|
bolind posted:The 24-105L f/4 is pretty amazing as a travel lens. I got to play around with a first gen 24-70 f/2.8, and while it was a sweet lens, it weighed twice what my 24-1105 does. Echoing this. My 24-105L is my go-to when I'm on the road.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2014 03:15 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 07:28 |
|
How do you guys like the 24-105 on crop? Is it not a little cramped and slow compared to the kit-sized 2.8s? Or does the IS well make up for it?
|
# ? Jul 21, 2014 04:11 |
|
Huxley posted:How do you guys like the 24-105 on crop? Is it not a little cramped and slow compared to the kit-sized 2.8s? Or does the IS well make up for it? It's a little long on a crop. 24 mm doesn't feel wide at all. I'm fine with f/4 because shooting high ISO is okay, but I've been feeling the 24-70 2.8 itch.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2014 10:43 |
|
24mm on full frame is wider than 18mm or even 16mm on crop. Hold on to your butts.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2014 14:43 |
|
Snapsort put up some specs for the 7DII. Who knows if they're anything close to correct but here you go 24MP 25,600ISO 100% VF 10fps 61 point AF
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 03:58 |
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Snapsort put up some specs for the 7DII. Who knows if they're anything close to correct but here you go Nice. What the hell are Canon playing at though, they need to start releasing some new bodies soon.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 11:48 |
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Nice. What the hell are Canon playing at though, they need to start releasing some new bodies soon. The usual incremental upgrade game they have been playing for the last few years.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 12:09 |
|
It won't be too long until rebels "inherit" the almost 5 year old 19 pt AF from the 7Dc.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 13:37 |
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:
They're still using 4 year old sensor tech.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 17:15 |
|
I prefer to think of it as a state of the art sensor for today, and four years ago it was so advanced as to be from the future.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 17:27 |
|
I've read various things about why Canon's ostensibly so conservative in sensor tech while Nikon et al are not. A long while ago, those idiots at Canon figured they'd put up their own semiconductor fab and make their own sensors. Now it's biting them in the rear end, because things may not have amortized enough yet and the costs of upgrading their processes is way too high regarding the relatively low demand of sensors, in relation to say Sony (who's supplying sensors for virtually every smartphone, Nikon and their own stuff, among others). I just hope that at some point, things mentioned in their patents materialize at some point. Notably on-sensor amps, similar to what Sony/Nikon has, which reduces noise a lot and in return may increase DR. And most importantly the Foveon-style RGB sensors, which WILL need upgrades to their semifab line, and increase DR and lower noise, too.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 17:32 |
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Snapsort put up some specs for the 7DII. Who knows if they're anything close to correct but here you go loving nuts. If it has a manageable price tag I'll sell my 70D and snag that. 10fps...holy poo poo!
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 17:57 |
|
Soulex posted:
It may well have that, but I wouldn't trust those specs. Why wouldn't it be ef-s? Would also be surprised if it took CF cards instead of sd. Plus they seem not to know a lot of important details.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 18:05 |
|
It'll be CF/SD card. There's no reason why they won't use slightly modified 5DIII body shells (pop up flash?) to keep production fast and "costs" down. Note the 3.2'' LCD.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 18:11 |
|
Seamonster posted:It'll be CF/SD card. There's no reason why they won't use slightly modified 5DIII body shells (pop up flash?) to keep production fast and "costs" down. Note the 3.2'' LCD. Hopefully they won't and give it the flip screen. I like that feature, even if it comes off as gimmicky. But your suggestion is a better bet.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 18:20 |
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:It may well have that, but I wouldn't trust those specs. Why wouldn't it be ef-s? Would also be surprised if it took CF cards instead of sd. Plus they seem not to know a lot of important details. There's no reason at all to believe these specs are in any way accurate. I just put it up as a wild rear end rumor. I think its a pretty safe bet that Canon will up the resolution, bump the fps and they would be idiotic not to include the 5DIII/1DX AF tech. The CF v SD card depends on who they intend to market to - birders/sports shooters on a budget will definitely want CF. There are rumors that the sensor will be some sort of new technology that is going to be introduced on the 7DII and then filter to the next iteration of the 5D/1D though.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 19:19 |
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:Which makes it kind of ironic considering the image was shot with a 35L lens on a T5i... I just bought a 6d. Will be here tomorrow edit: TheLastManStanding posted:Maybe it's a work-assigned laptop and he has no control over it. Maybe his work screen doesn't have hdmi. Why are you looking down on someone just because they aren't staying on the cutting edge of technology? Personally, based on what little I know of you two, I'd say he's the smarter man since it would appear that he knows his laptop is good enough and that there is no reason to blow a bunch of money on something he doesn't need. Also there is nothing to indicate he is a boss. It's not his office. His actual desk is piled with paperwork. But that is our ideology at work, no need to spend more on technology if it works and continues to make our work efficient by running the programs we need it do! Duccy fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jul 22, 2014 |
# ? Jul 22, 2014 20:41 |
|
Speaking of L lenses... What makes a $1,800 Canon 50mm L lens that much better than the cheapo $100 50mm they offer? I know this is a dumb newbie question, I'm just curious. Is it just a crazy better lens overall, and slapping the 50mm L lens on the same body taking the same photo will look that much better?
