Support NeoGAF

[BlueTsunami]

The 70-200/2.8 IS is supposed to be a beast though, something not as enjoyable to lug around. Getting a 135L and a monopod would be a nice combo (its probably what I'll do). But I've seen very low light shots with the 135L without external stabilization.

 

[mrkgoo]

The 70-200/2.8 IS is supposed to be a beast though, something not as enjoyable to lug around. Getting a 135L and a monopod would be a nice combo (its probably what I'll do). But I've seen very low light shots with the 135L without external stabilization.

If I went full frame the 135 mm f/2 L would be my weapon of choice.

 

[Rentahamster]

Nah, I am an "L Lens whore"

You may as well get something that'll give you exceptional image quality while you wait for the L lenses to come down in price.

If you keep waiting, you'll be waiting for a while.

 

[mrkgoo]

Nah, I am an "L Lens whore"

The two prime lenses I was considering was the 50mm f/1.2L and the 135 f/2L. The dodgy reviews of the 50mm scared me off from buying it, I will hold off until they release a "Mark II" that fixes some of the quality issues. The 135mm sounds perfect, but there is no IS and you need to increase the shutter speed to 1/200 to get "stutter free" shots.

For now the lens I really wanted to buy since it really has no issues was the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, but as you see, the sharp increase in price ($400 in the last three weeks) moved it from "expensive, but still purchasable" to "fuck this, I will wait for a while."

I also wanted to look into the 24-70mm 2.8L lens, but I keep on hearing rumors floating on how there is a version with IS in the works, so I will hold off. I would gladly pay a premium to get IS with this great lens.



Grr...you lucky bastard.

I hate you

I once considered the 50mm f1.2L But without a floating element, I understand that at aperture between something like 1.4-2.0, at closer to MFD it can misfocus. So I look to the 85mm f/1.2L, but that costs so much and I'm not sure I could live with the focus-by-wire.

The other solution is the 135L. And full frame. I was actually *this* close to gettign a 5DmkII with 24-105F4L for $3299, but as I stood there, I couldn't make myself do it.

 

[BlueTsunami]

If I went full frame the 135 mm f/2 L would be my weapon of choice.

Definitely. I was looking over some 135L shots and the increased Field of View for that perspective on Full Frame and its just lovely. It comes down to 85/135/200mm for me and 135 really does feel "just right" (on FF).

Once I build some funds, I'm probably going to be renting some lenses. So I'll have a field day with that

 

[fart]

I've taken landscapes with the camera on a tripod where I stopped down to f/22 or f/29 for maximum depth of field

unless you're using a large format view camera and not sharing the results with us, don't do this. you're way diffraction limited on 35mm digital at this point, and you're creating a blurry mess on APS-C. if you really need maximum DOF, bracket focus and composite the in-focus fields together. realistically though, you rarely/never need to do this with landscape photography. this is a common technique for macro photography though.

 

[fart]

Oh lens prices are high now? Maybe now's the time for me to sell.

I feel like I don't go out nearly enough with my gear because I hate the size/weight. I'm talking about a 40D with a simple Sigma 30mm. (~3lbs)

What's a good suggestion for a lighter and/or smaller body with a pentaprism viewfinder. Lens selection must have good primes, as I live off my 30mm and 85mm.

d90 with 35/1.8. that'll cut your weight in half without sacrificing any vf. total cost brand new, ~1000$.

nikon's 85/1.4 is quite well regarded, but two good reasons to wait: prices are fucking ridiculous right now as above and the updated af-s version is probably launching this october. 85/1.8 is sharper than the 1.4, but the bokeh can get nasty. not well regarded as a portrait lens (which presumably is what you want). check the photozone tests for examples.

another option is the pentax k7. pentax's primes are nice, but i would be a bit scared at this point of buying into their system. also, pentax _only_ has primes.

d90 brand new was down to 800 last christmas. up to just under 900 most of spring through early summer. used and refurbeds started to appear early summer for 650-800, should still be available. no idea what's going on with stock of the 35/1.8, but i suspect it's still tight.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Mmmm, I'm looking at some Sigma 50/1.4 images and I love how it renders Out of Focus elements. <3 . I believe its equipped with a 9 blade aperture.

Sigma 50mm f/1.4: http://www.flickr.com/groups/664291@N24/pool/page5/

Too bad about the QC issues

 

[Rentahamster]

Mmmm, I'm looking at some Sigma 50/1.4 images and I love how it renders Out of Focus elements. <3 . I believe its equipped with a 9 blade aperture.

Sigma 50mm f/1.4: http://www.flickr.com/groups/664291@N24/pool/page5/

Too bad about the QC issues

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/PLNK1JVK1V/?tag=neogaf0e-20

 

[giga]

Sigma's high end lenses have always been good. (at least the past few years) The 30/1.4 exhibits similar smoothy bokeh. Mmm mmm.

