Support NeoGAF

[Ty4on]

High end apcs cameras nowadays are almost nearing the picture quality of FF cameras. But FF still trumps it on ISO sensitivity, DR, resolution, and focal length effectiveness.

The same improvements available for APS-C are also there for FF to improve picture quality.

I must be one of the only ones who care about it, but for me the big advantage of FF is way cheaper glass. Thanks to the larger sensor the glass doesn't have to be as sharp for the same resolution. There is also so much old, forgotten glass which still performs well. The Canon 100-300 f5.6l and 50-200 f3.5-4.5l have horrible AF and look nasty, but feature really high end glass (1 fluorite element for the former, 2 for the latter) and cost like 300$ used now. The latter is super rare though. Fluorite glass is only found in the most expensive telephoto lenses (think 500mm f2.8) and is the best glass for low CA. Telephoto designs induce CA hence the requirement for special glass in all high end telephoto lenses.

Insane to me that they can get way with such high prices for 35mm and 50mm 1.8s.

Canon's 35mm f2 with IS is 600$ and they have patented a 50mm 1.8 with IS which will probably also cost a fair bit more than the 50mm 1.8.

I'm waiting for Sony to put IBIS in lower end model, then a wide 2.8 will be all I need instead of paying an arm and a leg for a wide 1.8 or 1.4.
My XM-1 with 27mm 2.8 would be a perfectly, inexpensive, casual camera if only it had IBIS.

I'd say this is looking more and more likely. It will be interesting to see what a fractured lineup like that will look like and my dream is either Nikon or Canon will jump on board. Every Canon EF-lens transmits its focal length (for the AF system) and would work with IBIS.

So, I'm a little torn.

On one hand, I could save up for the official Sony 35mm (which it seems has a really nice aperture and macro), but I'm wondering this: Can cropping more or less replace having a variance in men's focal lengths?

What I mean is, if I took a photo with a 50mm, and then took a photo with a 35mm, and cropped the 35mm, could I end up with two nearly identical photos? I know that the 50mm would end up having better detail resolution when zoomed up close, but if I'm mainly taking 1920x1080 masters, then is there any particular advantage to having both? Or can cropping + a 35mm take care of 90% of my needs, short of telephoto?

Cropping will also not give you the same DOF for the same reason smaller sensors have more DOF (they use wider lenses for the same perspective). High ISO will also look worse for obvious reasons.
Other than that and sharpness it'd be identical. The 35mm days really made people believe focal length had some special connection to field of view

 

[Astral/H3X]

So wait, is there more pronounced DOF effect with shorter lenses? Or less?

Also is there a good way to search the old manual focus lenses? Since any of them would need an adapter, I'd like to pull from a bigger pool than just manually searching.

Ie, is there a way I could punch in "manual focus only, 35mm, sort from aperture?"
I found one site that allowed me to search for manual lenses, but not anything else.

 

[RuGalz]

I'd say this is looking more and more likely. It will be interesting to see what a fractured lineup like that will look like and my dream is either Nikon or Canon will jump on board. Every Canon EF-lens transmits its focal length (for the AF system) and would work with IBIS.

They've been spending years educating people why IBIS is bad I don't think it will happen Besides, with in lens IS, they can do minor upgrades to the lenses and call it a new version. Lens sales are more profitable than cameras.

So wait, is there more pronounced DOF effect with shorter lenses? Or less?

You have more DOF with shorter lenses.

 

[Ty4on]

So wait, is there more pronounced DOF effect with shorter lenses? Or less?

Also is there a good way to search the old manual focus lenses? Since any of them would need an adapter, I'd like to pull from a bigger pool than just manually searching.

Ie, is there a way I could punch in "manual focus only, 35mm, sort from aperture?"
I found one site that allowed me to search for manual lenses, but not anything else.

Longer focal lengths have less DOF. You see this when you zoom in even with a variable aperture.

That is video from the Minolta 70-210 f4.