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 20:52 |
|
Go google pictures from each lens, especially stuff shot wide-open. The 1.2 is so much faster and sharper.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 20:53 |
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Go google pictures from each lens, especially stuff shot wide-open. The 1.2 is also presumably not a tremendous piece of poo poo that falls apart if you breathe on it.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:00 |
|
SoundMonkey posted:The 1.2 is also presumably not a tremendous piece of poo poo that falls apart if you breathe on it. But yeah, for a $1,700 difference, the difference in speed and sharpness between the 1.2 and the 1.8 better be loving enormous.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:05 |
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:But yeah, for a $1,700 difference, the difference in speed and sharpness between the 1.2 and the 1.8 better be loving enormous. The 50 1.2L isn't even that sharp. Read reviews and its all about "draw" and bokeh quality. The Sigma 50 1.4 blows it out of the water for sharpness and contrast and equals it for bokeh for about 2/3 the price.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:14 |
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:The 50 1.2L isn't even that sharp. Read reviews and its all about "draw" and bokeh quality. The Sigma 50 1.4 blows it out of the water for sharpness and contrast and equals it for bokeh for about 2/3 the price.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:16 |
|
The Sigma Art didn't exist on the market a few months ago, whereas the Canon one does for years.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:19 |
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:The 50 1.2L isn't even that sharp. Read reviews and its all about "draw" and bokeh quality. The Sigma 50 1.4 blows it out of the water for sharpness and contrast and equals it for bokeh for about 2/3 the price. Is that the Sigma 50 ART or just the standard 1.4? I use my cheapo Canon 50mm a ton and wouldn't mind an upgrade at all, but since this is just a hobby spending $1000 on a lens is a bit steep.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:23 |
|
Exactly. The 1.2L came out in way back in 2007 (although in Canon lens terms that's basically brand new).triplexpac posted:Is that the Sigma 50 ART or just the standard 1.4? Don't do this (as in don't buy the 1.2L). Get the 85 1.8 instead and then save for a new body or one of the Sigma lenses. Quantum of Phallus fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Jul 22, 2014 |
# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:25 |
|
triplexpac posted:Speaking of L lenses... triplexpac posted:Is that the Sigma 50 ART or just the standard 1.4? I had the 50 f/1.4 for years and loved it. Then decided to get the 50 1.2 when there was a $200 instant rebate, so it was only ~$1,400 from B&H. Both lenses suffer from the same problems with back focusing in low light / contrast, but I think the color and contrast of the 1.2 is much better than the 1.4. Also, I don't have to worry about if it strikes something given the build quality. But why not rent them for the weekend and see which one you like better? http://www.flickriver.com/lenses/canon/canonef50mmf14usm/ http://www.flickriver.com/lenses/canon/canonef50mmf18ii/ http://www.flickriver.com/lenses/canon/canonef50mmf12lusm/ http://www.flickriver.com/lenses/sigma/sigma50mmf1.4exdghsm/ http://www.flickriver.com/lenses/
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 21:36 |
|
triplexpac posted:since this is just a hobby spending $1000 on a lens is a bit steep. Yeah, don't go down that rabbit hole if you can avoid it.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:21 |
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Hahaha so then what's the loving point? Just browse the Canon Rumors forums for a little bit. It's sacrilege to even suggest a Sigma or Tamron sometimes.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:42 |
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:Certain people are weirdly loyal to Canon even when it comes to lenses that are twice the price of other lenses that are actually better. And every time there is a report of a problem with a third party lens it's "OH LOOK WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU BUY SIGMA" like Canon lenses never have AF problems. I keep my canon 50/1.4 only because it's tiny and I don't feel like replacing it with a lens that's twice the size and weight, but Sigma makes some awesome stuff.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:46 |
|
I'm glad Sigma are around to make APS-C lenses 'cos Canon sure as hell don't care.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 22:48 |
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:Certain people are weirdly loyal to Canon even when it comes to lenses that are twice the price of other lenses that are actually better. I don't get this. The first suggestion I got was a Tamron 17-50 and I love it. Third party lenses are, and can be fantastic. Don't buy a brand, buy a product.