 

[fart]

the designs are good, but QC leaves something to be desired.

 

[Rentahamster]

I had to get my Sigma 30mm 1.4 recalibrated so it would stop backfocusing all the time. YMMV.

 

[Lucky Forward]

unless you're using a large format view camera and not sharing the results with us, don't do this. you're way diffraction limited on 35mm digital at this point, and you're creating a blurry mess on APS-C. if you really need maximum DOF, bracket focus and composite the in-focus fields together. realistically though, you rarely/never need to do this with landscape photography. this is a common technique for macro photography though.

I agree that stopping way down goes beyond optimal image quality, I sometimes still do it anyway if I have the camera on a tripod and I'm bracketing the hell out of the shot, that way I have a fuller range of f-stops covered and I can choose which one I think is best later. I've haven't played with any compositing software yet, macro or otherwise, it's something I'll try one day.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

The 70-200/2.8 IS is supposed to be a beast though, something not as enjoyable to lug around. Getting a 135L and a monopod would be a nice combo (its probably what I'll do). But I've seen very low light shots with the 135L without external stabilization.

It maybe a beast, but I had a blast renting it for my friend's wedding. It was hefty (like 5 pounds-ish), but it was well worth it because of the awesome candid low-lighting shots I got. The wedding pushed it to a must buy status for me.

I have a monopod and a tripod, but I am just worried about reading the reviews that say that the 135L is not a handholdable as the 85L and the 50L. To me handholdability is very important for events like Anime Expo, where tripods and monopods are forbidden from main events and certain parts of the convention center.

I once considered the 50mm f1.2L But without a floating element, I understand that at aperture between something like 1.4-2.0, at closer to MFD it can misfocus. So I look to the 85mm f/1.2L, but that costs so much and I'm not sure I could live with the focus-by-wire.

The other solution is the 135L. And full frame. I was actually *this* close to gettign a 5DmkII with 24-105F4L for $3299, but as I stood there, I couldn't make myself do it.

I know your pain my friend. I was very very close to buying the 50L, but the reviews about it misfocusing on the lower apertures scared me away. Not to mention that the reviews also seem to mention that buying one of these lenses was like a lottery, you had a chance of getting an amazing copy as much as you had of getting a terrible one that needed to be calibrated twice or three times to get what you deserved.

Like you, I considered looking at the "Trinity" of Canon Prime L lenses (35L or was it the 24L?, 85L, and 135L). The 85L sounded great, but it had a focus by wire design that did not work when the lens was turned off. The price was the most offputting, with it being closer to $2000 than my dream lens (70-200 f2.8L with IS).

I only seriously got into SLR photography in November of last year, so Full Frame for me is only a dream. Right now I just want to build an arsenal of amazing L glass.

You may as well get something that'll give you exceptional image quality while you wait for the L lenses to come down in price.

If you keep waiting, you'll be waiting for a while.

That's true, which is why I have been seriously considering getting a 70-200 f/4 L lens with IS since the price has not seen a large uptick like the f/2.8L with IS. I was also looking into getting the 50mm f/1.4 to hold me over until Canon comes up with an amazing 50mm f/1.2L mark II.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Like you, I considered looking at the "Trinity" of Canon Prime L lenses (35L or was it the 24L?, 85L, and 135L). The 85L sounded great, but it had a focus by wire design that did not work when the lens was turned off. The price was the most offputting, with it being closer to $2000 than my dream lens (70-200 f2.8L with IS).

Since getting the 85L (for "only" $1600 a year and a half ago) I've become smitten with the idea of L primes as well. I almost pulled the trigger on a 24L or 35L this spring, but that was when they seemed to go out of stock at most places and I had a wave of other bills come in, so I just decided to take a deep breath and wait. But one day soon...

I've never had any focusing problems with the 85L. On my 20D I have the focus mapped to the * button on the camera (custom function 4), so I usually put the center focus square on the eyes of my subject, touch * then quickly recompose and shoot. Is it that much of a disadvantage that you can't focus while the camera isn't on?