The f-number is what you have to divide the focal length with to get the aperture size so a 25mm f1, 50mm f2 and 100mm f4 lens all have the same aperture size. They would also all have the same DOF when focused at the same distance hence the need to multiply apertures with the crop factor to determine DOF.

They've been spending years educating people why IBIS is bad I don't think it will happen Besides, with in lens IS, they can do minor upgrades to the lenses and call it a new version. Lens sales are more profitable than cameras.

This is why cynical me will be buying ancient cameras and lenses
A new FF mirrorless mount for Nikon and/or Canon would be great for me because imagine all the cheap gear that would flood the market.
That said I got a little bit of hope from Sony though with the A7 where they proved they weren't afraid of cannibalizing other products to give consumers a better product. They aren't afraid of targeting the A7 to people using adapted lenses.

 

[RuGalz]

This is why cynical me will be buying ancient cameras and lenses
A new FF mirrorless mount for Nikon and/or Canon would be great for me because imagine all the cheap gear that would flood the market.
That said I got a little bit of hope from Sony though with the A7 where they proved they weren't afraid of cannibalizing other products to give consumers a better product. They aren't afraid of targeting the A7 to people using adapted lenses.

Yea, likewise. Pentax just announced FF so I'm looking forward to pick up some cheap APS-C gear, although, technically, I don't need anything at this point.

I think Sony was able to do what they did because they don't really have an large, existing market to protect. It also just happened that mirrorless market plays well with their strength in electronics background. I'm not sold on their system yet, but I'm also not in a hurry to move over to MILC. Adopting lens to E-mount seems to suffer around the borders, probably cuz the flange distance is so small and the lenses are not designed to correct that. (I don't know anything about optics design so maybe I'm wrong.) Even the native Zeiss 35mm has huge vignetting wide open if you don't let camera correct it.

 

[Ty4on]

I think Sony was able to do what they did because they don't really have an large, existing market to protect. It also just happened that mirrorless market plays well with their strength in electronics background. I'm not sold on their system yet, but I'm also not in a hurry to move over to MILC. Adopting lens to E-mount seems to suffer around the borders, probably cuz the flange distance is so small and the lenses are not designed to correct that. (I don't know anything about optics design so maybe I'm wrong.) Even the native Zeiss 35mm has huge vignetting wide open if you don't let camera correct it.

The reduced corner performance is because of the sensor stack. The glass on top of the sensor is thicker on mirrorless cameras and while the A7 has thinner glass than most mirrorless cameras it's still thicker than on most FF cameras.

Two things heavily affect this. First is aperture (the effect is quickly reduced to nill when the lens is stopped down) and second is distance from exit pupil. Both are easier to understand if we visualize the cone of light (with my poorly drawn diagram).

I always forget how to make brushes smaller in Gimp.
As the cone gets bigger/wider (aperture is bigger) and more scewed (exit pupil put closer to sensor) the edges travel a different distance through the sensor stack (gray) and are affected differently. This is quite bad news for those using a lot of rangefinder glass, but not too bad for those using SLR glass unless they have specific needs like astrophotography.
Here are some theoretical MTF figures using an imaginary perfect lens. Lensrentals also tested a special A7R with a smaller sensor stack.
It's important to remember that this sensor stack is just another piece of glass and will have different results on different lenses. You can see from this Leica how the 2 mm sensor stack improve the sagittal resolution and something between 0 and 2 could maybe minimize astigmatism (difference between dashed and straight line).

Yea, likewise. Pentax just announced FF so I'm looking forward to pick up some cheap APS-C gear, although, technically, I don't need anything at this point.

Cool to finally see that is coming. It looks very high end though with those lenses, but it might still push prices down. I wonder what they will focus on other than weather sealing.

 

[RuGalz]

^
cool that makes sense for adopted lenses. thanks

I don't expect any surprises with the FF. It should be the similar technology they put into 654z and K3 to minimize their R&D and production cost.

