mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
What, LM, you forget that DB is a sock puppet?
Yeah, but not which one.
DrunkenBastard
Storage is cool
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
This is private information?
ddrueding
Fixture
It can be, we have no rules about actual identities. Some are more open (me) some are less so (Lunar). I think those are the two extremes, actually.
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
Funny you should mention that topic, Dave. I have been going through something of an existential crises lately. As you know, I have always believed that I'm some sort of offspring-by-adoption of Tannin's. But someone just told me that Tannin isn't actually a real person. If that is true, do I even exist?
Talk to me Dave. It's a bit scary being out here all alone.
Talk to me Dave. It's a bit scary being out here all alone.
I thought you had no identities.
Some have ECFS. Cameras without the mirror box should be more durable, but are not always in the real world.
ddrueding
Fixture
I know this is going to be hard to hear, Tea, but I've suspected for some time that Tannin is just your imaginary friend. A useful construct, I'm sure, but just in your mind. But hey, if that is helpful to you, I see no reason to change.
I have exactly one (this one). I lack the spare brain power to attempt more.
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
Gosh! Does this mean I don't have to do what he says unless I want to?
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
No.
ddrueding
Fixture
ddrueding
Fixture
I bought another lens just now.Some people say it's a problem.
Which one?
EF 24-70/4 IS.
ddrueding
Fixture
Neat. I could use something in that range, but want faster than f4. The 2.8 is still too expensive for me.
I have three 24-70/2.8 lenses (2 types), but they don't have IS. I also have the 24-105, but it's an old design that is not up to par with the modern cameras.
I shoot at f/8-10. There are no good options in the 24-xxx range. There is less of a gap issue between a 24-70 and Nikon 80-400 than the Canon 100-400.
I shoot at f/8-10. There are no good options in the 24-xxx range. There is less of a gap issue between a 24-70 and Nikon 80-400 than the Canon 100-400.
ddrueding
Fixture
I'm still loving the 24/1.4. I do have the 17-40/4, but I want more control over DOF (shallow DOF helps hide poor composition ). After that I have the 50/1.4 and then the 100-400II.
Is it just me or is the 50/1.4 not that good a lens? I'm never that impressed with the pictures from that lens (it could very well just be me).
). After that I have the 50/1.4 and then the 100-400II.Is it just me or is the 50/1.4 not that good a lens? I'm never that impressed with the pictures from that lens (it could very well just be me).
Too shallow DOF often limits practical print size. The 17-40mm is a rather poor lens away from the center. The 50/1.4 is mechanically bad, though IQ is OK at f/4-5.6.
Canon has poor to mediocre choices in 50mm lenses, but there are a few good alternatives like Sigma Art and some MF Japanese Zeiss lenses.
Fast wide to short tele primes are used to much better effect on an FX body. As well, the IQ limitations wide open (or nearly so) are less evident with larger pixels.
Canon has poor to mediocre choices in 50mm lenses, but there are a few good alternatives like Sigma Art and some MF Japanese Zeiss lenses.
Fast wide to short tele primes are used to much better effect on an FX body. As well, the IQ limitations wide open (or nearly so) are less evident with larger pixels.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
I tend to use two bodies for those ranges: 5D II & 24-105/4; 1D IV & 100-400. That leaves a small gap between the 105 on FF and the 100 on APS-H which I find curiously annoying. I always seem to be wanting something just a fraction shorter than the 100-400. I don't particularly care for the 24-105 but to be honest the primitive nature of the 5D II AF annoys me more. My 400D had a better AF system! I should replace it with a 1D III but they are quite expensive and I don't use the 5D II for birds or anything demanding AF-wise so I just put up with it. It does take a wonderful picture after all, it's just annoying to use.
An 80-400 on the 1D III would be wonderful!
I'm still loving the 24/1.4. I do have the 17-40/4, but I want more control over DOF (shallow DOF helps hide poor composition
Is it just me or is the 50/1.4 not that good a lens? I'm never that impressed with the pictures from that lens (it could very well just be me).
It took me a while (and better lenses) to recognize that the 50mm F/1.4 was only ok. It served its purpose given the price back when I was getting into photography. Once I saw the color and clarity out of my 135mm F/2.0 I never went back to the 50mm. I realize those two lenses are not quite comparable but it did make me realize how much different the quality was and how little I enjoyed the 50mm after that. I found it to be flat and lifeless and I also rarely to never used the F/1.4 because it wasn't very good in detail (nor should I have expected that).
