*OFFICIAL* general photography conversation thread

[danniexi]

X100S solves everything. better AF, Q button menu, same lovely discreet design...

i want one badly.

[druu]

Originally Posted by danniexi

X100S solves everything. better AF, Q button menu, same lovely discreet design...

i want one badly.

Same, if only I could keep upgrading my kit every time a new version came out.

Got a 2nd 5DII and a 5DIII this year, my wallet is done for now lol.

[Maeiourk]

Hello Photographers! New to the photography section, but kinda old in doing photography (hobby since 2008, and still enjoying it). I kind of need an advice/opinion. I recently did a switch from Nikon to Canon. Why? Well to make the long story, short. Before the switch, I had a D7000 with 17-55mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8, 18-200mm f/orgot , 18-55mm f/orgot also , and SB-900. Decided to go FX (January of 2013), tried/tested 5 NEW D600, and all of it failed in quality control (dust/oil). Checked out D800, didn't like the feel of it, the 36MP, the 4fps, and some minor things. Planned to wait for the new production of D600, couldn't wait no more as the itch of going FX was still there. Tried to take a look at the other brand, Canon. Liked tons of reviews, found buyers for my Nikon equipment, pulled the trigger for the 5DMkIII, got the shipment, and fell in love with it (everything is just perfect). No regrets leaving Nikon. Now for my question, I'm planning to get the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, and 70-200mm f/2.8L II this year. I couldn't buy them both at the same time as they are both expensive, but aiming to get both before the end of the year. My question is, which one should I buy first? Now don't tell me it would depend on what I'm going to use it for / where I'm going to use it / what will I shoot. I, pretty much, use the range 24-200 all the time, from low light events/concert to sport/action. I can afford one of them right now, but I don't know which one to get first. Current lens I have right now is the pancake lens, 40mm f/2.8, I love the low profile look of it in my MkIII, and can pretty much bring it everywhere.

Do you guys think the 24-70 price will go down this year? Should I wait for that and just get the 70-200 first? Or should I do the other way around?

[danniexi]

there's a rebate program going on with canon equipment. check b+h and amazon for lowest prices.

personally i'd go with the 24-70 since that's pretty much the ONLY lens I use. it's generally the most used focal length and IMO the best all around general purpose lens. it's relatively knew (only a year old) so I don't think prices will go down lower than they are now. if you need it, get it. no use with time waisted waiting for the price to go to its lowest pice. if you're desperate for a cheaper price go buy used.

a LOT of people would suggest the 24-105 f/4 IS, which is another great lens, though I'd much rather go for the larger aperture. the only advantage of the lens would be for video. if you'll be shooting video than the IS is a necessity, but that depends on your needs.

congrats on the purchase!

[druu]

Originally Posted by Maeiourk

Hello Photographers! New to the photography section, but kinda old in doing photography (hobby since 2008, and still enjoying it). I kind of need an advice/opinion. I recently did a switch from Nikon to Canon. Why? Well to make the long story, short. Before the switch, I had a D7000 with 17-55mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8, 18-200mm f/orgot , 18-55mm f/orgot also , and SB-900. Decided to go FX (January of 2013), tried/tested 5 NEW D600, and all of it failed in quality control (dust/oil). Checked out D800, didn't like the feel of it, the 36MP, the 4fps, and some minor things. Planned to wait for the new production of D600, couldn't wait no more as the itch of going FX was still there. Tried to take a look at the other brand, Canon. Liked tons of reviews, found buyers for my Nikon equipment, pulled the trigger for the 5DMkIII, got the shipment, and fell in love with it (everything is just perfect). No regrets leaving Nikon. Now for my question, I'm planning to get the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, and 70-200mm f/2.8L II this year. I couldn't buy them both at the same time as they are both expensive, but aiming to get both before the end of the year. My question is, which one should I buy first? Now don't tell me it would depend on what I'm going to use it for / where I'm going to use it / what will I shoot. I, pretty much, use the range 24-200 all the time, from low light events/concert to sport/action. I can afford one of them right now, but I don't know which one to get first. Current lens I have right now is the pancake lens, 40mm f/2.8, I love the low profile look of it in my MkIII, and can pretty much bring it everywhere.