 

[Groof]

So Olympus announced a bunch of new cool stuff. The two I found most interesting:

Olympus Air clip-on camera for smartphones. Similar to Sony's QX1, it's basically a M43 mount for your smartphone that you can attach lenses to.

OM-D E-M5 II with 40MP high resolution mode. I think this one looks real interesting. Even has the flip out screen to the sides for enhanced selfie opportunities. Improved 5-axis IS as well.

 

[RuGalz]

Cool to see the high resolution pic using sensor shifting technology finally materialized. It's been in the talks forever but I guess it's finally do-able on smaller sensor.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

The new OM-D really looks sexy.

 

[Futureman]

I'm looking at purchasing the Samyang/Rokinon 85 1.4.

are they both the same exact lens? Don't really like the gold on the Samyang so I guess I'll go Rok...

 

[Futureman]

actually looks like some of the Roks have the gold. Ha!

there's one on Fred Miranda for $220 I might get...

anyone here have this lens?

I currently only have a 50mm prime and 17-40 zoom.

 

[Lender]

I'm looking at purchasing the Samyang/Rokinon 85 1.4.

are they both the same exact lens? Don't really like the gold on the Samyang so I guess I'll go Rok...

I thought Rokinon and Samyang were the same, just depends on the location. Over here I can easily find Samyang while Rokinon is pretty much non-existant over here. (Belgium)

Correct me if I'm wrong though.

 

[Ty4on]

Cool to see the high resolution pic using sensor shifting technology finally materialized. It's been in the talks forever but I guess it's finally do-able on smaller sensor.

Yeah, especially as it is able to sample every color giving us sharp pictures free from color moiré.
While trying to study the effects of the X-trans layout on fine detail saw a lot of nasty stuff interpolated by RAW processers.
(Don't quote me on saying it is bad, the smudged color details are probably what make high ISO pictures so free from color noise.)

I'm looking at purchasing the Samyang/Rokinon 85 1.4.

are they both the same exact lens? Don't really like the gold on the Samyang so I guess I'll go Rok...

They're all the same. Samyang lenses have a bunch of different names like Bower, Rokinon and even Vivitar depending on the market. I see gold on the Rokinon version as well though.

 

[mrklaw]

Just seen the new canon camera announcements. I'm happy to see the 750/760D - adding a rear dial and top screen to the 760 for a relatively low cost should be attractive to many photographers that wanted more flexible controls but couldn't justify stepping up to the next model

 

[Radec]

Just saw the Helios 85mm 1.5

:O

As far as dynamic range is concerned, we're told that the new 5DS and 5DS R should give the same performance as the current EOS 5D Mark III. If true, this means that the new cameras won't be able to offer the same industry-leading dynamic range of Sony's current APS-C and full-frame sensors, but at least it isn't a step backwards. And hey - 50MP!

welp.

So Canon just jump it to 50MP without improving its DR?

Then same noise performance as the 5DM2

 

[Thraktor]

welp.

So Canon just jump it to 50MP without improving its DR?

Then same noise performance as the 5DM2

In general, smaller photosites reduce dynamic range (see Sony's 24MP and 36MP FF sensors), so it would have been asking a lot to expect them to increase both resolution and dynamic range dramatically in one go.

And regarding noise performance, they're talking about per-pixel noise, and as there are more than twice as many pixels as the 5D MkII images should be significantly less noisy when viewed at the same size.

 

[DBT85]

I imagine this is going to be their studio and landscape camera and something a little smaller will be out later as the 5DIV with a higher ISO and more FPS.

 

[ana]

And Nikon D5 rumours:

New 20MP FX sensor
173 autofocus points
Same processor as the D4s
Body design similar to the D4s
Currently scheduled to be announced in the second half of 2015
With the D5 Nikon is also rumored to announce a new 24-70mm f/2.8 (PF?) VR lens

 

[diaspora]

I imagine this is going to be their studio and landscape camera and something a little smaller will be out later as the 5DIV with a higher ISO and more FPS.

