|
Bubbacub posted:The 18-135 actually isn't that bad of a lens for landscapes or outdoor travel shots. Just beware that it's too short for wildlife and too slow for weddings. If your dad already has lenses that he likes, I'd just buy the camera body only. It is however, fantastic for video - the STM focus motor really shines with the dualpixel AF for video (it is completely 100% silent when videotaping, and it racks into focus very smoothly, without any jerking or zipping to focus) Add that to awesome IS and a great range, and it's a fantastic video companion for the 70D. I'd highly rec getting that or the 18-55 STM if he's at all interested in using it for video. The USM lenses are very loud when used for video with AF
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
The 18-135 is really fighting for a spot in my camera bag. Only have room for 2 lenses, and the other lenses are the 17-50 2.8 Tamron, and the 70-300 Tamron. I'd love to have room in it for the lens because it's so nice, but like I said, just hard to compete. Unless I get a bigger bag of course, but I'd rather not carry around a duffle bag.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
If you've only got room in your bag for 2 lenses you might want to consider a bigger bag, depending on your needs of course. I've got this with a 70D and it comfortably fits 4 lenses and a bunch of other random junk as well. It's super comfortable over the shoulder and doesn't feel bulky or heavy or anything even when fully loaded. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0045C6OOK/ref=oh_details_o07_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
I go by the 2 lens limit myself. Which lenses I actually bring may change based on what I intend to be pointing my camera at, but I'm pretty good about leaving excess gadgetry behind. It would be even better if I could get it down to one lens and never have to worry about swapping, but since there's no single lens that can cover every situation a second option is a necessary concession. It's not about bag size either, it's just a question of how much poo poo do I really need on hand to take a picture?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies. I'm not sure if he will want to take video or not. I don't want to give the surprise away by all of a sudden asking him lots of questions. What would be some better lenses in that 18-135 range? I know he has a good short one and a long one but I remember him saying he often finds himself wanting a mid range one. I might be totally wrong buy for example his short one might go to 55 and his long one starts at 100 or something like that. I was thinking 18-135 would be really good for travel all purpose camera but when he is going to an actual event like a wedding or on safari he can use one of his other lenses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Don't let all the old "kit lenses are crap!" talk from the old days scare you away. The 18-135 kit is a pretty great lens, especially for the price when bundled with the body. Sure, there are plenty of lenses out there that will outperform it, but if you're simply a hobbyist or if you're going in on a budget it's a great start and will get plenty of use until you decide if you want to upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Shux posted:Thanks for the replies. The 18-135 STM is a pretty dang good lens, especially for a superzoom. It's got a lot of barrel distortion on the wide end, but that can be automatically fixed in LR et al anyway. As you said, it's a great all purpose range, and to me, the video performance is a bonus - I'm sure once he discovers the video capabilities of the 70D, he will be at least somewhat interested. The 18-135 and 18-55 STM are the only really suitable lenses for video AF on that camera right now, unless you want to get an external mic setup to avoid the noise from USM lenses. (The 40STM is not nearly as quiet on video, it's focus motor was a 'first try' for canon and while it's an awesome lens in all other respects, quiet it is not. )
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Shux posted:Thanks for the replies. The problem is, it's difficult to give advice without details and specifics of usage. It's always nice to surprise people with a gift, but this might be a case (given the cash involved) where taking specific orders may be an improvement. The 70D is good. I haven't read a ton of reviews yet personally, but it's from the same family as the 40D -- though with some advanced technology and capabilities, of course. I get less excited by the 18-135, though. If your dad is used to going on safari with $1,000+ lenses, then he may look down his nose at this cheaper thing; or, if he doesn't have a collection of high-end gear, it may be what