 

[fart]

I only seriously got into SLR photography in November of last year, so Full Frame for me is only a dream. Right now I just want to build an arsenal of amazing L glass.

why? i really don't understand this obsession with luxury (this is what L stands for, if you didn't know) lenses that canon shooters have. i especially don't understand this phenomenon of aps-c users spending many thousands on these luxury lenses without going full frame. the major benefit of expensive lenses is sharpness into the corners of the 35mm frame when shot wide open and if you regularly need this and are not shooting something quite special purpose, your technique needs serious work. i also don't understand this thing where everyone thinks they need to shoot everything at f1.2 (on aps-c no less). you don't need to do this. most of the photos i see at big/huge apertures need more dof not less.

note that canon users are not the only guilty ones. i saw a d300 user at MOMA the other day with a 14-24. it just seems like the problem is particularly endemic with canon users.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

why? i really don't understand this obsession with luxury (this is what L stands for, if you didn't know) lenses that canon shooters have. i especially don't understand this phenomenon of aps-c users spending many thousands on these luxury lenses without going full frame. the major benefit of expensive lenses is sharpness into the corners of the 35mm frame when shot wide open and if you regularly need this and are not shooting something quite special purpose, your technique needs serious work. i also don't understand this thing where everyone thinks they need to shoot everything at f1.2 (on aps-c no less). you don't need to do this. most of the photos i see at big/huge apertures need more dof not less.

note that canon users are not the only guilty ones. i saw a d300 user at MOMA the other day with a 14-24. it just seems like the problem is particularly endemic with canon users.

You forgot one thing, the best lenses are the full frame lenses in terms of reliability. If a person like me wants to move upwards to a better camera, the lenses will always have compatibility. I moved from a kit lens (crap build) to a mid-level lens (good build, but still has lens creep and the f stop is not as low as I like).

Just because we are not getting the full purpose of the lens doesn't mean that we are not getting our money's worth, since the higher-end lenses have longevity, quality, and ultimately would not be incompatible with higher end bodies should we consider it.

I rather see someone with a low-end SLR with a great lens, than see a person with a great SLR with a terrible lens.

Since getting the 85L (for "only" $1600 a year and a half ago) I've become smitten with the idea of L primes as well. I almost pulled the trigger on a 24L or 35L this spring, but that was when they seemed to go out of stock at most places and I had a wave of other bills come in, so I just decided to take a deep breath and wait. But one day soon...

I've never had any focusing problems with the 85L. On my 20D I have the focus mapped to the * button on the camera (custom function 4), so I usually put the center focus square on the eyes of my subject, touch * then quickly recompose and shoot. Is it that much of a disadvantage that you can't focus while the camera isn't on?

Hmm, you make a pretty good argument.

How is focusing with the 85L compared to other Macro lenses?

 

[giga]

I've got a local guy offering me $900 for a D90, 18-105 VR (with a hoya pro1). Good to go? 18-105 can be sold for ~250?

 

[Hcoregamer00]

I've got a local guy offering me $900 for a D90, 18-105 VR (with a hoya pro1). Good to go? 18-105 can be sold for ~250?

Sounds good, do it

 

[Lucky Forward]

How is focusing with the 85L compared to other Macro lenses?

The 85L isn't a macro len, its closest focus distance is just under one meter. The only real trouble I have with focus is when I forget that and try to focus on something closer, it hunts until I back up a bit, naturally.

I know this is comparing apples and oranges, but two weeks ago I was photographing a litter of puppies and I had my 17-85mm IS on for the zooming versatility (along with a flash and bounce reflector.) In the average room light, the 17-85 was really hunting around a lot for focus, and I had lots of OOF shots, which I attributed to the f/4.0-5.6 maximum aperture, and the fact it was largely trying to focus on fur.

I went back the next week with the 85 1.2L (sans flash) and had no problem nailing focus, I figure the light gathering ability made the difference. Where I had slight OOF problems, it was most likely because either me or the pup shifted slightly after I had focused with the * button.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

The 85L isn't a macro len, its closest focus distance is just under one meter. The only real trouble I have with focus is when I forget that and try to focus on something closer, it hunts until I back up a bit, naturally.

I know this is comparing apples and oranges, but two weeks ago I was photographing a litter of puppies and I had my 17-85mm IS on for the zooming versatility (along with a flash and bounce reflector.) In the average room light, the 17-85 was really hunting around a lot for focus, and I had lots of OOF shots, which I attributed to the f/4.0-5.6 maximum aperture, and the fact it was largely trying to focus on fur.

I went back the next week with the 85 1.2L (sans flash) and had no problem nailing focus, I figure the light gathering ability made the difference. Where I had slight OOF problems, it was most likely because either me or the pup shifted slightly after I had focused with the * button.

You sold me on it, sounds great.

Now do something about the price.

Out of curiosity, does it have weather sealing?

 

[BlueTsunami]

why? i really don't understand this obsession with luxury (this is what L stands for, if you didn't know) lenses that canon shooters have. i especially don't understand this phenomenon of aps-c users spending many thousands on these luxury lenses without going full frame. the major benefit of expensive lenses is sharpness into the corners of the 35mm frame when shot wide open and if you regularly need this and are not shooting something quite special purpose, your technique needs serious work. i also don't understand this thing where everyone thinks they need to shoot everything at f1.2 (on aps-c no less). you don't need to do this. most of the photos i see at big/huge apertures need more dof not less.

note that canon users are not the only guilty ones. i saw a d300 user at MOMA the other day with a 14-24. it just seems like the problem is particularly endemic with canon users.