It is. This camera isn't a successor, but a lateral release to the 5D3.

 

[Ty4on]

In general, smaller photosites reduce dynamic range (see Sony's 24MP and 36MP FF sensors), so it would have been asking a lot to expect them to increase both resolution and dynamic range dramatically in one go.

And regarding noise performance, they're talking about per-pixel noise, and as there are more than twice as many pixels as the 5D MkII images should be significantly less noisy when viewed at the same size.

I've never seen the D800 having less dynamic range than the D600/D610/D750. Usually the opposite. DXOmark meassured 14.4 stops for both the D800 and D610 and I don't think a single Canon has hit 12 stops.

I think Canon's issue with dynamic range may lie outside of the sensor. You can see from DPReview's review of the D750 that pushing ISO 100 to 6400 looks like native 6400. We know that Canon's sensors have similar high ISO performance so while the sensor is able to capture that detail it is for whatever reason lost when shooting at lower ISOs.

 

[RuGalz]

I think Canon's issue with dynamic range may lie outside of the sensor. You can see from DPReview's review of the D750 that pushing ISO 100 to 6400 looks like native 6400. We know that Canon's sensors have similar high ISO performance so while the sensor is able to capture that detail it is for whatever reason lost when shooting at lower ISOs.

OTOH, I can't imagine why they'd purposely cripple the DR some how, especially on the high end bodies. The DR performance on Canon always catches me off guard when I have raw files from multiple brands of cameras from the similar scene to work with.

Sure it falls off slower but I think I'd rather have higher max...

 

[thenexus6]

Reading up / watching video on the new EOS M3. I don't use my original EOS M much but I really like it, and the improvements on the M3 look good. It's something I would definitely be interested in the future. I hope the recent hardware announcement also includes some mew EF-M lenses.

 

[giga]

Let's drop that 5d3 under $2k on the refurb store, please.

 

[Futureman]

Let's drop that 5d3 under $2k on the refurb store, please.

With the 5Ds and rumours of Mark IV this Fall, I was looking up the resale value of my 5D2. Kinda shocked it was under $1k then I realized I've owned it for almost 6 years. Crazy how time flies.

I'm getting pretty serious about freelance photography lately though and if I ever need a back up body I might just hang onto the 5D2 and buy the IV as my main body. I don't really have IQ complaints, but reading about Canon's DR issue on here... It'll be interesting to see how the IV performs if it is indeed released this Fall.

 

[Thraktor]

I've never seen the D800 having less dynamic range than the D600/D610/D750. Usually the opposite. DXOmark meassured 14.4 stops for both the D800 and D610 and I don't think a single Canon has hit 12 stops.

I think Canon's issue with dynamic range may lie outside of the sensor. You can see from DPReview's review of the D750 that pushing ISO 100 to 6400 looks like native 6400. We know that Canon's sensors have similar high ISO performance so while the sensor is able to capture that detail it is for whatever reason lost when shooting at lower ISOs.

It does seem you're right. I seem to remember reading DPReview's reviews of the A7 and A7R stating that the A7 had better dynamic range, but I just checked over it and the curves are almost identical.

Is it possible that Canon's sensors actually have a base ISO higher than 100? It would explain why dynamic range is comparable to Sony at higher ISOs but dips at low ISOs, and it would explain why, according to DPReviews tests, the dynamic range is limited in the highlights, but extends quite well in the shadows, which you would expect from a sensor which is overexposing and then pulling down to match the stated ISO.

 

[SpyGuy239]

Hi GAF, help me out here

Just to start things off, been shooting with DSLRs for few years now, but still very much an amateur. I currently shoot with a Canon 70D

So going travelling around a few places in Europe in a few months. Previously whenever I traveled around I always took my trusty Canon 18-200mm lens, you know cause it's so convenient and I can reach everything at anytime with no need for lens changing.