Do you guys think the 24-70 price will go down this year? Should I wait for that and just get the 70-200 first? Or should I do the other way around?

I think you may have just missed the rebates on them unfortunately. For gear though you can't go wrong with buying used from Fred Miranda forums. I would get the 24-70 first since it's more of a convenient range. I prefer primes in that range, but the 24-70 II is so sharp that it's an awesome buy. Also, rent a few of them first to see if you like the feel.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Maeiourk

Hello Photographers! New to the photography section, but kinda old in doing photography (hobby since 2008, and still enjoying it). I kind of need an advice/opinion. I recently did a switch from Nikon to Canon. Why? Well to make the long story, short. Before the switch, I had a D7000 with 17-55mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8, 18-200mm f/orgot , 18-55mm f/orgot also , and SB-900. Decided to go FX (January of 2013), tried/tested 5 NEW D600, and all of it failed in quality control (dust/oil). Checked out D800, didn't like the feel of it, the 36MP, the 4fps, and some minor things. Planned to wait for the new production of D600, couldn't wait no more as the itch of going FX was still there. Tried to take a look at the other brand, Canon. Liked tons of reviews, found buyers for my Nikon equipment, pulled the trigger for the 5DMkIII, got the shipment, and fell in love with it (everything is just perfect). No regrets leaving Nikon. Now for my question, I'm planning to get the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, and 70-200mm f/2.8L II this year. I couldn't buy them both at the same time as they are both expensive, but aiming to get both before the end of the year. My question is, which one should I buy first? Now don't tell me it would depend on what I'm going to use it for / where I'm going to use it / what will I shoot. I, pretty much, use the range 24-200 all the time, from low light events/concert to sport/action. I can afford one of them right now, but I don't know which one to get first. Current lens I have right now is the pancake lens, 40mm f/2.8, I love the low profile look of it in my MkIII, and can pretty much bring it everywhere.

Do you guys think the 24-70 price will go down this year? Should I wait for that and just get the 70-200 first? Or should I do the other way around?

Seriously consider the 70-200mm f/4L IS instead of the f/2.8 unless you really think you'll be using the larger aperture a lot. Same thing for the 24-105mm f/4L IS vs. the 2.8. The high ISO performance of the 5D MkIII is excellent.

Dave

[Maeiourk]

Originally Posted by danniexi

there's a rebate program going on with canon equipment. check b+h and amazon for lowest prices.

personally i'd go with the 24-70 since that's pretty much the ONLY lens I use. it's generally the most used focal length and IMO the best all around general purpose lens. it's relatively knew (only a year old) so I don't think prices will go down lower than they are now. if you need it, get it. no use with time waisted waiting for the price to go to its lowest pice. if you're desperate for a cheaper price go buy used.

a LOT of people would suggest the 24-105 f/4 IS, which is another great lens, though I'd much rather go for the larger aperture. the only advantage of the lens would be for video. if you'll be shooting video than the IS is a necessity, but that depends on your needs.

congrats on the purchase!

I was going to get the 5DMkIII with 24-105 f/4 IS as the kit lens but didn't as I'm really aiming for the 24-70/70-200 combo. It would be a waste if I did. Plus, I need/want a larger aperture. I was going for the 24-70 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS combo, then get prime lenses for low lights/DOF but didn't really want to carry a lot, but with the f/2.8s, I wouldn't even consider primes as I've read that those zooms can pretty much compare to primes.

And thank you!

Originally Posted by druu

I think you may have just missed the rebates on them unfortunately. For gear though you can't go wrong with buying used from Fred Miranda forums. I would get the 24-70 first since it's more of a convenient range. I prefer primes in that range, but the 24-70 II is so sharp that it's an awesome buy. Also, rent a few of them first to see if you like the feel.

The rebates are still there. $2049 for the 24-70 f/2.8 at B&H. Probably the lowest I've seen. And yea, I have a shoot coming up and was planning to rent it first. Also, I kinda feel iffy about buying a used gear. I have never tried buying a used, and scared that I might get a bad copy of the lens.

