Official Lens Discussion Thread
03-27-2010, 12:24 AM
#1042
Needs more Lemon Pledge
Looks nice, but I am just not a fan of the variable aperture. If I could swing the 35 F1.4 I would do it...
05-13-2010, 04:59 PM
#1044
I miss my 03 CL-S :(
I'm gonna be buying the Canon EF 70-200 2.8L IS tomorrow from a craigslist guy. Anything I should look out for in particular with this lens? Any common issues?
For instance, IS things to test, common points for cracks in the body, etc?
For instance, IS things to test, common points for cracks in the body, etc?
05-13-2010, 07:44 PM
#1045
There nothing to "look" for, just look it over and take some test shots, and look at them magnified on the camera or put on a laptop.
It's best that the owner has box and bag and manual and such. If they do, then lens should be cared for.
It's best that the owner has box and bag and manual and such. If they do, then lens should be cared for.
05-25-2010, 08:55 PM
#1047
Photography Nerd
I think my shooting style has changed a lot over the years because I hardly ever use the 10-22 any more. I find it hard to get an interesting composition that wide. Sometimes you need it for a big group shot or something, but it has been pretty rarely used in the last year. It would probably be my next lens to go.
That actually makes me think that maybe I should sell the 10-22 and the 17-55 then get the 24-105 and a 35mm 1.4.
That actually makes me think that maybe I should sell the 10-22 and the 17-55 then get the 24-105 and a 35mm 1.4.
05-25-2010, 09:09 PM
#1048
nice, want to hear and see about it. good old bday hey?
05-25-2010, 09:26 PM
#1049
Photography Nerd
Yep! My awesome family pitched in and got me a bunch of B&H gift cards so I could get something special. I'm looking forward to the challenge of reliving my manual focus days. I also picked up a new focus screen to make it a little easier for my eyes to pick out the focus point.
05-25-2010, 09:32 PM
#1050
Earth-bound misfit
Can't wait to see some output!!
05-30-2010, 09:08 PM
#1052
Photography Nerd
So the Zeiss 2/35 arrived on Friday which gave me all weekend to play with it. Unfortunately, I didn't do anything exciting this weekend, so my subjects were all things I could find around the house.
I have to say the thing is very sharp at any aperture. The only reason to stop down is for depth of field, not for sharpness. Out-of-focus areas are very nicely rendered and pleasing to the eye. It doesn't obliterate the out-of-focus detail, and it doesn't accentuate it. Colours are transmitted faithfully with foliage and sunsets getting an extra bit of pop than I'm used to.
The build quality is in a different class than even the best L lenses, but it's also very heavy for that reason. Manual focusing isn't that tough on the 50D with the enhanced matte EE-S screen, but I think I'm going to get a split prism screen at some point down the road. When I get out and do some real landscape stuff with my tripod, Live View will be a big help. The first thing anyone will notice when they handle the lens is just how precise and well damped the focus ring is. It's a joy to use, which is a good thing since it's going to get used a lot.
So here are some random snaps from around the house. Sorry they're not more interesting, but I'll post more later when I actually get an opportunity to do some serious photography.
This was hand-held at f/2.8. If I had my tripod, I would have stopped down for a little more depth of field, but check out the sharpness from this 100% crop:
f/2.0 with the focus on the front eye. There's amazingly little DOF this close. I think I'd have to stop down to f/11 or even more to get both eyes in focus.
Did I mention this is a macro lens? Well, not really, but it will focus to within 9 inches of the front element without extension tubes. This was at f/2.0 and pretty close to the minimal focus distance.
I'm pretty happy with everything I've seen so far and I'm looking forward to using it more often. I'll post an update once I have some more serious time with it.
I have to say the thing is very sharp at any aperture. The only reason to stop down is for depth of field, not for sharpness. Out-of-focus areas are very nicely rendered and pleasing to the eye. It doesn't obliterate the out-of-focus detail, and it doesn't accentuate it. Colours are transmitted faithfully with foliage and sunsets getting an extra bit of pop than I'm used to.
The build quality is in a different class than even the best L lenses, but it's also very heavy for that reason. Manual focusing isn't that tough on the 50D with the enhanced matte EE-S screen, but I think I'm going to get a split prism screen at some point down the road. When I get out and do some real landscape stuff with my tripod, Live View will be a big help. The first thing anyone will notice when they handle the lens is just how precise and well damped the focus ring is. It's a joy to use, which is a good thing since it's going to get used a lot.
So here are some random snaps from around the house. Sorry they're not more interesting, but I'll post more later when I actually get an opportunity to do some serious photography.
This was hand-held at f/2.8. If I had my tripod, I would have stopped down for a little more depth of field, but check out the sharpness from this 100% crop:
f/2.0 with the focus on the front eye. There's amazingly little DOF this close. I think I'd have to stop down to f/11 or even more to get both eyes in focus.
Did I mention this is a macro lens? Well, not really, but it will focus to within 9 inches of the front element without extension tubes. This was at f/2.0 and pretty close to the minimal focus distance.
I'm pretty happy with everything I've seen so far and I'm looking forward to using it more often. I'll post an update once I have some more serious time with it.
05-30-2010, 09:12 PM
#1053
Nice, lets see a 100% crop of her eye.
05-30-2010, 09:45 PM
#1054
Photography Nerd
She's moving in that picture, so it's not the best thing to pixel-peep for sharpness, but feel free to have a look: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4054/...79c13469_o.jpg
05-31-2010, 12:10 PM
#1055
Needs more Lemon Pledge
Dan, I can't find any CA in the 100% crop of the power line tower... Very nice!