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 23:01 |
|
Whirlwind Jones posted:Certain people are weirdly loyal to Canon even when it comes to lenses that are twice the price of other lenses that are actually better. Proof (see my post, one page back re: Canon 35mm 1.4). I personally am just weirded out using other brands other than Canon, because I don't like running the risk of having stupid poo poo like dirty connectors causing my lens to stop auto-focusing. I tried the Tamron 17-50 and the thing just poo poo on me one day and I said I would never use non-Canon lenses again. Then again I hate money so
|
# ? Jul 22, 2014 23:31 |
|
I just like IS and USM so that's why I get canon. Then again my 85 1.2 is just collecting dust But nowadays 3rd party stuff is catching up. Oh yeah I'm totally going to get manual focus samyang one day. Oh man I recently signed up for this photo course covering studio lighting, event photography, and portraiture. Every student brings in either 5d3 and 6d. It's hilarious camera power yet half the asshats don't even know manual metering. Oh yeah one dude has a 1dx with a 50 1.8. It's like a Canon show room caberham fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Jul 23, 2014 |
# ? Jul 23, 2014 02:14 |
|
guy I work for has the 50 1.2L but only uses it for work. He'll use the work bodies with the 85 1.8 and the 50 1.8 for his family pics and whatnot.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2014 02:43 |
|
I shoot mostly a 40D and occasionally an original film Rebel. I have the 50 and the 85, and they're both great on the Rebel, but the 50 is cramped on the 40D, to the point that I never shoot the lens. I would like to turn the 50 into something wider and under $500 used. Everyone loves the Sigma 30/1.4 for basically exactly this, but I'd like to get something that I could also use on the 35mm (because the Sigma is EFS, right?). Ideally I'd like to move to full frame, but that's got to wait for the kids to grow out of daycare in 6 years or so. That leaves the 28/1.8 (which apparently nobody shoots and is not amazing) or the 35/2 (which is kind of in the same boat), unless I'm missing something. I guess with digital full frame that far off, it can't hurt too bad to just get the efs Sigmas, but that leaves me with the 70-300 as my widest film lens. Or it's not like I have to sell the 50 to fund the other lens, but I'd like to avoid so much gear bloat. Suggestions?
|
# ? Jul 23, 2014 03:21 |
|
You could get the Sigma 35/1.4. It's basically the same build/optics of the 30 but for full frame. It's about twice the price (of the 30) but it's pretty highly regarded.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2014 03:39 |
|
There's the 40/2.8- not sure if it will be wide enough for you but might be worth a look.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2014 03:42 |
|
caberham posted:Oh yeah I'm totally going to get manual focus samyang one day. I have a 35mm 1.4 for sale if you're interested. Wuld love to use a 50mm 1.2 outdoors for even more outrageous bokeh but no way in hell without an ND filter and blacking out the viewfinder...or is a polarizer enough to keep from pinging off the 1/8000 sec shutter? Yes, everybody needs to own a 40mm pancake and use it a lot.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2014 03:42 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 07:28 |
|
Huxley posted:
The new 35/2 or the old 35/2? The old one sounds like a blender (like the 50/1.8) but the optics are still good. The new one (IS) is pretty awesome. The 28/1.8 is not -amazing- but it's been one of my favorite lenses since I got a 10D in 2003. If I'm going out and I want to go light, that's the lens that comes with me. It's a bit hazy wide open, but it cleans up nicely, and certainly no worse (probably better in the center) than that 50/1.8 you want to replace is. The question is, you could take either of those to FF with you eventually, but are either of them a FOV you really like using? Because if it's not something you're going to use all the time on FF, why is that the deciding factor - if you don't think you'll shoot that 28 or 35 all the time, then get the Sigma 30, and sell it someday when you buy FF.
|
# ? Jul 23, 2014 03:44 |