I think its the way they've made class system for their lenses. You've got the 50/1.8 MKII which is like "dirty poor but gettin' shit done" level and then you've got all the Luxury lenses.

I can't deny the urge to buy top of the line though. Then I usually end up on flickr and see what people have done with that little old $80 50/1.8 and feel deep shame with my unsatisfaction with my own perfectly competent gear.

There really is a divide though when it comes to photographers. You've got the gear heads and then you've got the ones that are purely into photography as an art form. I feel that I'm smack dab in the middle of the two.

 

[XMonkey]

There's a lot more to L lenses than just great edge-to-edge sharpness. They often will be the fastest lens you can buy, autofocus is often faster/more accurate, and the build quality is vastly superior to most EOS lenses. Personally, I feel the lens coatings are worth the money but I know not everyone thinks as highly of it. Besides, L lenses are a very good investment because they hold their value incredibly well.

 

[fart]

I've got a local guy offering me $900 for a D90, 18-105 VR (with a hoya pro1). Good to go? 18-105 can be sold for ~250?

count on 200 or so. if it's in great shape, low clicks, thorough test reveals no issues (including focus test), and he'll give you the original receipt, i'd say go for it. it's about the same as a good refurb deal.

There's a lot more to L lenses than just great edge-to-edge sharpness. They often will be the fastest lens you can buy, autofocus is often faster/more accurate, and the build quality is vastly superior to most EOS lenses. Personally, I feel the lens coatings are worth the money but I know not everyone thinks as highly of it. Besides, L lenses are a very good investment because they hold their value incredibly well.

are the non-L lenses built that poorly? i haven't heard of any major issues, except for the usual focus/QC type stuff that seems to be equally true (if not more so) for the L line.

"fastest in the world" is meaningless if you know what you're doing and shooting fairly typical subjects.

i haven't seen any evidence that L lenses hold their value any better than other lenses (it's about the same).

faster AF i'll give you, but more accurate AF seems pretty unlikely given the evidence i've seen and the fact that AF accuracy is simply more important for faster lenses. any gain you may get is eaten up by the fact that tolerances get significantly smaller.

finally, the major build differences (sealing, more metal, etc) are pretty much meaningless if you're not shooting in antarctica professionally or something. you're better off buying a lens that costs 1/2 to 1/3 as much and just buying a replacement if you manage to munge it so badly that it's not worth repairing.

before anyone gets the wrong idea, i'm not saying L lenses are worthless; on the contrary canon makes some excellent lenses (of all stripes). what i'm saying is that the L lenses are highly specialized lenses and it's silly for an amateur to blow, say, 1500$ on a 135/2.0 when not only is he (and it inevitably is a he) on a crop camera (and will be for years longer now that he's blown thousands on an L lens), but isn't interested in portrait photography in the least. in this crazy but all too common situation, the only thing the (now very) poor photographer in question gains over say a 75-300/3.5-5.6 IS or 70-200/4 iS is the ability to do beautiful subject isolation for portraits (albeit from very very far away); meanwhile, he loses IS, zoom range, and a thousand extra dollars.

hence, the only thing i see these lenses accomplishing for the average photographer is the enrichment of canon.

There really is a divide though when it comes to photographers. You've got the gear heads and then you've got the ones that are purely into photography as an art form. I feel that I'm smack dab in the middle of the two.

so was ansel adams. it's a good place to be.

 

[mrkgoo]

count on 200 or so. if it's in great shape, low clicks, thorough test reveals no issues (including focus test), and he'll give you the original receipt, i'd say go for it. it's about the same as a good refurb deal.

are the non-L lenses built that poorly? i haven't heard of any major issues, except for the usual focus/QC type stuff that seems to be equally true (if not more so) for the L line.

"fastest in the world" is meaningless if you know what you're doing and shooting fairly typical subjects.

i haven't seen any evidence that L lenses hold their value any better than other lenses (it's about the same).

faster AF i'll give you, but more accurate AF seems pretty unlikely given the evidence i've seen and the fact that AF accuracy is simply more important for faster lenses. any gain you may get is eaten up by the fact that tolerances get significantly smaller.

finally, the major build differences (sealing, more metal, etc) are pretty much meaningless if you're not shooting in antarctica professionally or something. you're better off buying a lens that costs 1/2 to 1/3 as much and just buying a replacement if you manage to munge it so badly that it's not worth repairing.

before anyone gets the wrong idea, i'm not saying L lenses are worthless; on the contrary canon makes some excellent lenses (of all stripes). what i'm saying is that the L lenses are highly specialized lenses and it's silly for an amateur to blow, say, 1500$ on a 135/2.0 when not only is he (and it inevitably is a he) on a crop camera (and will be for years longer now that he's blown thousands on an L lens), but isn't interested in portrait photography in the least. in this crazy but all too common situation, the only thing the (now very) poor photographer in question gains over say a 75-300/3.5-5.6 IS or 70-200/4 iS is the ability to do beautiful subject isolation for portraits (albeit from very very far away); meanwhile, he loses IS, zoom range, and a thousand extra dollars.

hence, the only thing i see these lenses accomplishing for the average photographer is enrichment of canon.

so was ansel adams. it's a good place to be.