The 135/2 is a very good, but aging design with rather much LoCA wide open or so. It will be interesting to see if Canon can inject some BR magic into the next version and improve it to Zeiss IQ or similar.
The EF 50/1.4 was never well regarded. It was a non-L lens with a non-ring USM motor introduced in a era when the 50/1 L was the very expensive L Canon and the 50/1.8 was the cheap alternative. The 50/1 was a specialty low light lens with an interesting rendition, but not particularly sharp. Some people complained that the 50/1.4 was deliberately a lower grade than expected to push users to the 50/1, though that's a bit unlikely. FWIW, there a numerous complaints of moor and other failures with the 50/1.4 in medium-heavy use.
ddrueding
Fixture
Thanks for the info Lunar, I can assure you that my 50/1.4 will not be seeing medium-heavy use.
I haven't looked at the other lens manufacturers since the awful Sigma 75-500. Is there a good very fast 50mm that I should be looking at?
Edit: Or (because of the crop sensor) should I be more interested in the 35/1.4?
I haven't looked at the other lens manufacturers since the awful Sigma 75-500. Is there a good very fast 50mm that I should be looking at?
Edit: Or (because of the crop sensor) should I be more interested in the 35/1.4?
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
Sigma's pricey new(ish) 50mm unit gets a lot of rave reviews.
The 1D III is rather old and is either no longer serviced or getting very close to that. I had a 5D II for a while and the AF was awful, like the 5D. Back then the 1Ds III was a better choice with good AF and a somewhat faster framing rate. The 5D III is rather inexpensive compared to a few years ago and has fine AF and buffer clearance. 6FPS is not the greatest, but is usable for most purposes.
Most likely I will be using the 24-70/4 IS on a 5DsR and crop a bit from the long end as needed. In the situations where I use a 100-400 II, the 24-70 is not that much used so I hope the gap is tolerable. OTOH, for landscapes I have long preferred a 24-70, 70-200 and 300/4, not to mention the wider than 24 mm lenses. The 100-400 II is good enough for landscapes and very good for wildlife; therefore it is more versatile. I'll still bring the 70-200/4 IS for landscapes.
For Africa I may put up a 100-400 II and the 200-400 as the primary lenses on two 1DX bodies, then switch to a 5DsR on the 200-400 for reach if needed.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Sorry Lunar. I meant 5D III in the first instance and 1D IV in the second. Slip of the brain. My much-loved 1D III was stolen some years ago (about the time the 1D X came out) and I replaced it with a 1D IV. I'd still be using the 1D III as a second/third body if I still had it though - light on for pixels, but a superb machine. The IV, of course, offers everything the III did plus more. I'm semi-retired now and not keen on spending the price of a 5D III just because the 5D II is a PITA. I just put up with it. 6FPS would be fine for the things I use the short-lens camera for. (Landscapes mostly.) Next time a grandmother dies, I'll get a 100-400 II and either a 5D III or (more likely) whatever replaces it. 5DsR is not out of the question but I doubt I've got good enough lenses to justify it.
I'm interested to note that you are using the 24-70/4 rather than the /2.8. Is that simply because of the size and weight advantage, or do you prefer it to to /2.8 on other grounds?
I'm interested to note that you are using the 24-70/4 rather than the /2.8. Is that simply because of the size and weight advantage, or do you prefer it to to /2.8 on other grounds?
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
Most normal humans only have two grandmothers, Tannin, and I know for a fact that you've already lost both of them. (Which struck me as very careless of you, by the way.) And no, you can't spend my inheritance on a camera. Anyway, orphans don't have grandmothers, so far as I know.
Yesterday marked the 8th year this thread has been around and still actively participated in. It has been on epic thread started by David and contributed to by many others. Thanks for all the years of helpful information and fun banter related to photography.
I'm not really happy with any of the normal zooms 24-70 or thereabouts. I'll try the 24-7£0 IS this weekend and let you know.
ddrueding
Fixture
Wow, thanks for the reminder Handruin. Crazy to think that I've been doing this camera stuff for so long and am still awful at it.
Thanks, I try. Would you believe that I have more than twice as many posts on a photo forum as SF?
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
Maybe get a new hobby that costs a bunch of money, but is easy to be good at. My suggestion is whiskey.
ddrueding
Fixture
I've done single-malt scotch to a significant degree. I think one of the reasons my wife is particularly understanding about the photography thing is that it does get me out from time to time.