But just over the last 4 months I have moved over to Canon's 35mm Prime f/2 IS and I am in love with the quality of shots I get with it especially the bokeh and the night shots thanks to the great aperture. Generally the focal length is fine cause on a crop sensor it is like shooting with a 50mm on a full frame. Another advantage is without having the different focal lengths available, I spend more time composing my shot than fiddling with the zoom on the lens which I admit I tend to do when I'm rocking the 18-200mm. Thing is I also find that I really like taking landscape photos so I with the 35mm I obviously have to work with what I have to create my own panoramas.

Now just last month I got my Canon 10-18mm IS and hot damn, this is the Ultra Wide that I've been looking for. Needless to say, thanks to the f/4.5 it isn't great in low light situations without a tripod.

So the question (or tl;dr) what lenses do I rock for my next trip? Bring the 10-18mm and the 35mm and swap them around as necessary at the risk of getting sick of it and in the end sticking to just one of them lenses? OR stick it out with my tried and true 18-200mm which gives great images but they wouldn't always blow you away?

Appreciate all suggestions etc.

Thanks GAF. Love.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

Went shopping yesterday and got the Sony FE 35mm 2.8.

The lens is tiny (especially with the hood detached) and lightweight wich is exactly what i was after. The aperture is not that stellar, but for low light situations i have my Minolta 50mm 1.4.

 

[Sec0nd]

Hi GAF, help me out here

Just to start things off, been shooting with DSLRs for few years now, but still very much an amateur. I currently shoot with a Canon 70D

So going travelling around a few places in Europe in a few months. Previously whenever I traveled around I always took my trusty Canon 18-200mm lens, you know cause it's so convenient and I can reach everything at anytime with no need for lens changing.

But just over the last 4 months I have moved over to Canon's 35mm Prime f/2 IS and I am in love with the quality of shots I get with it especially the bokeh and the night shots thanks to the great aperture. Generally the focal length is fine cause on a crop sensor it is like shooting with a 50mm on a full frame. Another advantage is without having the different focal lengths available, I spend more time composing my shot than fiddling with the zoom on the lens which I admit I tend to do when I'm rocking the 18-200mm. Thing is I also find that I really like taking landscape photos so I with the 35mm I obviously have to work with what I have to create my own panoramas.

Now just last month I got my Canon 10-18mm IS and hot damn, this is the Ultra Wide that I've been looking for. Needless to say, thanks to the f/4.5 it isn't great in low light situations without a tripod.

So the question (or tl;dr) what lenses do I rock for my next trip? Bring the 10-18mm and the 35mm and swap them around as necessary at the risk of getting sick of it and in the end sticking to just one of them lenses? OR stick it out with my tried and true 18-200mm which gives great images but they wouldn't always blow you away?

Appreciate all suggestions etc.

Thanks GAF. Love.

Where are you traveling in Europe? If it's mostly the big cities I'd probably bring the 35mm along with the wide angle just in case. The two times I traveled Europe I brought my fugly kit lens and the 50 1.8. I loved the image quality of the 50mm but hated the fact it had waaaay too much magnification for city / street photography. Ended up shooting pretty much everything with the kitlens at the 18-35mm area.

 

[Forsete]

I wonder if a A7S II is in the works?

 

[RuGalz]

So the question (or tl;dr) what lenses do I rock for my next trip? Bring the 10-18mm and the 35mm and swap them around as necessary at the risk of getting sick of it and in the end sticking to just one of them lenses? OR stick it out with my tried and true 18-200mm which gives great images but they wouldn't always blow you away?

Depends on where you are going and if you are traveling with people. My rule usually is if I'm traveling with people who may not be too patient with photography (more often than not), bring whatever is the most convenient. I'd probably bring 10-18 and 18-200 in your case. 10-18 is 2 stops slower than 35 but with IS you should be able to match it or close to matching it in low light, hand-held situation with practice. I tend not to skip the longer end even in the cities because that's good for capturing some details but that's probably only 5% of the photos. So if your style is usually wide, then bring 10-18 and 35.