Originally Posted by dcstep

Seriously consider the 70-200mm f/4L IS instead of the f/2.8 unless you really think you'll be using the larger aperture a lot. Same thing for the 24-105mm f/4L IS vs. the 2.8. The high ISO performance of the 5D MkIII is excellent.

Dave

Yea, I did consider it, especially the weight, but I always use a large aperture though. That's why I'm leaning towards the f/2.8.

[danniexi]

Originally Posted by Maeiourk

I was going to get the 5DMkIII with 24-105 f/4 IS as the kit lens but didn't as I'm really aiming for the 24-70/70-200 combo. It would be a waste if I did. Plus, I need/want a larger aperture.

Gotcha, that's pretty much the reason why I went with the 24-70 f/2.8 as well. That extra stop of light is really handy. Plus, I never really shoot video so the IS would be wasted. I have the older 24-70 f/2.8 and its a workhorse of a lens. It's solidly built and has yet to fail me in any situation. The newer mark II is much sharper and better in every single way. You will NOT be disappointed!

[Rowdy]

I have shot back to back with the 70-200 2.8 and f4L IS.. and I can tell you right now that the 4fl IS is sharper. I love that lens!

[druu]

Originally Posted by Maeiourk

I was going to get the 5DMkIII with 24-105 f/4 IS as the kit lens but didn't as I'm really aiming for the 24-70/70-200 combo. It would be a waste if I did. Plus, I need/want a larger aperture. I was going for the 24-70 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS combo, then get prime lenses for low lights/DOF but didn't really want to carry a lot, but with the f/2.8s, I wouldn't even consider primes as I've read that those zooms can pretty much compare to primes.

And thank you!



The rebates are still there. $2049 for the 24-70 f/2.8 at B&H. Probably the lowest I've seen. And yea, I have a shoot coming up and was planning to rent it first. Also, I kinda feel iffy about buying a used gear. I have never tried buying a used, and scared that I might get a bad copy of the lens.



Yea, I did consider it, especially the weight, but I always use a large aperture though. That's why I'm leaning towards the f/2.8.

If you are worried about bad copies, you should the seller send you uneditted samples with exif. At the very worst, you can usually get it serviced at canon very cheap if not free. I *think* every lens is given one free servicing.

I personally have bought my 17-40L 35L and 50L used from people and upon inspection and with image samples i haven't been disappointed.

[druu]

Originally Posted by Rowdy

I have shot back to back with the 70-200 2.8 and f4L IS.. and I can tell you right now that the 4fl IS is sharper. I love that lens!

the 70-200 f/2.8 IS version 1 is supposed to be both less sharp than the non IS version and the f/4 IS versions. However f/2.8 IS II is a whole different animal. I upgraded from f/4 IS and it was totally worth it.

F/4 IS is amazingly good for the price though, and if you don't need 2.8 or want the weight of a 3 and a half pound lens, it is a solid performer.

To be fair though, I would take the 2.8 non IS over the F/4 IS just for the aperture control and the extra stops of shutter speed i'm allowed. I don't think the prices are that different.

I've just grown accustomed to needing 2.8 when im shooting in low light and flash is not allowed/appropriate (e.g. religious wedding ceremonies that prefer us not to use speedlites or strobes).

[Rowdy]

To each their own! I went with the f4 IS for weight, price and sharpness. I generally ONLY shoot outdoors with it (chasing airplanes and cars) I find it even more fun now with the 5dmk3! Sure a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II would be amazing.. but Im not sure I want to drop almost 3k to lug around an almost 4lb lens for the benefit of an extra stop.

[druu]

Originally Posted by Rowdy

To each their own! I went with the f4 IS for weight, price and sharpness. I generally ONLY shoot outdoors with it (chasing airplanes and cars) I find it even more fun now with the 5dmk3! Sure a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II would be amazing.. but Im not sure I want to drop almost 3k to lug around an almost 4lb lens for the benefit of an extra stop.

almost 3k, jeeeez. Didn't know it was that bad in canada. I liked the f4 IS a lot, it was awesome. I just shoot in low light as much as I do outdoors so it was a necessary evil. My firm has an office in hongcouver, I'll bring you some photo goodies on my next visit haha.