05-31-2010, 02:05 PM
#1056
Photography Nerd
I'm just amazed that I can read the sign and see every blade of grass in that shot, and it was only at f2.8 and hand-held. If I had my tripod with me and used proper techniques like stopping down and confirming focus with LiveView, it would be crazy sharp.
I haven't noticed CA in any of my real-world shots. I think you would still notice it around extreme highlight transitions (like in reflections off metal) but that's often more of a fault of the sensor than the lens.
I haven't noticed CA in any of my real-world shots. I think you would still notice it around extreme highlight transitions (like in reflections off metal) but that's often more of a fault of the sensor than the lens.
06-01-2010, 05:31 PM
#1058
Photography Nerd
Nikon's 14mm on FX is crazy wide already. Sigma's 12mm is even more insane. 10mm would cause a rip in the space time continuum and you would be able to take a photo of yourself taking the photo.
06-01-2010, 10:26 PM
#1059
It'd be nice to know that they have it since I intend to ONE day get an FX camera.
06-01-2010, 10:57 PM
#1060
Needs more Lemon Pledge
06-02-2010, 09:02 AM
#1061
06-03-2010, 11:47 AM
#1063
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,256
Received 2,787 Likes
on
1,987 Posts
07-13-2010, 11:36 AM
#1064
Senior Moderator
I just picked up the Tamron 10-24 and slapped it onto the 5D... holy cow.
07-21-2010, 02:25 PM
#1065
Living the Dream
So...it looks like there is another convert. Either that or he is just being nice to Nikon users.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
Will start having Nikon lens (and I assume body) reviews.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
Will start having Nikon lens (and I assume body) reviews.
08-06-2010, 11:30 PM
#1067
I miss my 03 CL-S :(
Stick with the kit lens and get the 55-250 if you want more reach at that price point.
Otherwise, save up and get either the 17-55 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8L.
Otherwise, save up and get either the 17-55 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8L.
08-07-2010, 04:59 PM
#1068
Moderator
Do you consider that the 17-55 is a TRUE lens upgrade in terms of coming from the kit 18-55? I know that the 17-55 has USM and is faster, but is clarity and sharpness better?
08-07-2010, 05:28 PM
#1069
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,256
Received 2,787 Likes
on
1,987 Posts
yes, a very very big upgrade.
and were talking about a $1000 dollar lens vs a ~$100? lens.
and were talking about a $1000 dollar lens vs a ~$100? lens.
08-07-2010, 05:32 PM
#1070
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,256
Received 2,787 Likes
on
1,987 Posts
dollar value aside.
you're getting better optics.
ring based USM focus motor, so it focuses fast. and i really do mean fast.
full time manual focus. so you can manual focus even if you have it on auto focus.
Image stabilization.
focuses internally.
better build quality, but not quite L quality
constant 2.8 aperture. at the short end you're gaining almost a full stop and the long end you're gaining 2 stops.
you're getting better optics.
ring based USM focus motor, so it focuses fast. and i really do mean fast.
full time manual focus. so you can manual focus even if you have it on auto focus.
Image stabilization.
focuses internally.
better build quality, but not quite L quality
constant 2.8 aperture. at the short end you're gaining almost a full stop and the long end you're gaining 2 stops.
08-07-2010, 07:26 PM
#1071
Moderator
^ Thanks.
It's just sometimes when a lens is more expensive doesn't actually mean better quality in pictures. I used a 70-200mm ($700) and the picture quality was pretty much the same as my 18-55 kit shooting at the same picture frame. Yea the focus was different but the quality wasn't noticeably better.
It's just sometimes when a lens is more expensive doesn't actually mean better quality in pictures. I used a 70-200mm ($700) and the picture quality was pretty much the same as my 18-55 kit shooting at the same picture frame. Yea the focus was different but the quality wasn't noticeably better.
08-07-2010, 09:19 PM
#1072
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,256
Received 2,787 Likes
on
1,987 Posts
i think that it really depends on the camera, and what settings you use.
08-12-2010, 02:29 AM
#1073
go to flickr and just search 17-55.. you'll find so much just by searching those terms. i did, and it was definitely a deal maker for me, just put in an order for the 17-55mm today and i cant wait to get it in.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon_17-55mm/pool/
many people say that it is their most used lens (more than the 70-200mm) and the pics i found online just completely sold me.
i did hours of research on this lens since it is on the expensive side and to me it is worth the pricetag to upgrade from the 18-55 to this. a constant 2.8 aperture is quite fast, and the range of zoom allows for a wide variety of shots. sharpness and glass are top notch, and the only thing holding it back is the lack of L-series build quality.
i have heard of issues with dust entering the chamber, but im hoping that a filter and lens hood should take care of this problem. from wat i have read, if dust does enter the lens, it does not directly affect the output image.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon_17-55mm/pool/
many people say that it is their most used lens (more than the 70-200mm) and the pics i found online just completely sold me.
i did hours of research on this lens since it is on the expensive side and to me it is worth the pricetag to upgrade from the 18-55 to this. a constant 2.8 aperture is quite fast, and the range of zoom allows for a wide variety of shots. sharpness and glass are top notch, and the only thing holding it back is the lack of L-series build quality.
i have heard of issues with dust entering the chamber, but im hoping that a filter and lens hood should take care of this problem. from wat i have read, if dust does enter the lens, it does not directly affect the output image.
08-12-2010, 10:33 AM
#1078
08-12-2010, 10:44 AM
#1079
Moderator
Again I apologize for my lack of knowledge in photography. It's just I had a 40D and didn't think the pictures would turn out that great. Now I know I just suck at taking pictures......
08-12-2010, 10:50 AM
#1080
You can take great images with a P&S camera if you know what you're doing. Getting a Dslr and better lenses will give you the capability of capturing images, because of the lack of what your equipment can do, not the photographer.