It's a good point you make. Certainly, any of my gear is vastly superior than me. But like conuters, better to have stuff that outperforms me than underperforms my needs, right?

I have one l lens, the 70-200f4, and it consistently gives me a better image quality. My other lenses I have to work abit harder to get the same sharpness and colour. It's not impossible, but I gnerally just trust it to do it's job more consistently so I can foCus on just the images.

the wide aperture is not just about dof. If you do a lot if lowlight shooting, the wider the better.

 

[Rentahamster]

It's nice to want high quality stuff but one has to be realistic. You either make your money back on the equipment you buy, or you spend your money on a really expensive hobby.

In lieu of money to spend on pro equipment, you can always increase the quality of your photos with practice and learning to use what you have effectively.

 

[mrkgoo]

It's nice to want high quality stuff but one has to be realistic. You either make your money back on the equipment you buy, or you spend your money on a really expensive hobby.

In lieu of money to spend on pro equipment, you can always increase the quality of your photos with practice and learning to use what you have effectively.

Good advice all round. And why I have an 85mm f1.8. It's fantastic. I bought it second hand! In some ways it's better than an 85l. I'm not afraid of using it, it's lighter, and focuses faster. An probably has 90% of the image quality.

 

[fart]

It's a good point you make. Certainly, any of my gear is vastly superior than me. But like conuters, better to have stuff that outperforms me than underperforms my needs, right?

yes and no. there's a large monetary cost to keeping a large capability margin that isn't linear with the size of that margin. furthermore, using gear with limitations can force you to get creative. this, in particular, is why i love primes.

I have one l lens, the 70-200f4, and it consistently gives me a better image quality. My other lenses I have to work abit harder to get the same sharpness and colour. It's not impossible, but I gnerally just trust it to do it's job more consistently so I can foCus on just the images.

what do you mean by image quality? is it sharper? if so, do you have a consumer level tele zoom (if not, your teles will naturally be superior to your normals and wides) and is it significantly sharper than that? similarly with contrast, etc. if you have some intuition like this after shooting your lenses, try to turn that intuition into a quantitative notion. i think you'll find that a) the differences are smaller than you think and b) regardless, this experimentation will help you to get to know your equipment better, which can only improve your shooting. i've spent a fair amount of time shooting boring test patterns with all my gear specifically so that i can pre-visualize the result of shooting something with each of my lenses. have a lens that's not sharp in the corners wide open? use it to your advantage in your compositions (although don't pay too much for it of course :X)

the wide aperture is not just about dof. If you do a lot if lowlight shooting, the wider the better.

this is pretty debatable.

counter-argument 1: if you walk into a mine to shoot a piece of coal, sure it would be nice to have an f0.9 superlens to try to handhold the shot, but that gigantic aperture is going to make pretty much the entire frame out of focus (unless the piece of coal exactly matches the curvature of field...) and ultimately the picture, although it may be bright enough and acceptably sharp along the several pixels in dof, will be crap. you would have been better off learning how to add light to a scene or support for a longer exposure.

counter-argument 2: a larger sensor would also have given you a stop or two more SNR. this may not get you back all of the DOF, but it won't introduce any optical aberrations like a huge aperture will, will work for all of your lenses, and may actually end up being cheaper for you.

Good advice all round. And why I have an 85mm f1.8. It's fantastic. I bought it second hand! In some ways it's better than an 85l. I'm not afraid of using it, it's lighter, and focuses faster. An probably has 90% of the image quality.

i'd go for the 85/1.8 on the canon side too. the major benefit of the L is a _completely_ flat field. this is, coincidentally, why it does so well on (the very common on the internet) flat field MTF tests. the maximum aperture is too big for 99.99999% of portraits, quite frankly, unless the subject of your portraiture is the milky way.

