[musubi1000]

Hyogen. It may help to have camera calibration tools in your pocket. Namely the x-rite color checker. If you have the time it can help display the exact color of the scene. It's a combination of hardware (an IT8 color checker chart (industry standard)) and software used to render true calibrated color. So in theory you could use a canon and nikon and have the color come out the same. I use it on every paid job whenever I can because it neutralize any color casts instantly.

Have you ever done a shoot in the shade? Even after setting a custom white balance you usually have to tweak some warmth in post. If you have a color checker all you need to do is shoot a pic with the colorchecker unit in the scene. Using lightroom export the shot into the software and it will generate a custom ICC profile for that specific lighting at the push of a button. Oh and restarting lightroom. It will restart with that profile already loaded into lightroom for you to select. Once selected you can paste the profile into your whole session in that lighting condition. It has saved me hundreds of hours.

It will help in a lot of ways. It will also show you the horrors of mixed lighting.

Don't forget about black and white.

 

[MadCow]

Just got this today:
 

 

[Jon L]

  Just got this today:
 

 
Congrats.  That 16-35 f/4 IS may very well be my next lens purchase as well.  
I've used the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L as well as 17-40 f/4, but the new lens definitely is sharper and cheaper than I expected Canon to charge.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/canon-wide-angle-zoom-comparison.  
 
The only big consideration for me is the rumored Canon 11-24 f/2.8L, which will mate better with my 24-70, but then again, it's rumored to be $2800 

 

[Suisou]

  Just got this today:
 

 
How do you like your 16-35L? The copy I had a few years ago had backfocus issues along with it being unsharp wide open. 

 

[MadCow]

   
The only big consideration for me is the rumored Canon 11-24 f/2.8L, which will mate better with my 24-70, but then again, it's rumored to be $2800 

Yeah, I heard about that rumor. I'm pretty sure it's going to be a sharp and impressive lens, Canon seems to be on a roll with all their new lenses, but the zoom range and price is probably not for me.
 

   
How do you like your 16-35L? The copy I had a few years ago had backfocus issues along with it being unsharp wide open. 

I had the 17-40L during my early crop camera years (10D), then the 16-35L (version I) with the 40D onwards. This new 16-35 f/4L IS beats both of them especially in corners. The IS is also quite useful for handhelds; although I haven't stressed the IS mechanism yet, while testing the lens at the store I was getting consistently sharp images at 1/20s.
 
The new lens hood is also very nice; it's not as fat and space-consuming as the previous ones, so it's more likely to find a place in the bag.

 

[Suisou]

  [...]..the zoom range and price is probably not for me.
 
I was getting consistently sharp images at 1/20s.

 
I prefer primes over zooms, but there are times when the convenience of a zoom is much needed.
 
Sharp images on my copy of the 16-35L MK at 1/20s was unheard of. If it wasn't the softness, it was the backfocus. And if all else failed, chromatic aberrations were there to seal the deal. I'm surprised to hear how the new versions have improved, considering that this was my least favorite L lens. 

 

[jay-w]

   
I prefer primes over zooms, but there are times when the convenience of a zoom is much needed.
 
Sharp images on my copy of the 16-35L MK at 1/20s was unheard of. If it wasn't the softness, it was the backfocus. And if all else failed, chromatic aberrations were there to seal the deal. I'm surprised to hear how the new versions have improved, considering that this was my least favorite L lens. 

 
I'm the same. On my last overseas trip I took the 35mm but found there were too many times when I wished I had the convenience of a wider zoom.
 
I bought the 17-40mm f/4L when I got back. Getting over f/4 has been the only issue but I'm fine with it. All in all it's the perfect travel lens for me. Light, compact, inexpensive(for an L).

 

[randy98mtu]

Might as well join the conversation here.  I'm a Canon guy who has been building up my kit for years.  I haven't been using it so much this year, but I have a well rounded kit that feels end game in most ways.  I finally got up to my dream 5D3 and I love it.  At home I love using primes and I have a 35L, 85 1.8 and 135L.  On the road the zooms come out and I have the 17-40L, 24-105L and 70-200 f4 IS.  I would like to add a 50mm still, and I dream of the 85L, but the 85 1.8 is just too good to justify the cost of the L.

