|
hey canon bros can i get some input on a new lens? i want something long, L series and i'll be buying new for a 5dIII i got that EF 75-300mm lens free when I bought my 500D ages ago, and i had a lot of fun with it at full zoom, despite it being a rattly piece of poo poo otherwise. I'm looking for a similar experience with better quality on my 5D. There seems to be a lot of lenses in the 200mm range, but I'm worried I'll miss the extra 100mm or more when im taking Cool Moon Pics or whatever. I don't shoot for a living or have any really specific plans for how I want to use these yet. So my shortlist has come down to ; Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6L IS Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and mayyyybe Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM - if I can get some change from $3k any input about what these things are like to live with? Do you find the higher f-stop a big disadvantage on the cheaper lenses? I've already got the 24-105mm, should I go big or go home? Anything else I'm not thinking of?
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
^ I'd get the new 100-400. It's supposed to be amazeballs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
The 70-300L is light and super-fun. Just be aware it can't take Canon teleconverters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
Speaking of which, I'd sort of like to have a travel tele (plus shooting the occasional animal, flying birds would be nice but are not required  ) that's substantially lighter than a 70-200/2.8 IS. The 70-300 DO seems to fit the bill, but I've heard bad things about the 70-300 DO's IS and image quality wide open. In addition, is its autofocus reasonably fast? Should I get the DO or save up for the L?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 09:42
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
The 70-200L f/2.8 IS II is probably the best all-purpose telephoto zoom that Canon has so I'd recommend that. But if you need the extra reach and can afford it, the new 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II is pretty drat fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:^ I'd get the new 100-400. It's supposed to be amazeballs. Dunno how I missed this one, looks rad
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Speaking of which, I'd sort of like to have a travel tele (plus shooting the occasional animal, flying birds would be nice but are not required The DO has decent IQ, but nothing to the level of the L. It is a good bit smaller though, and it's not white, so it's a very discreet lens. The resolution is pretty good @ 300mm wide open, but it does need to be stopped to f/8 for max quality. If you're using smaller sized images or prints, it holds up fine. The biggest issue with it is the lack of contrast, especially when you have any kind of stray light entering the lens - it needs to be hooded/shielded , and it benefits greatly from some clarity slider/large radius USM in post. The IS works fine - I have no problem getting the majority of shots sharp @ 3 stops down (1/40) unlike the 100-400 MK1 which I could barely hit 50% @ 2 stops down with. Someone with steadier hands than me would probably do much better. AF is very quick. The DO btw, is NOT worth what Canon wants for it new, that is one thing for certain. The resale value reflects this - do not buy this lens new if you want it, you can get it used for 600$ or so if you're patient. At that price point the advantages make it worth it vs the tradeoffs IMO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
maxe posted:So my shortlist has come down to ;
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
It got snapped up really fast, but there was a Canon refurb 300/2.8ii up for $4.4k. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:It got snapped up really fast, but there was a Canon refurb 300/2.8ii up for $4.4k.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:The 70-200L f/2.8 IS II is probably the best all-purpose telephoto zoom that Canon has so I'd recommend that. But if you need the extra reach and can afford it, the new 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II is pretty drat fantastic. My vote is for the 70-200 2.8 IS II with the Canon 2x III extender. Best of both worlds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Can someone please explain sensor crop to me? I keep seeing references to full sensor cameras. What is the difference between a full sensor and not if the same picture was taken everything being the same but the sensor?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Imagine light passing through the lens and hitting the sensor. On a larger full frame sensor, there's more surface area for the light to hit. On a cropped sensor, the edges of the image would be "cut off", giving a cropped image that appears more zoomed in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Arrgytehpirate posted:Can someone please explain sensor crop to me? I keep seeing references to full sensor cameras. What is the difference between a full sensor and not if the same picture was taken everything being the same but the sensor? Imagine a photo, then crop 60% of it away, and add a little bit more noise. That's it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Haggins posted:My vote is for the 70-200 2.8 IS II with the Canon 2x III extender. Best of both worlds. This is what I would do as well.The 70-200 2.8 IS II takes the 2x III extender so well -- you end up with both a 70-200 2.8 and a 140-400 5.6. I'm not sure, but I imagine AF speed might be a bit slower with the extender on. Still, having a 70-200 2.8 when you want it is pretty awesome. You'll never have that in a 100-400 that starts at f/4.5.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Haggins posted:My vote is for the 70-200 2.8 IS II with the Canon 2x III extender. Best of both worlds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