 

[Nachkebia]

Oh, I love my Nikon and Zeiss Rangefinder setup, my most loved lenses are Nikon 28mm f/1.4 and Zeiss ZM 25mm f/2.8

 

[fart]

Oh, I love my Nikon and Zeiss Rangefinder setup, my most loved lenses are Nikon 28mm f/1.4

i only got this far before extreme jealousy kicked in. clearly NONE OF US ARE IMMUNE

 

[Rentahamster]

if you walk into a mine to shoot a piece of coal, sure it would be nice to have an f0.9 superlens to try to handhold the shot, but that gigantic aperture is going to make pretty much the entire frame out of focus (unless the piece of coal exactly matches the curvature of field...) and ultimately the picture, although it may be bright enough and acceptably sharp along the several pixels in dof, will be crap. you would have been better off learning how to add light to a scene or support for a longer exposure.

Yeah, if low light is a problem, look for other solutions.

1) Super expensive wide aperture pro lens - way too expensive

2) Relatively cheap wide enough lens - a decent choice

3) Learn how to handhold at slowshutter speeds - a bit difficult, but doable.

4) use a tripod - not that hard to do, but sucks when you are shooting on the move

5) use a flash - not that hard to do if using TTL and direct flash - but your pictures end up looking kinda crappy

6) use a flash and bounce it off the ceiling/wall - can still use TTL, but you must be mindful of the color of the ceiling as well as how much power you stand to lose due to distance, as well as the quality of the bounced light. Requires an external hot shoe flash that can be had for as cheap as $100.

7) Use off camera flash(es) along with different kinds of light modifiers (umbrella, softboxes, reflectors, etc.) - requires a lot of technical skill and knowhow. can be done via TTL, but requires direct line of site for the infrared systems. Good quality wireless trigger/receivers can get a little pricey. There are budget options available, however.

 

[fart]

i exclusively use the nikon IR (actually manual, not TTL) system for off-camera right now and it's not direct line of sight per se, but yes it's quite limited compared to a good radio unit.

you can also add modifiers to your pop-up flash for cheap

 

[Always-honest]

The 70-200/2.8 IS is supposed to be a beast though, something not as enjoyable to lug around. Getting a 135L and a monopod would be a nice combo (its probably what I'll do). But I've seen very low light shots with the 135L without external stabilization.

it's my biggest wannahave in the world. everypicture taken with it has a certain extra quality.
lots of people don't see it though. but i certainly do. amazing!!!

 

[Nachkebia]

i only got this far before extreme jealousy kicked in. clearly NONE OF US ARE IMMUNE

You know, I bought brand new for $900 :lol

 

[Jefklak]

Something relevant could be in here but I'd like to ask anyway. My dad has an old, very heavyweight tripod, which I sometimes lend. But it's a beast to carry around or take on a trip, and believe me I tried. Before I'm able to carry the thing around and put it where I want it to be, most of the things I want to snap are already gone. Stupid impatient birds. I don't really want to go for a pod instead. So the question.

Is there a website or an article which lists recommended tripods for amateurs? I have no idea about any of this, not even an average price. I just want the thing to be easy to carry around, so preferably lightweight. But I heard a good tripod has to be heavy for balance etc. So, which tripod's up for this job?

Mind you, I'm no pro photographer at all, and I don't wish to spend a lot of money on that either. Thanks GAF.

 

[Rentahamster]

Something relevant could be in here but I'd like to ask anyway. My dad has an old, very heavyweight tripod, which I sometimes lend. But it's a beast to carry around or take on a trip, and believe me I tried. Before I'm able to carry the thing around and put it where I want it to be, most of the things I want to snap are already gone. Stupid impatient birds. I don't really want to go for a pod instead. So the question.

Is there a website or an article which lists recommended tripods for amateurs? I have no idea about any of this, not even an average price. I just want the thing to be easy to carry around, so preferably lightweight. But I heard a good tripod has to be heavy for balance etc. So, which tripod's up for this job?

Mind you, I'm no pro photographer at all, and I don't wish to spend a lot of money on that either. Thanks GAF.

Eh, if you don't want to spend a lot of money, just buy a cheapo Quantary or something for $20.


But anyway, why are you using a tripod to take pictures of birds? Just do it handheld or use a monopod if you have a huge lens.

 

[Jefklak]

I was dragging the thing along because I saw a nice landscape and wanted a pic out of that, but I also noticed two birds sitting in the nearby tree without moving too much. I did try to snag it without the tripod but at 300mm, holding my breath and leaning against another tree, I got a decent pic but no great one:

But anyway, by spending a lot of money, I mean +$200. I know camera equipment can get pricey very soon so I don't mind as long as it's under that one.
Edit: no 200 but 300mm according to EXIF.

 

[fart]

for 200 you can get a nice bogen setup, either the 190 or the bigger one. bogen head not good for birding as the head doesn't have friction control. pick up the legset with the midrange cullman magnesit head if you want to bird

20$ quantaray is better off skipped

You know, I bought brand new for $900

urge to kill, rising

 

[Hcoregamer00]

It's nice to want high quality stuff but one has to be realistic. You either make your money back on the equipment you buy, or you spend your money on a really expensive hobby.