 

[Jon L]

  I dream of the 85L, but the 85 1.8 is just too good to justify the cost of the L.

 
I don't know, man.  I have both 85 1.8 and 1.2L as well as many of the lenses you have.  But there really is nothing like the 85L at f/1.2 

 
 

 

[jay-w]

The 85L when it's done right is beautiful. I'm actually waiting on the Zeiss 85mm ZE.
 

  Might as well join the conversation here.  I'm a Canon guy who has been building up my kit for years.  I haven't been using it so much this year, but I have a well rounded kit that feels end game in most ways.  I finally got up to my dream 5D3 and I love it.  At home I love using primes and I have a 35L, 85 1.8 and 135L.  On the road the zooms come out and I have the 17-40L, 24-105L and 70-200 f4 IS.  I would like to add a 50mm still, and I dream of the 85L, but the 85 1.8 is just too good to justify the cost of the L.

 
I love that 135L. 50mm is not a focal length I'm too taken with but you've got a lot of interesting options there; Canon f1.4/1.2, Zeiss, Sigma.

 

[randy98mtu]

Not trying to take anything away from the 85L.  I've followed the threads on it for a long time.
 
The 135L is magic.  Incredible bang for the buck.

 

[MadCow]

Got my Metabones Mk IV adapter today.
 

 
AF is dog slow, but I didn't get the adapter for that; I got it for electronic aperture control. Manual focus is still feasible, but USM does not feel as good as a mechanical manual focus lens.

 

[Suisou]

 
does not feel as good as a mechanical manual focus lens.

 
Love the L-lineup loads, but I've yet to find a lens that gives me the fizz to be hadfrom a manual focus lens.
 
I've adapted several takumars, yashicas, CJ Zeiss and Leica lenses to my 5D.
 
Samples:
 

 

 

 
Tack sharp, but I do miss AF in certain situations. 

 

[Jon L]

  Got my Metabones Mk IV adapter today.
 

 
AF is dog slow, but I didn't get the adapter for that; I got it for electronic aperture control. Manual focus is still feasible, but USM does not feel as good as a mechanical manual focus lens.

 
I was very disappointed that Metabones III to IV move did not include any AF speed improvements, which IMO was THE main thing that required improvement!

 

[hyogen]

I'm not sure what I've been crying about regarding the D600 and it's colors/skin tones, but I am in love with the photos I just took yesterday.  I could spend a little more time with them to match the color balance in a couple of them.  
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A couple from last week:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote:

Hyogen. It may help to have camera calibration tools in your pocket. Namely the x-rite color checker. If you have the time it can help display the exact color of the scene. It's a combination of hardware (an IT8 color checker chart (industry standard)) and software used to render true calibrated color. So in theory you could use a canon and nikon and have the color come out the same. I use it on every paid job whenever I can because it neutralize any color casts instantly.

Have you ever done a shoot in the shade? Even after setting a custom white balance you usually have to tweak some warmth in post. If you have a color checker all you need to do is shoot a pic with the colorchecker unit in the scene. Using lightroom export the shot into the software and it will generate a custom ICC profile for that specific lighting at the push of a button. Oh and restarting lightroom. It will restart with that profile already loaded into lightroom for you to select. Once selected you can paste the profile into your whole session in that lighting condition. It has saved me hundreds of hours.

It will help in a lot of ways. It will also show you the horrors of mixed lighting.

Don't forget about black and white.

 
Thanks very much.  Can you not use the color checker in day light?  I usually shoot in the shade, but I have been pushing myself to shoot in daylight more often.  I also updated my Camera Raw version which a D800/D700 user told me made a world of difference.  I bought the $10 colorfidelity profile for the D600 which I think helps a little bit, but definitely choosing Camera Neutral in the calibration in LR helps make the RAW file more neutral.  Yes, I am very familiar with the horrors of mixed lighting...the HORRORS.  
 

 

   
I don't think switching to Canon would be necessary.  While tons of wedding photographers use Canon, with Canon "colors" somewhat becoming the de facto look, the fact is ALL camera brand files need proper white balancing for professional (read "paid") work.  

 
+1
 
But as a Canon user from the beginning, I cannot empathize with users who are looking to switch to a Canon for the 'colors'. They're all inherently good when balanced IMHO.
 

