• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

PHOTOGRAPHY - The official Camera-setup Thread

Rambeezi said:
Did more reading and I'm now definitely going to get the Canon 24-70 2.8L. I heard the same about Sigmas regarding getting a good sample is like a crap shoot. But then again I've heard similar stories about Canon (but not necessarily the L series). If all works well for me the only zooms I'll own will be the 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L IS. Everything else will be primes since after borrowing some of a friend's primes I think I've started to become a prime snob......with exception to the above mentioned zoom lens. :p
Click to expand...

That would be a great lineup. Don't underestimate the power of IS however. You have it on your 70-200mm and though you probably think it's not necessary on the wider focal length lenses, it's a big help. I truly wish my Canon 10-22mm had IS, and that lens is much wider than the 24-70mm.

Consider the 24-105mm f/4L IS...you get an extra 35mm and image stabilization. I know it's only an f/4, but ask yourself how often you're going to shoot wider than f/4 anyway (this lens is just as sharp at f/4 as any other aperture, BTW). The shallow depth of field at f/2.8, while cool in some circumstances, is not desirable in many others. There are times when I wish my f/4 were faster, but more frequently, I am thankful that I have IS and 105mm. You would have the 71-105mm spectrum covered by two very good lenses, which is a bit redundant, but not having to change lenses in that range is a desirable characteristic in and of itself.

Having said all that, a 24-105mm f/2.8L IS would be a killer lens if it existed!
 
Rambeezi said:
Did more reading and I'm now definitely going to get the Canon 24-70 2.8L. I heard the same about Sigmas regarding getting a good sample is like a crap shoot. But then again I've heard similar stories about Canon (but not necessarily the L series). If all works well for me the only zooms I'll own will be the 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L IS. Everything else will be primes since after borrowing some of a friend's primes I think I've started to become a prime snob......with exception to the above mentioned zoom lens. :p
Click to expand...

:thumbup

You'll be happy with the 24-70L

And as for shooting wide open at 2.8 , the narrow DOF isn't that bad. When you start getting into much faster lenses, then it will be an issue with composition, but with the 24-70, you can shoot it wide all day long..

The only caveat with the lens is that it is pretty bulky and heavy. Add the lens hood, and it's a pretty giant lens!

lol

anyways, the best forum for photos, i've found are the Fred Miranda forums

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/

check out some of the work by the users.. Amazing.

<<for most of my shooting career, I was using a 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8 ISL and the 85 f/1.2>>

The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM was created to satisfy most 'pro-sumer' users as, it does not contain any flourite elements (akin to other 'L' lenses) and is not fast enough for most pros to actually take a serious look at it. - I hang out with a lot of wedding photographers, where LIGHT is king...
 
Last edited:
stan23 said:
The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM was created to satisfy most 'pro-sumer' users as, it does not contain any flourite elements (akin to other 'L' lenses) and is not fast enough for most pros to actually take a serious look at it.
Click to expand...

Whew! Glad I'm not a pro! :teeth
 
oliver said:
Whew! Glad I'm not a pro! :teeth
Click to expand...

When I first got my DSLR (D30 - wow, has it been that long?!?)

A lot of us loooonged for a 24-105 f4.. most of use ended up with the butt slow 28-135 or the 28-70 (24-70 2.8 was not released yet)

So its nice to know Canon listens to their customers and create lenses specific to certain market segments.
 
stan23 said:
When I first got my DSLR (D30 - wow, has it been that long?!?)

A lot of us loooonged for a 24-105 f4.. most of use ended up with the butt slow 28-135 or the 28-70 (24-70 2.8 was not released yet)

So its nice to know Canon listens to their customers and create lenses specific to certain market segments.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...lemme try:

Dear Canon,

Please produce a 100-300mm f/2.8 IS to compliment my 24-105mm. I know all the pros with their 24-70 + 70-200 combos will shake their heads in bewilderment, but you went ahead and created the "pro-sumer" segment with your 24-105 and now you need to support it! And no, I don't want an f/4 at this focal length.

Thanks.

Oliver
 
oliver said:
Hmmm...lemme try:

Dear Canon,

Please produce a 100-300mm f/2.8 IS to compliment my 24-105mm. I know all the pros with their 24-70 + 70-200 combos will shake their heads in bewilderment, but you went ahead and created the "pro-sumer" segment with your 24-105 and now you need to support it! And no, I don't want an f/4 at this focal length.

Thanks.

Oliver
Click to expand...

I know you are being sarcastic, but do read of how glass is produced and how difficult it would be to produce such a piece of glass that would be: a)cost effective and b) won't weigh 300lbs.

my only advice to you is to keep shooting and read about the rule of thirds.
 
:thumbup

Stan,

What kind of photograpy did you do as a pro?
 
Rambeezi said:
:thumbup

Stan,

What kind of photograpy did you do as a pro?
Click to expand...

I worked for a firm that sent me to shoot fashion shows, clubs, photojournal work, etc..