he's looking for. It's hard to tell without a list of the lenses he has, knowledge of what he likes to shoot and what his current shortcomings are, and a budget. There could be plenty of lenses recommended that are out of budget, not of interest, or ones he already has. Lastly...bags are even more difficult to recommend. There isn't one "really perfect" bag to recommend to everyone. How much do you want to carry and how much you want to spend are two major factors. Check out the bag/accessory thread for recommended brands, but it's something where form factor is even more important and personalized. Sorry to make things difficult, but if your dad isn't a newcomer, it's not a blank slate. There's more context needed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
My mom is looking to upgrade her Canon 40D and she has some questions. She's been reading up on the differences between the 6D and the 7D and she was under the impression that a full frame sensor was always better but in some of the articles she has been reading they made it sound like that's not always the case. Could someone explain the pros and cons of a full frame sensor? She mostly shoots nature scenes (animals, flowers, landscapes) but there are always the miscellaneous family gatherings or sports games she brings her camera to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
TangyRaptor posted:My mom is looking to upgrade her Canon 40D and she has some questions. She's been reading up on the differences between the 6D and the 7D and she was under the impression that a full frame sensor was always better but in some of the articles she has been reading they made it sound like that's not always the case. Could someone explain the pros and cons of a full frame sensor? She mostly shoots nature scenes (animals, flowers, landscapes) but there are always the miscellaneous family gatherings or sports games she brings her camera to. Full frame pros: better low light performance, lenses on the wide side seem bigger (wider field of view), larger viewfinder (not necessarily more coverage, just looks larger). Cons: Loss of "length" on the long side of lenses--mostly an issue for birding/sports. Won't be able to use any EF-S mount lenses she has on it. (6d pro: can get it with a "kit" 24-105L f/4 lens which spends most of its time on my camera).
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
My new 70d with 18-55 STM and 55-250 bundle will be arriving in a few days. After spending the last five years shooting with an XTI, I'm very excited about this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Shellman posted:Full frame pros: better low light performance, lenses on the wide side seem bigger (wider field of view), larger viewfinder (not necessarily more coverage, just looks larger). Thanks a bunch, I'll pass this along to her.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
If she shoots sports on the regular get a 7d. They're like 850 bucks now too. Also the 7d VF is basically a full frame one, just a half a stop darker or so (100% coverage and high magnification). evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 11:05 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
Shux posted:Thanks for the replies. How about giving him an 85/1.8? It's a good-quality, versatile mid-range lens that you can pick up for relatively cheap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
Am I the only one who thinks that he shouldn't spend hundreds of dollars on new camera equipment for his dad when all he knows is that the lenses are 'big'? Find out more about what he has and what he uses and we can give you some real suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:Am I the only one who thinks that he shouldn't spend hundreds of dollars on new camera equipment for his dad when all he knows is that the lenses are 'big'? Find out more about what he has and what he uses and we can give you some real suggestions. this is what I was trying to say too. Bring us more information, OP, since it's nice to spring a surprise on somebody, this stuff is expensive and can be at the whim of personal taste. Recommendations aren't always straightforward.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
Is there any good reason not to buy the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II refurbished? I see it on Canon's site as in stock for $1839. I am so tempted to buy that RIGHT NOW.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Drewski posted:Is there any good reason not to buy the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II refurbished? I see it on Canon's site as in stock for $1839. I am so tempted to buy that RIGHT NOW. If you are too poor to afford it or hate good lenses or are really clumsy with expensive gear...