In lieu of money to spend on pro equipment, you can always increase the quality of your photos with practice and learning to use what you have effectively.

That's true, the lens I have right now is very good at what it does. My problem with my lens made itself apparent during Anime Expo. For the most part, the pictures turned out great since the lighting in the LACC was awesome. Then I attended a main event called Masquerade, it was in a place with very low lighting and the actors were moving very fast.

It was one of the times where I thought it would be more convenient to get a lens that has a lower f stop so I could freeze motion better. The lens is excellent and I learned quite a bit working with the limitations. The problem is that the limitations are become more and more apparent to me.

Going with "L lenses" is not my only option. I considered buying a prime lens with a wide aperture (50mm f1.4). The problem is reliability, after reading many reviews that tell stories of dropping the lens on carpet and having it be completely broken, I am a little weary of buying it. If this lens was more reliable, I would have jumped on it with zero hesitation. It is this balance that makes buying lenses hard, the best stuff is expensive, they also are more reliable.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Going with "L lenses" is not my only option. I considered buying a prime lens with a wide aperture (50mm f1.4). The problem is reliability, after reading many reviews that tell stories of dropping the lens on carpet and having it be completely broken, I am a little weary of buying it. If this lens was more reliable, I would have jumped on it with zero hesitation. It is this balance that makes buying lenses hard, the best stuff is expensive, they also are more reliable.

I would seriously consider the 50/1.8 for emergency low light scenarios. Its cheap and doesn't have the Auto Focus drive issues the 1.4 version has. Of course, that'll partially be moot if you get the 70-200/2.8 IS (the 50/1.8 will still have one and a bit light stops over that lens).

 

[Hcoregamer00]

I would seriously consider the 50/1.8 for emergency low light scenarios. Its cheap and doesn't have the Auto Focus drive issues the 1.4 version has. Of course, that'll partially be moot if you get the 70-200/2.8 IS (the 50/1.8 will still have one and a bit light stops over that lens).

Well, you don't have to worry about me buying the 5 pound beast called the 70-200 f/2.8L with IS just because the price is way above what I can afford right now. If I go L, my only option is the 24-70 f/2.8L, which I read is comparable to the 50mm f1.4 in sharpness at f/2.8. I also read that both lenses outclass the 50mm f/1.2L in sharpness from f/2.8 onwards.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Well, you don't have to worry about me buying the 5 pound beast called the 70-200 f/2.8L with IS just because the price is way above what I can afford right now. If I go L, my only option is the 24-70 f/2.8L, which I read is comparable to the 50mm f1.4 in sharpness at f/2.8. I also read that both lenses outclass the 50mm f/1.2L in sharpness from f/2.8 onwards.

The general consensus with Primes vs. Zooms seems to be that Primes are only really useful when shot wide open or at apertures that go larger than Zooms. Meaning all lenses (Zooms or Primes) will basically equal out (IQ wise) at smaller apertures.

With that said, the 24-70/2.8 is supposed to be THE normal zoom lens for Canon. Got regular wide and longer focal lengths with nice speed.

On another note, I don't know why I'm looking at it but here's a link to a review/assessment of Canons 200mm f/2 ($5000 lens)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Specifically the changes in DoF when various apertures are used. f/2 at that focal length is ridunculous.

 

[Ovid]

Can someone recommend a really, really, really, really good SLR camera.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

The general consensus with Primes vs. Zooms seems to be that Primes are only really useful when shot wide open or at apertures that go larger than Zooms. Meaning all lenses (Zooms or Primes) will basically equal out at smaller apertures.

With that said, the 24-70/2.8 is supposed to be THE normal zoom lens for Canon. Got regular wide and longer focal lengths with nice speed.

On another note, I don't know why I'm looking at it but here's a link to a review/assessment of Canons 200mm f/2 ($5000 lens)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Specifically the changes in DoF when various apertures are used. f/2 at that focal length is ridunculous.

Really? I had no idea about that. I love this thread, so many great opinions and helpful advice. I was reading reviews on the 50mm primes, and apparently the 50mm f/1.4 is soft between f/1.4 and f/2. From f/2 onwards is is great, but from f/2.8, the 50mm prime has image quality on par with the L lenses. Thanks for the great information, it gives me lots of stuff to think about.

As for the 24-70mm 2.8, the professional photographer was nice enough to let me borrow it for a moment (that wedding was freaking awesome on so many levels, from a photographer standpoint) and I can understand why this lens is considered one of the best canon lenses in the entire lineup.

The only downside is weight, the lens is almost as heavy as my rented 70-200L 2.8 glass.