I did some weddings on the side, as well as a lot of portraits.

It was good money on the side, but alas, my heart was no longer into it. I still love a good photo though, and love looking at other folk's work.

My primary goal when starting to shoot professionally, was to be published in a magazine, and have a shot sold to the AP. I've been fortunate to have accomplished both :teeth
 
i wanna know if anyone here has tried the BIGMA! the 50-500 sigma lens... bueller? bueller?
 
As much of a "L"-lens snob I can be, there is still a part of me that is intrigued by the 70-300 f/4-5.6 USM IS.

Pros: Lightweight, "L"-lens image quality, IS, price, focal length.

Cons: Consumer-level build quality; front lens element rotates; not very fast focusing motor; many units had problem with image quality in portrait orientation (but Canon now has a warranty fix for this).

Pricewise it's about the same as the 70-200 f/4. The extra 100mm of reach, as well as mode II image stabilization, would be intrigung for motorsports applications. (But then, if the focusing motor isn't fast enough to stay locked on the subject anyway, I guess it's a moot point.)
 
com3 said:
i wanna know if anyone here has tried the BIGMA! the 50-500 sigma lens... bueller? bueller?
Click to expand...

i've had quite a few friends with the Bigma.. they would often sell it after a few months. Sure the range is nice, but you sacrifice greatly in image quality.

For you, a 300 f4 IS L + 1.4 extender would be perfect for trackday shooting.

The 300 f4 is a MAGNIFICENT lens in its own right.
 
quasi888 said:
As much of a "L"-lens snob I can be, there is still a part of me that is intrigued by the 70-300 f/4-5.6 USM IS.

Pros: Lightweight, "L"-lens image quality, IS, price, focal length.

Cons: Consumer-level build quality; front lens element rotates; not very fast focusing motor; many units had problem with image quality in portrait orientation (but Canon now has a warranty fix for this).

Pricewise it's about the same as the 70-200 f/4. The extra 100mm of reach, as well as mode II image stabilization, would be intrigung for motorsports applications. (But then, if the focusing motor isn't fast enough to stay locked on the subject anyway, I guess it's a moot point.)
Click to expand...

Have you tried it? I rented one for my trip to the Philippines a few weeks ago. I used it off and on over the two weeks I was there and looking back over the 600+ pics I took, only two from that lens were keepers (and those were due entirely to the subject, not the lens).

Problems: as you said, the outside of the lens rotates when focusing. Specifically, a large portion of the outer housing rotates. It seemed like whenever I touched the lens, the autofocus motor kicked my hand off of it. Or it would walk sideways when I rested it on a fence. Very annoying. Furthermore, the focus motor is not slow, it's glacial. The IS was loud and clunky and reduced blur only in the vertical direction (making it next to useless in portrait orientation at long focal lengths). My example was not that sharp, even on a tripod. Due to all these issues, I really noticed how slow it was...5.6 with crappy IS and a not-so-sharp-to-begin-with image made things difficult. Mine was a rental and it was a few years old (I believe using an older IS system), so keep that in mind.
 
oliver said:
Mine was a rental and it was a few years old (I believe using an older IS system), so keep that in mind.
Click to expand...

Hmm, if it was a few years old, are you sure it wasn't the (older, but still-in-production) 75-300? The new 70-300 was just released about a year ago, and is a markedly different lens in terms of image quality, by most accounts. And if the unit you had was single-mode IS, then it definitely was the older 75-300.

Still, at this point I would be leaning toward the 70-200 f/4 if I'm going to go on the cheap. I can go the f/2.8 route (in fact I have owned it before in the pre-digital era, before I sold off my entire Canon collection to buy into the Contax N hype, oh what a horrible mistake THAT was), but the f/4 just seems like such a great value, and better dimensions for a travel lens too.
 
quasi888 said:
Hmm, if it was a few years old, are you sure it wasn't the (older, but still-in-production) 75-300?
Click to expand...

It was probably the older one, since a) it had only single mode IS and b) there is no way it was less than a year old.

BUT the general construction appears the same so you'll still face the rotating outer body problem. I can't believe Canon would use such a slow autofocus motor (even though my example said "Ultrasonic" on the barrel) in the new model, but that still may be an issue as well. If it is the same as used on my example, you can kiss off any trackside photography ambitions as mine couldn't track a turtle. Not only that, it hunted all over the place before it eventually settled on a lock.

I just would recommend trying one, if possible, before plunking down the cash.
 
Doesn't matter, I just want to borrow it after you get it, whichever one it may be. :p

Fuggit, get the 85/1.2. Go big or go home!
 
MackeyStingray said:
if you had a choice which would you pick and why?

85mm f/1.8
100mm f/2.0

$50 difference
Click to expand...

get the faster lens... 15mm is like 5 feet.
 
85 1.8. that one stop might make the difference between getting the shot and not getting the shot...plus the 100 is probably too tight for most stuff. personally, i've got the 50 1.8, and it's uber sex. i use the crap outta that lens. :thumbup
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top