I wonder if a A7S II is in the works?

It's Sony, I'm sure all variations are in the work...

 

[Forsete]

It's Sony, I'm sure all variations are in the work...

Yup.
Would be a waste not to have the new image stabilization with that magnificent A7S sensor.

Time to start saving!

 

[Rimshot]

Anyone had the change to look/hold a D5500 yet?
It serums it got quite good press from CES, and stores here are showens it as in stock recently.

 

[Tablo]

Just wanna pop in and say I'm loving my X100T (had it for a bit over a month, returned the X100S for it, the latter I had since November), great images and I'm the one bottlenecking what it can do, also really need a calibrated monitor for Lightfoot (love the flexibility of the RAWs, JPEGs sooc are pretty spot on though most of the time).

I will say if I ever accrue enough funding for another camera purchase the EM5 MKII is top of my list! Would be awesome for not perfect weather and less than ideal conditions.

Great video capabilities and size put it above the XT1 for me, can't justify a high end MILC if the video is unusable like Fuji...

 

[Flo_Evans]

It does seem you're right. I seem to remember reading DPReview's reviews of the A7 and A7R stating that the A7 had better dynamic range, but I just checked over it and the curves are almost identical.

Is it possible that Canon's sensors actually have a base ISO higher than 100? It would explain why dynamic range is comparable to Sony at higher ISOs but dips at low ISOs, and it would explain why, according to DPReviews tests, the dynamic range is limited in the highlights, but extends quite well in the shadows, which you would expect from a sensor which is overexposing and then pulling down to match the stated ISO.

Yes. The rule with canons to get the best results was always to use a multiple of 160 ISO. Seems like all other settings are software, not actually varying the voltage at the pixel.

There are tons of diffrent opinion on this, but facts don't lie, ISO 100 is noisier on canon sensors than ISO 160.

 

[tr4656]

Great video capabilities and size put it above the XT1 for me, can't justify a high end MILC if the video is unusable like Fuji...

How often do you even take video?

 

[Tablo]

How often do you even take video?

True but I'd like that ability in a pinch with decent quality if I got an ILC.
Since my X100T is a stills camera basically.

 

[SpyGuy239]

GAF I want to ask, how does the quality and sharpness of image compare between the Canon 35mm f/2 IS and the Canon 17-35mm f/2.8 IS?

I currently have the 35mm Prime, but was thinking of getting the 17-m5mm as the f/2.8 is really attractive especially at 17mm for low light photography.

However cost is a concern, and if the image quality cannot compare to the 35mm prime, then I will have to rethink my decision.

**as mentioned in earlier posts, I also have a Canon 10-18mm which i got recently as a present.

To be fair I like the idea of not having to change my lenses with the 17-55mm while having the f/2.8 at all focal lengths. But I don't know it's really costly.

Is it worth it? Dissuade me GAF

 

[Flo_Evans]

GAF I want to ask, how does the quality and sharpness of image compare between the Canon 35mm f/2 IS and the Canon 17-35mm f/2.8 IS?

I currently have the 35mm Prime, but was thinking of getting the 17-m5mm as the f/2.8 is really attractive especially at 17mm for low light photography.

However cost is a concern, and if the image quality cannot compare to the 35mm prime, then I will have to rethink my decision.

**as mentioned in earlier posts, I also have a Canon 10-18mm which i got recently as a present.

To be fair I like the idea of not having to change my lenses with the 17-55mm while having the f/2.8 at all focal lengths. But I don't know it's really costly.

Is it worth it? Dissuade me GAF

Not sure. Are you talking about the 17-35 EF-S or the 16-35 EF?

Okay I am pretty sure the prime will win in all categories (except convience).

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare

In all my lens research and personal testing I have never seen a zoom come even close the IQ of a prime.