I guess it depends on what you're shooting. For anything wildlife I'd rather have a 100-400 that can go to 560. The 70-200 is a beautiful lens though if that's your primary shooting range. I just put a 2x on my 70-200 to see how bad AF is affected, and while it hunts forever in low light it snapped to focus instantly as soon as I tried in a better lit environment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Is the 8.0MP APS-C CMOS Sensor a full frame? I'm trying to figure out what I have. It's a Rebel T5i.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
APS-C is a crop sensor. 1.6x crop factor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:APS-C is a crop sensor. 1.6x crop factor. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
If you paid less than $1000 for your camera body, you might have a crop sensor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I guess it depends on what you're shooting. For anything wildlife I'd rather have a 100-400 that can go to 560. The 70-200 is a beautiful lens though if that's your primary shooting range. I just put a 2x on my 70-200 to see how bad AF is affected, and while it hunts forever in low light it snapped to focus instantly as soon as I tried in a better lit environment. Is it a Canon 2x and if so, it's a mark III? I've read that the II wasn't all that great but the III is good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Is it a Canon 2x and if so, it's a mark III? I've read that the II wasn't all that great but the III is good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:If you paid less than $1000 for your camera body, you might have a crop sensor. For some reason when I read this, it sounded like a Jeff Foxworthy "you might be a redneck joke and now I can't not read it in his voice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
That was my intention!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
maxe posted:hey canon bros can i get some input on a new lens? Sigma 120-300 2.8. The last two versions are really good. Avoid version one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Imagine a photo, then crop 60% of it away, and add a little bit more noise. That's it. This, except don't add noise. Don't do anything except crop some of it away. (Crop sensors often have more noise than full frame sensors because they usually have physically smaller pixels. If you took a full frame sensor and chopped it into a smaller size, the noise would be identical.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
I'm heading to NY this week and I want to get a nice lens for my T2i. I currently have: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Lens (the kit lens) Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens (The Nifty Fifty). I love the 50mm, but with the crop frame it's a little too close indoors; I've been toying with the idea of getting a good 35mm and I've narrowed it down to one of these: Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM However, earlier today I was discussing this with a friend and he suggested I just trade in the kit lens and get the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 as an "all rounder" to replace it. I'm having a bit of problem making the decision because I haven't really decided on something in particular I want to shoot, I just shoot what strikes my fancy (though I do have a tendency to use shallow DoF for close up pictures), so having a fixed length with a large aperture seemed like a good idea, but I'm not so sure anymore. Thoughts? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Are you set on making that lens your first 'big purchase' glass? The new Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 pancake is a pretty outstanding value at $150, in my opinion, and it might leave you enough left over to grab another midrange lens, even.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
I've always heard the VC version has issues and you should get the non-VC version instead: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423714-REG/Tamron_AF016C700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html/prm/alsVwDtl I have the non-VC version and it's produced very good images for me, and with 2.8 across the whole focal range I've yet to use my kit lens since I bought the Tamron. Absolutely love the thing. With the money you save you can also buy Canon's 24mm pancake lens (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?N=11081812&InitialSearch=yes&sts=pi) for those indoor shots. Add the Canon 10-18mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?N=11051476&InitialSearch=yes&sts=pi) and 55-250 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/543923-USA/Canon_2044B002AA_EF_S_55_250mm_f_4_5_6_IS.html) and you have a good setup that can cover almost any type of shot for less then $1000. It's not as fast as a 1.4 but dropping $900 on one lens is a lot if you aren't sure what kind of photos you want to take. There are cheaper alternatives out there
