop or anything but I tweak almost all of my keepers.

 


No offense was intended. I probably went a little overboard in advice-mode. I just can't see giving up a movement-stopping F for IS; if I want to do longer exposures I have a tripod for it. I don't shoot posed shots unless I'm in the studio: four out of my above images have moving subjects that aren't holding still for me. The only things I care about IS on are macro lenses and lenses I shoot video with. Anything else, for me, seems like it's just avoiding the way I've been trained to shoot.

 

I don't like the 85 L because of the focus-by-wire, slow AF, and massive heft. I shoot 50mm, and should have mentioned it. So no, I don't have any interest in a prime with IS unless it's for video. It just doesn't serve a purpose in my work and even going from 1.2 to 1.8 to get it isn't something I care about. I want my primes fast and sharp.

 

But hey, I shouldn't assume you want what I want. Your shots earlier were really nice, and I didn't mean offense.


Edited by Mercuttio - 4/26/12 at 7:37am
post #2008 of 2682

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercuttio View Post

 

But hey, I shouldn't assume you want what I want. Your shots earlier were really nice, and I didn't mean offense.

 

No, none taken beerchug.gif

 

Photography, like so many things, becomes a matter of taste.  You're a 50mm guy.  I hate 50mm but adore 35mm.  A few posts ago, I said that I would like a 35mm f/2.8 IS and, in retrospect, this is incorrect.  I wouldn't want the lens to be any slower than f/2 so you're not wrong, motion freeze is important but, for me and the photos I take, it isn't one of the primary requirements of a lens. 

 

And, of course, the substance of your message is absolutely correct: fancy equipment doesn't make up for poor fundamentals.

 

Your shots are very nice as well.  I especially like the one of the smoker and I can understand why you would want f/1.2.

post #2009 of 2682

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by leftnose View Post

 

 

No, none taken beerchug.gif

 

Photography, like so many things, becomes a matter of taste.  You're a 50mm guy.  I hate 50mm but adore 35mm.  A few posts ago, I said that I would like a 35mm f/2.8 IS and, in retrospect, this is incorrect.  I wouldn't want the lens to be any slower than f/2 so you're not wrong, motion freeze is important but, for me and the photos I take, it isn't one of the primary requirements of a lens. 

 

And, of course, the substance of your message is absolutely correct: fancy equipment doesn't make up for poor fundamentals.

 

Your shots are very nice as well.  I especially like the one of the smoker and I can understand why you would want f/1.2.

 


Did you check out this? http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/lenses-35l-ii-85l-iii-next-up-cr1/

 

I'm really curious to see how the new 35L ends up being. The old one definitely could use some of the ruggeder / weatherproofing DNA that newer L's have, but I've never heard anyone complain about the optics and I liked the look of the one I test shot with. Hopefully the price stays around where it is on the old model, which already is at the very top of what I'm willing to pay for a lens. Hey, maybe a new model will drive down prices of the old one?

 

The big thing I'd love to have in my 50L that the 35L has is the closer focusing distance. That'd be so intensely sweet.

 


You know, what Canon REALLY needs to do is update their 50 1.4. I couldn't wait to get rid of that thing. Front element that moves out of the housing, noisy and failure-prone AF, sloppy Bokeh. Colors didn't look right for me either. I know they're still making it in Japan where costs are higher, but the build of Nikon's 1.4 is just so much nicer. The Nikon in the hand is just so pleasurable.


Edited by Mercuttio - 4/26/12 at 10:20am
post #2010 of 2682

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercuttio View Post

 

 


Did you check out this? http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/lenses-35l-ii-85l-iii-next-up-cr1/

 

 

Yeah.  I have the current 35L.  It would take an awful lot for me to upgrade (like IS!).  As a hobbyist, I'm not that tough on my gear and it goes back into the bag if the weather gets nasty.  In fact, I have 35mm covered in 5 different lenses! (35L, 35 f/2, 24-105L, 17-40L, and 28-105 from the mid-90s) and even owning the 35L, I use the 35 f/2 quite frequently.  It's a great stealth lens.

 

I'm a Canon shooter, no doubt, but the only thing that Nikon has that makes me jealous right now are their wide angle primes.  Canon has been neglecting theirs for too long to update all the telephoto lenses.  Unfortunately for me, I have no use--or money--for a 400 f/2.8 II IS.  It would be nice for them to spend some time on the other end of the focal length spectrum.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home