 

[tr4656]

True but I'd like that ability in a pinch with decent quality if I got an ILC.
Since my X100T is a stills camera basically.

I don't know, I personally never use the video feature so I ended up just going with the Fuji set ups because you can get quality lens and use the same workflows for post on all images, whether its from my X-T1 or the X100T.

 

[Ty4on]

Is it worth it? Dissuade me GAF

For APSC I would look at the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 instead. With an ultrawide you're paying for those extreme corners so it seems counter intuitive to cut them off with a small sensor. The sigma is priced similarly IIRC and one of the sharpest APSC lenses out there beating expensive primes. It is quite huge though. The 16-35 f4 is also the only one I know of with IS. I'm petty sure all the f2.8 wide zooms from canon lack IS.

If you love wide angle lenses and low light performance you could also look at FF bodies like a used 6d. ISO performance should be a little over a stop better and there are some decent, cheaper wide angle lenses like the 17-40mm f4 that can help off set the cost. The 6d is rumored to get a successor eventually which tends to lower the price.

In all my lens research and personal testing I have never seen a zoom come even close the IQ of a prime.

Seems to happen all the time for me, especially with wide angle lenses. Many of the 24 and 28mm sold today that aren't super specialized have soft corner like their zoom counter parts and aren't that much faster (if any). I think the Canon 70-200 f2.8l is sharper than the 200 f2.8l.

 

[ShadowKingpin]

Still loving my 6D! I am about to purchase the Canon 135 L and some flashes for my portrait work and can't wait to try them out!

[/url]My baby <3 by astronomicalphotography, on Flickr[/IMG]

For anyone in the Mirrorless area, how are you all liking your cameras compared to owning DSLR's? I am extremely fascinated with these cameras and really considering purchasing a Sony A7 III or A7S II (If announced in the near future) since the A7 II looks great, but the terrible auto focus bothers me. Sony is SO CLOSE to making 'THE' camera to persuade more to move over from DSLR, but not yet. :S

 

[Astral/H3X]

So I think I've finally found a lens I want to get.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-FD-35...928?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5d546ff910
It's the Canon FD 35mm F/2. Does anyone have any opinions on this that might sway me? Is there a better lens for the price? I'm planning on this being my primary lens in general, outside of specific instances.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Seems to happen all the time for me, especially with wide angle lenses. Many of the 24 and 28mm sold today that aren't super specialized have soft corner like their zoom counter parts and aren't that much faster (if any). I think the Canon 70-200 f2.8l is sharper than the 200 f2.8l.

Canon sux IDK what to tell you

I actually did have and old nikon 24mm AF-D that was pure ass, not sure the problem with that focal length, I got it for like $100 off eBay though so I couldn't complain to much.

edit: I should probably add this comparison is flawed to say the least

 

[Ty4on]

I actually did have and old nikon 24mm AF-D that was pure ass, not sure the problem with that focal length, I got it for like $100 off eBay though so I couldn't complain to much.

edit: I should probably add this comparison is flawed to say the least

That Canon 70-200 is to my knowledge one of the best there is. The new 5DSR might make that easier to prove

Canon does have super primes like that 200 f2 (even a 200 f1.8, take that Nikon!), but they are always insanely expensive. A high end 70-200 f2.8 is usually $2000, but that 200 f2 is 6000. I've found that when you're comparing similarly priced lenses outside of the 40-100mm focal lengths the primes don't offer that much more. Especially when you consider that the zoom is usually a great lens at other focal lengths as well.

One big issue I know of is that Canon, Nikon and all the others all focus heavily on zooms in those price brackets meaning most primes are old designs. I also theorize that primes have the impression with most people of being sharper and can be sold for more. It's kinda silly that most f2.8 ultrawide zooms are cheaper than the Canon 14 f2.8. Especially when the Nikon 14-24 looks to be sharper.
Samyang may also be the proof that prime lenses that make sense economically aren't dead yet. Their 14 f2.8 has some odd distortion, but is also one of the sharpest ultrawides out there and only 300$. Its wide focal length and great performance wide open makes it ideal for astrophotography. They also have a 24 f1.4 for 500$ which still blows my mind.