  Going full frame was the best decision I ever made. [...] but working with fixed focal length lenses have definitely helped me to pre-frame shots before I even start to take them.  
 
135L has been calling my name for a long while now

For me the path was 20D - 30D - 50D - 40D - 1D MK II
 
and then I met the 5Dc. Promptly sold the rest and picked up a 1Ds MK II as a backup and never looked back. 35mm FF is hard to give up once you've experienced what it's capable of. 
 
Paired with the 35L, 17-40L, 24-70L, and 135L - this covered most ranges I required. Often enough, a second shooter would be sourced with the 135L and worked from the rear while I worked from the mid-ranges upwards. I don't think you'll be disappointed with it. 
 

 
I really want to take my work to the next level and by next year I may switch to Canon simply because I find that I'm spending way too much time dealing with asian skin tones in post with Nikon--especially in lower light situations.

 
Interesting. I find that Caucasians and Asian skin tones are more difficult to adjust in post. Darker skin tones look great in nearly all lighting variations, especially low light and high contrast images and usually require the least amount of work in post for me. 
 
I absolutely hate post processing. I can shoot gigs for 7+ hours, but it's the chore of editing 700+ images at the end of the night that was a complete chore. So as a Canon user, I'm not sure I understand why you're placing blame on Nikon, as I myself have to adjust the same set of skin tones in post. 
 
 

 
I'm still trying to push myself to improve and learn to deal with different lighting situations and use strobes, but I kinda feel using Nikon is a bit of a hindrance for me to achieve the style I want.

 
What style is this? Lighting is the final frontier and comes with time and practice. Adding the ability to trigger strobes wirelessly adds a new depth to the skill, but in the end is absolutely worth it if you dedicate the time into understanding how lighting works. I know plenty of people who use Nikon who produce better images than I, so again, I'm not sure where Nikon plays a role here. 

 

 
 
I do use strobes and it's not that difficult if you use flashes in manual mode.  The style I'm talking about is the style from fashion magazines, bridal magazines, certain clothing catalogs (J.Crew for example).  It's no secret most wedding photographers use Canon and most landscape photographers use Nikon.  One person from a different forum went into depth about how Nikon has had many issues throughout it's line with skin tones due to the way they implement IR filters and such.. I'm not just trying to blame my camera.  Like I said, a well-known photographer Ryan Brenizer said the same thing about the D600 about it's skin tones.  I've never tried D700 or D800 so I don't know about those.  The pictures I see out of the D700 definitely look more neutral than the ones shot with D600.  I think I'm starting to get how to get the tones I want.  This is pretty much what I've been going for wedding photography:
 

 
 

 

  Thanks.  I do have a whibal card, but have not really used it.  Is it useful even in mixed lighting situations? 
 
 
It's interesting that ever since one of the world's best wedding photogs, Dennis Berti, whom I've met, is currently using the D600.  He recently replaced his D700 and his style has definitely changed.  His pictures while more vibrant and more contrasty now still looks amazing and he's handling the files, better than I am, so there is still hope.

 
Ideally, one can custom white balance in-camera Before the shoot for the lighting conditions, mixed or not, right at the scene.  In actual use, it's difficult and time-consuming, especially because different parts of the large hall, venue, restaurant have different lighting conditions.  Leaving the camera in AWB is fine as long as you have a shot with Whibal (or equivalent) in the frame to later use to white balance in post.  If no Whibal shot for particular mixed light conditions, I usually have to pick something neutralish (white tablecloth, plate, etc) to use the WB dropper for rough adjustment in post, then manually tweak WB further.  HATE those halls with ugly flourescent lighting and way-too-warm incandescent lights all mixed in.  
 
I think D600 is a great camera, the sweet spot in Nikon land IMO.   Make sure Nikon takes care of the oil spot issue on your bodies because my friend's D600 went back to Nikon 3 times and came back with the issue still recurring, before Nikon replaced it with a  new D610.   

 
Thanks.  I took my Whibal card yesterday and I must admit I forgot to use it yet again.  Perhaps I need to give my D600 more time before I switch.  Can you believe it--the wife is on board with me switching to 5D3's... I guess she got tired of hearing me moan about D600 colors/skin tones.