[khaye1]

I bought the f4 IS just because it was substantially cheaper than the 2.8...I have to say, I love that thing! I hardly ever use it at night though since its paired with a crappy t2i...I have yet to upgrade the body...I hardly ever use the t2i as it is. Maybe later on when I find myself shooting more often so I can justify paying 2k for at least a 6D

[dcstep]

The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS has stunning IQ and covers almost all conditions when paired with a camera with good high-ISO performance like the 6D or 5D MkIII. The reasons to get the 2.8 are if you're a wedding photog or a indoor sports photog or you're a bokeh whore, not that the f/4's bokeh is all that bad:


Merry Christmas From Animal Kingdom by dcstep, on Flickr

[Rowdy]

BOKEH WHORES FOR THE VICTORY!

I'm pretty sure I need a bokehlicious Kai T-shirt..

[druu]

Originally Posted by dcstep

The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS has stunning IQ and covers almost all conditions when paired with a camera with good high-ISO performance like the 6D or 5D MkIII. The reasons to get the 2.8 are if you're a wedding photog or a indoor sports photog or you're a bokeh whore, not that the f/4's bokeh is all that bad:


Merry Christmas From Animal Kingdom by dcstep, on Flickr

I am two of those haha.

[Maeiourk]

Originally Posted by danniexi

Gotcha, that's pretty much the reason why I went with the 24-70 f/2.8 as well. That extra stop of light is really handy. Plus, I never really shoot video so the IS would be wasted. I have the older 24-70 f/2.8 and its a workhorse of a lens. It's solidly built and has yet to fail me in any situation. The newer mark II is much sharper and better in every single way. You will NOT be disappointed!

I know I won't! I'm just worried as some reviews I've read has some negative thoughts about it. Like the sharpness is not being consistent. Sometimes it would be sharp, sometimes it doesn't. So now I'm considering the 16-35 f/2.8L, 50 f/1.2L, and 70-200 f/2.8 combo instead.

Originally Posted by druu

If you are worried about bad copies, you should the seller send you uneditted samples with exif. At the very worst, you can usually get it serviced at canon very cheap if not free. I *think* every lens is given one free servicing.

I personally have bought my 17-40L 35L and 50L used from people and upon inspection and with image samples i haven't been disappointed.

Yea, I'll probably do that if I'm going to buy a used lens. Thank you!

[druu]

Originally Posted by Maeiourk

I know I won't! I'm just worried as some reviews I've read has some negative thoughts about it. Like the sharpness is not being consistent. Sometimes it would be sharp, sometimes it doesn't. So now I'm considering the 16-35 f/2.8L, 50 f/1.2L, and 70-200 f/2.8 combo instead.



Yea, I'll probably do that if I'm going to buy a used lens. Thank you!

I think QC on the 24-70s may be bad at times. A lot of people reported that the original 24-70 had soft copies. They probably just need to be calibrated (there's a lens rentals article about that). the 24-70 is supposed to be 70-200 II sharp now. Which is insane for a mid range walk around zoom. and sharper than some primes now according to imatest results.

[Maeiourk]

Originally Posted by druu

I think QC on the 24-70s may be bad at times. A lot of people reported that the original 24-70 had soft copies. They probably just need to be calibrated (there's a lens rentals article about that). the 24-70 is supposed to be 70-200 II sharp now. Which is insane for a mid range walk around zoom. and sharper than some primes now according to imatest results.

I pulled the trigger and bought one! It will arrive on Wednesday. Can't wait! What do I need to do to test it? I have a shoot coming up on Saturday, a 50th wedding anniversary, a great chance to try it. But I want to test it if I got a soft copy. I just don't know how.
Any suggestions?

[dcstep]

With a zoom like the 24-70mm, be sure to apply DLO (Digital Lens Optimization) when you do your Raw conversion. If not, you'll not enjoy the full potential of your lens. If you're not aware of DLO, it's part of DPP (Digital Photo Professional) that ships with all the Canon DSLRs. Lightroom has a similar function and it's a basic part of DxO Optics Pro.

DLO will automatically correct for geometric distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration, softness, etc. at every aperture and every focal length, with every camera body.

Don't use zooms without using DLO.

Dave

[M_Six]

Is there an echo in here?