Edit: So does Nikon's 20 f1.8 so maybe it is Canon after all

 

[Astral/H3X]

So wait, Samyang is basically an eco lens company that makes new manual lenses? Hrrrrmmmm.

 

[Ty4on]

So wait, Samyang is basically an eco lens company that makes new manual lenses? Hrrrrmmmm.

Yup. For mirrorless (APS-C) they have the 12mm f2.

 

[SpyGuy239]

Not sure. Are you talking about the 17-35 EF-S or the 16-35 EF?

Okay I am pretty sure the prime will win in all categories (except convience).

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare

In all my lens research and personal testing I have never seen a zoom come even close the IQ of a prime.

For APSC I would look at the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 instead. With an ultrawide you're paying for those extreme corners so it seems counter intuitive to cut them off with a small sensor. The sigma is priced similarly IIRC and one of the sharpest APSC lenses out there beating expensive primes. It is quite huge though. The 16-35 f4 is also the only one I know of with IS. I'm petty sure all the f2.8 wide zooms from canon lack IS.

If you love wide angle lenses and low light performance you could also look at FF bodies like a used 6d. ISO performance should be a little over a stop better and there are some decent, cheaper wide angle lenses like the 17-40mm f4 that can help off set the cost. The 6d is rumored to get a successor eventually which tends to lower the price.

Seems to happen all the time for me, especially with wide angle lenses. Many of the 24 and 28mm sold today that aren't super specialized have soft corner like their zoom counter parts and aren't that much faster (if any). I think the Canon 70-200 f2.8l is sharper than the 200 f2.8l.

Guys thanks for your opinions.

I am talking about the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens. - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EW8074/?tag=neogaf0e-20

I just got my 70-D so that's APS-C 6 months ago and I love it so I definitely won't be changing that anytime soon. I'm still an amateur anyway

Now I spoke to amazon customer service and my 35mm f/2 IS is barely 2 months old and they are willing to refund me the full cost which means I need to top about about 100Euros to get the 17-55mm f/2.8. Now this is definitely very attractive to me.

I use my camera 95% for vacations and 5% for pictures of my 1/6 figures and hobby modelling i.e. Macro work.

Right now, I just don't know if I will regret giving back the prime and going for the 17-55mm f/2.8 but losing image quality in the process...

What do I do?

P.S. I tend to only buy canon for now because I really like the in-camera lens correction profiles. I don't shoot RAW yet and never post-process my photos.

Thanks GAF.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Edit: So does Nikon's 20 f1.8 so maybe it is Canon after all

I have the 20 1.8, its excellent.

I do kind of agree with your point though, most r&d and new lenses coming out are zooms. But then you have crazy expensive boutique lenses like the ziess otus line that blow everything away.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Guys thanks for your opinions.

I am talking about the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens. - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EW8074/?tag=neogaf0e-20

I just got my 70-D so that's APS-C 6 months ago and I love it so I definitely won't be changing that anytime soon. I'm still an amateur anyway

Now I spoke to amazon customer service and my 35mm f/2 IS is barely 2 months old and they are willing to refund me the full cost which means I need to top about about 100Euros to get the 17-55mm f/2.8. Now this is definitely very attractive to me.

I use my camera 95% for vacations and 5% for pictures of my 1/6 figures and hobby modelling i.e. Macro work.

Right now, I just don't know if I will regret giving back the prime and going for the 17-55mm f/2.8 but losing image quality in the process...

What do I do?

P.S. I tend to only buy canon for now because I really like the in-camera lens correction profiles. I don't shoot RAW yet and never post-process my photos.

Thanks GAF.

Rent it. I had one with my 7d, didn't really love it. Test charts and other peoples opinions can only get you so far, you gotta get your hands on it and really see if it works for you.