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Shellman posted:If you are too poor to afford it or hate good lenses or are really clumsy with expensive gear... I currently have a 60D + 17-55 F/2.8 IS + 70-200 F/4L + nifty 50, and I have been considering going full frame for a very long time now. The biggest thing I was wrestling with was whether I should get the 5d mk III or the 6d. I also have to take into consideration the fact that my 17-55 is incompatible with a full-frame body and I'd have to buy a replacement lens. Based on cost, I saw that I can get the 6D plus the 24-70 lens (both refurb) for the same price as a 5d mk III (new). And having read the discussions about the two on this thread, I decided that having quality glass is more important than the difference between the two camera bodies. So I just pulled the trigger on the 6D + 24-70 F/2.8L. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Drewski posted:So I just pulled the trigger on the 6D + 24-70 F/2.8L. Having recently gone full frame with the 6d + 24-105, you are gonna love it: except 200mm just won't seem that far anymore. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Drewski posted:Is there any good reason not to buy the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II refurbished? I see it on Canon's site as in stock for $1839. I am so tempted to buy that RIGHT NOW. No, there is no good reason not to. Their refurbished lenses are awesome, and I have gotten two from them that might as well be brand new except for the white box. Go for it. Shellman posted:except 200mm just won't seem that far anymore. This is so depressingly true. I had a T4i with 70-300 USM and went to a 5D3 with 70-200. That's a double whammy in the reach dept. mclifford82 fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
And that is why Tamron will sell every 150-600mm they can make as fast as they can make them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Drewski posted:Is there any good reason not to buy the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II refurbished? I see it on Canon's site as in stock for $1839. I am so tempted to buy that RIGHT NOW. I was going to go with the 35mm f/1.4 to go with my not-yet-purchased 6D, but is this deal good enough that I should jump on it? I'm a sucker for deals Ehh, I'll probably stick with the 35mm. Someone validate my choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I was going to go with the 35mm f/1.4 to go with my not-yet-purchased 6D, but is this deal good enough that I should jump on it? I'm a sucker for deals All I'll say is that I love my Sigma 35 F/1.4. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Looks like the 35mm f/1.4 is out of stock... also, have you considered the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART? (Mine comes tomorrow  )edit: ^^ 
an AOL chatroom fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I was going to go with the 35mm f/1.4 to go with my not-yet-purchased 6D, but is this deal good enough that I should jump on it? I'm a sucker for deals
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I was going to go with the 35mm f/1.4 to go with my not-yet-purchased 6D, but is this deal good enough that I should jump on it? I'm a sucker for deals I obviously think the 24-70 is a good deal or else I wouldn't have bought it as quickly as I did. I have no experience with the 35mm but it looks fantastic. Do you want the prime quality or do you want the functionality of a zoom lens? The 24-70 is great at the 35mm level (though I don't know how it compares to the prime), but more expensive by at least $450. You'd have to buy the 35mm either used or new, or wait until Canon has refurb stock. I usually make my judgments based on Amazon pricing: 35mm: new: $1379 (accounting for $100 mail in rebate) used: $1189 and up refurb (out of stock): $1,183 24-70 new: $2100 (accounting for $200 mail in rebate) used: $2020 and up refurb (in stock): $1839 So the price difference between the used and refurb stock is not that much for the 35mm. You could just as easily buy a used one (though it may or may not have a warranty). The refurb 24-70 at least comes with a 1 year warranty and is significantly less expensive than a used or new model. The question you need to decide is whether or not the zoom functionality of the 24-70 warrants the price difference you'd pay. edit: I'm not sure how trustworthy the amazon reviewers are but many of them mention that the quality is very comparable to the 35mm, and that they've stopped using their primes because this lens is so good. Take it with a grain of salt. Drewski fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
If you buy the canon 35/1.4 you are a straight up idiot at this point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:All I'll say is that I love my Sigma 35 F/1.4. Drewski posted:edit: I'm not sure how trustworthy the amazon reviewers are but many of them mention that the quality is very comparable to the 35mm, and that they've stopped using their primes because this lens is so good. Take it with a grain of salt. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Even if I wanted a 24-70 (I prefer primes) I'd still suggest you at least get the old 24-70 mark 1 instead. It's a perfectly fine lens and it's like half the price. The new one is a little better, nowhere near twice as good. For the same money as the new one you could get a used Mark 1 AND the sigma 35/1.4.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Yeah, that's a good point. I will probably go with the sigma 35 f/1.4 and buy a used 24-70 mk I if I decide that I really need the zoom capability. Thanks, all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Drewski posted:Is there any good reason not to buy the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II refurbished? I see it on Canon's site as in stock for $1839. I am so tempted to buy that RIGHT NOW.