Can someone recommend a really, really, really, really good SLR camera.

What is your price range? I may be a Canon person, but I would gladly recommend other brands once I know what you want to do and your price range.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Really? I had no idea about that. I love this thread, so many great opinions and helpful advice. I was reading reviews on the 50mm primes, and apparently the 50mm f/1.4 is soft between f/1.4 and f/2. From f/2 onwards is is great, but from f/2.8, the 50mm prime has image quality on par with the L lenses. Thanks for the great information, it gives me lots of stuff to think about.

Around f/5.6 to f/8 is where Primes and Zooms meet (of course, I'm generalizing a bit). Generally lenses aren't the best when wide open (mentioning that since a prime with a maximum aperture of f/1.4 @ f/2.8 vs. a Zoom wide open at 2.8, the prime will probably be sharper). It all depends on the lens in the end (the Canon 200/2 wide open is probably sharper than most other lenses, closed down a bit).

But yeah, the 50/1.4 has a very dreamy IQ when shot wide open. It gets very sharp by f/2 though and critically sharp in the center at f/2.8. Its pretty much considered almost as good as its L brother (the L version is very contrasty though, even wide open)

 

[captive]

Can someone recommend a really, really, really, really good SLR camera.

a really really really really good slr for what?

All brands make good gear. But pretty much everyone here is going to recommend you nothing but CaNikon stuff.


@Bluestunami and that aperture convo, exactly why I went oly, corner to corner sharpness wide open on many of their lenses including their midrange gear.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

a really really really really good slr for what?

All brands make good gear. But pretty much everyone here is going to recommend you nothing but CaNikon stuff.

Nope, I disagree.

When it comes to the lower and midrange SLR's, Pentax and Sony are kicking a lot of butt lately. I am certainly hoping that CaNikon are paying attention to the many innovations Pentax and Sony brought to the DSLR market, because we Canon and Nikon owners are starting to get left behind.

I will admit, I am very jealous that Pentax is introducing weather sealing to the lower end SLR's and introducing pro-level sealing at the midrange SLR's.

Around f/5.6 to f/8 is where Primes and Zooms meet (of course, I'm generalizing a bit). Generally lenses aren't the best when wide open (mentioning that since a prime with a maximum aperture of f/1.4 @ f/2.8 vs. a Zoom wide open at 2.8, the prime will probably be sharper). It all depends on the lens in the end (the Canon 200/2 wide open is probably sharper than most other lenses, closed down a bit).

But yeah, the 50/1.4 has a very dreamy IQ when shot wide open. It gets very sharp by f/2 though and critically sharp in the center at f/2.8. Its pretty much considered almost as good as its L brother (the L version is very contrasty though, even wide open)

BlueTsunami, your input is a pleasure to read.

It brings me to the million dollar question, in the long run do you recommend the 50mm f/1.4 or the 24-70mm f/2.8L for low lighting shots?

 

[BlueTsunami]

BlueTsunami, your input is a pleasure to read.

It brings me to the million dollar question, in the long run do you recommend the 50mm f/1.4 or the 24-70mm f/2.8L for low lighting shots?

Thanks! and let me first off state that the price difference between the two is pretty big. But usefulness? You would have to like the 50mm a lot to buy a prime at that focal length. But considering conventions and whatnot, where lighting may be bad but not candlelight bad, the speed of the 24-70mm will probably be adequate.

Just to expand a bit on 50mm lenses. Its a perfectly middle ground focal length for portraits and environmental full body shots on Full Frame. Even on a crop you can get this versatility from it. You basically have to keep moving around and to acquire the right angle and distance for framing shots.

 

[captive]

Nope, I disagree.

When it comes to the lower and midrange SLR's, Pentax and Sony are kicking a lot of butt lately. I am certainly hoping that CaNikon are paying attention to the many innovations Pentax and Sony brought to the DSLR market, because we Canon and Nikon owners are starting to get left behind.

I will admit, I am very jealous that Pentax is introducing weather sealing to the lower end SLR's and introducing pro-level sealing at the midrange SLR's.

I dont know how you can disagree. Nothing i said was factually incorrect.
All the brands do make good gear.
tarius1210 didnt give us a price range or what he wants to do with the camera, so its hard to recommend much based off of "a really really really good SLR." For my needs my E-30 covers that very well.(But none of the 'regulars' here would even think about recommending an Oly system and some have gone as far to call Oly a useless investment)

And I would throw Oly into the sony and pentax "innovating" mix as well, Oly brought live view and in body IS among other things to the table, which everyone has copied in some form or fashion.

 

[mrkgoo]

I would recommend starting with the 50mm f/1.8 to see if you really like it. Does a lot of what the 1.4 does. Most gear outperforms the users needs in my opinion.