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Any reason you aren't considering the Canon 28mm f/1.8?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Are you set on making that lens your first 'big purchase' glass? No, not really. I was a bit enamored with the idea of going "simple" with the fixed length (and have a noob f/1.4 fixation), but it was mostly lack of further research to be honest. TonySnow posted:I've always heard the VC version has issues and you should get the non-VC version instead: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423714-REG/Tamron_AF016C700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html/prm/alsVwDtl Wouldn't the pancake be redundant if I got the Tamron? They have the same aperture, unless you meant the size of the lens itself as a factor. I think the non-vc version of the Tamron and that Canon 55-250 may be a winning combination. /edit: Thoogsby posted:Any reason you aren't considering the Canon 28mm f/1.8? I'm an idiot and didn't know it existed? I do think I'd go for the Tamron in that case, but thanks for bringing it up, it's good to have options. Edmond Dantes fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Feb 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Pancake lens is handy to have because it weighs nothing and isn't this big obtrusive tube sticking off your camera. Something you can throw on your camera and just go with. For $150 you can't go wrong. It's not necessary, but nice to have, and why not? $150 is pennies in the camera world. If you only got two, I would get the Tamron and the 55-250 or the Tamron and 10-18, then add the 24mm later. If you're doing NY the city, the 10-18mm would be nice to get wide street shots or wide indoor shots. I have one and it's money for landscapes and close ups of big stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Of the lenses originally listed, get the Sigma 18-35mm, assuming you're not planning to suddenly splurge on a FF body as well. I have the 35/1.4 and wish I had the 18-35mm instead, as someone who likely won't have a FF body any time soon. The quality is supposedly roughly the same, and I rarely find the need for the extra aperture, certainly no more than I'd want the extra wideness. With the nifty fifty and the Sigma you cover roughly the same range as the tamron, and a bag that can fit two non-pancake lenses isn't much more than a camera with one zoom lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
If you can afford it, the Sigma is amazing. Almost never left my camera when I had a crop body. Heavier and bigger than the primes are, but it is incredibly sharp and replaces 2 or 3 f/1.8 primes easily. One of these days I'll get around to taking pictures of mine and trying to sell it again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
TonySnow posted:Pancake lens is handy to have because it weighs nothing and isn't this big obtrusive tube sticking off your camera. If you only got two, I would get the Tamron and the 55-250 or the Tamron and 10-18, then add the 24mm later. If you're doing NY the city, the 10-18mm would be nice to get wide street shots or wide indoor shots. I have one and it's money for landscapes and close ups of big stuff. That sounds reasonable. I actually have an old Sigma 80-200 with a Nikon mount that was my dad's; I recently got an adapter ring but never got around to trying it out with my camera, I'll see if I can hop to my mom's today and give it a try. annapacketstormaya posted:Of the lenses originally listed, get the Sigma 18-35mm, assuming you're not planning to suddenly splurge on a FF body as well. I have the 35/1.4 and wish I had the 18-35mm instead, as someone who likely won't have a FF body any time soon. The quality is supposedly roughly the same, and I rarely find the need for the extra aperture, certainly no more than I'd want the extra wideness. Shellman posted:If you can afford it, the Sigma is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Edmond Dantes posted:
The 18-35. The Canon 10-18 is an awesome ultra wide though, and goons swear by that tamron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Not to pimp too hard, but if you end up interested in the Tamron I have one up in the buy/sell thread, still. It's a great lens in good shape, I just moved to a smaller setup and don't carry my SLR any more. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3125105&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=206#post439569261
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Looks the like the Rebel is Canon's best camera: http://petapixel.com/2015/02/23/this-is-how-the-home-shopping-network-tried-to-sell-the-canon-rebel-t3i-back-in-2012/
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
Haggins posted:Looks the like the Rebel is Canon's best camera: If you order this, THIS IS A TOTAL SECRET, you can get, the autograph, of the Blue Bomber himself, PETE HARSHNISH
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 23:29
|
|