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:GAS assholes trying to justify their purchases. No way in hell a zoom lens holds a candle to a decent prime stopped down to the same aperture at the given focal length. I mean, I know I said I wasn't sure about their reliability, but you make it sound like there's miles and miles worth of differences and that nobody on the internet is to be trusted. Is it legitimately going to produce an image that the 24-70 can't even come close to, or is the difference so minute that you have to go pixel peeping to find differences? Or somewhere in-between? I'm betting somewhere in between, and in the end it seems like apples and oranges to me. Each has its intended uses and I personally prefer the versatility of zoom. But the primes provide shallower DOF, more light gathering capability and a lighter setup that the 24-70 physically cannot offer. edit: Star War Sex Parrot posted:Also, while their refurbished prices are appealing, if you can wait for what you want then you can usually get 15% off of refurbished prices with their sales that take place roughly every quarter. One just ended a couple of weeks ago. Damnit. That's what I get for getting excited about stuff. I totally would have waited. Oh well, good to know for future purchases Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Depends a lot on what you're doing. If you're cropping a lot or want to do prints, any improvements in local contrasts, reductions in aberrations and sharp corners help. I mean, there's plenty of people are that more than satisfied with low contrast smeared detail smartphone pictures, yet here we are using DSLRs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If you buy the canon 35/1.4 you are a straight up idiot at this point. I think this means, "Buy the Sigma 35/1.4 ART" right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I think this means, "Buy the Sigma 35/1.4 ART" right? It means: evil_bunnY posted:You should get the Sigma 35/1.4 or the canon 35/2 IS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Thanks 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
The Canon 35/2 IS is really a great lens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Drewski posted:I'm betting somewhere in between, and in the end it seems like apples and oranges to me. Each has its intended uses and I personally prefer the versatility of zoom. But the primes provide shallower DOF, more light gathering capability and a lighter setup that the 24-70 physically cannot offer. Sounds like you've generally got the idea. Up until recently zooms have usually been a fair bit softer, especially wide open. Zoom design took a big step forward in the 90s and the "pro" quality zooms (eg 24-70, 24-105) since then have usually been decent performers even wide open (consumer-grade zooms not so much, and even some of the pro zooms do have softer areas in their zoom range). Primes are usually somewhat sharper wide open (primes have gotten better over time too of course, apples-to-apples they're probably something like 10% sharper than a zoom of equivalent vintage), but the big benefit is super-fast apertures like f/1.4. There's no substitute for a fast aperture in low light - wider apertures help the AF system in dark conditions and the shallower depth-of-field will give better focus accuracy even in good conditions. I don't even know if it's really a weight savings - the Sigma 35/1.4 is only a half pound lighter than a 24-70 for instance. If you're carrying two big hefty lenses to replace that one zoom then you'll probably be heavier in the end. But you can at least get light primes (not f/1.4) that are worthwhile, whereas any zoom that's worth its salt is a solid hunk of glass. A 70-200 f4 is "light" for a zoom and that's still a pound and a half, and the heavy versions can be more than double the weight. To continue their recent trend of shaking up the high-end lens market, Sigma is reportedly working on a FF 24-70mm f/2. And if their crop 18-35 f/1.8 and the 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 are anything to judge by, it's gonna be quite a performer. In my opinion Sigma is doing everything right - they're focused on fast lenses that can deliver crazy resolution right from wide open. For a given sensor size, that's the only way to increase megapixel counts while avoiding the diffraction limit, which is starting to become a big issue with crop sensors (eg 24mp APS-C is diffraction-limited at f/5.6). In the last two years they've put out three best-in-class lenses at a fraction of the price of their competition. Canon is very much resting on their laurels in comparison, their lenses are getting one-upped by bit players like Samyang let alone by the stuff Sigma is putting out. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
I want to know what kind of arcane magic Sigma is using to get such awesome wide open sharpness. Is their glass that much better? Improvements in the optical formula? There are 2 other theories as well: they're actually designing the lenses for even wider apertures than what is being advertised but pre-emptively "stopping down" to avoid the common issues of actually being wide open. Or, less likely, they're designing for a larger-than-necessary image circle (like a tilt-shift lens that doesn't tilt or shift) and thereby get to use the sharpest center potion of that circle 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 19:48
|
|