Haydn1971 said:
Fine for the wide primes, but an EF-S 400/4 would be the same size/weight as an EF version (so it'll never be made).
Upvote
0
Fine for the wide primes, but an EF-S 400/4 would be the same size/weight as an EF version (so it'll never be made).
Oh, I'm working on the project at the moment that may free up some cash early next year. The 135L is overdue to go into the bag I believe (but then I also so the price of the 16-35 has come down...). No, I think the 135 is next. Hope Santa can arrange for a new PC also...
Upvote
0
M
Minnesota Nice
Guest
I don't have any primes yet, just started this venture a few months ago.
Here's what I'm looking at though:
Rokinon 8mm Fisheye (I think it's f/3.6 can't remember)
Canon 50mm f/1.4
Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 (The prices are awesome, less than 300 for it, it's all manual but I mostly shoot video anyways so I don't mind)
And last but not least, Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L (If my budget allows.)
Here's what I'm looking at though:
Rokinon 8mm Fisheye (I think it's f/3.6 can't remember)
Canon 50mm f/1.4
Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 (The prices are awesome, less than 300 for it, it's all manual but I mostly shoot video anyways so I don't mind)
And last but not least, Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L (If my budget allows.)
Upvote
0
Currently own:
EF 15mm F2.8 Fisheye
EF 35mm F1.4 L USM
EF 50mm F2.5 Macro
EF 85mm F1.8 USM
EF 300mm F4 L IS USM
Wish list
EF 24mm F1.4L II USM
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
The EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II, is assuming I can carry the thing about at my age 65 but I’m pretty certain I will get one some time in 2012
Just sold in the last 3 weeks my
EF 50mm F1.8 II
EF 100mm F2-8 Macro
EF 15mm F2.8 Fisheye
EF 35mm F1.4 L USM
EF 50mm F2.5 Macro
EF 85mm F1.8 USM
EF 300mm F4 L IS USM
Wish list
EF 24mm F1.4L II USM
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
The EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II, is assuming I can carry the thing about at my age 65 but I’m pretty certain I will get one some time in 2012
Just sold in the last 3 weeks my
EF 50mm F1.8 II
EF 100mm F2-8 Macro
Upvote
0
To answer the topic question of why primes is that Canon still makes such fine primes lenses that their IQ is just breathtaking when I have done all things right. I first bought zooms and I was happy. Then I needed a macro and got the 100mm L with IS. I dared to use it for normal shooting and not just macro. Something seemed different in the images -- better? I had the 100-400 but wasn't really happy about sharpness at the 400 end. It turned out I needed a better tripod and head as well as better technique but I first bought the 300 F4 L and a 400 5.6 L. While they were good (better than the 100-400) I lusted for more so I bought the 500 F4 L just a month before the prices soared earlier this year on all the super teles. I want the 400 2.8 L II but the prices are just now in the stratosphere. I'm very happy with the 500 L until it broke. Canon fixed it but now I'm always worried about it going bad again (loss of focus).
Since I always have had the Canon 50 1.4 and the Canon 85 1.8 from the beginning of my digital conversion and since then I've bought so many lenses at this point, I started a large project in defining a test senario in testing all my Canon cameras and all my lenses regardles of make. I'm mostly a landscape and seascape photographer making large prints. I choose one location to do all my shooting and one rock in the scene to set my focus point. All shots used live view (10x for manual focus, no IS) with a cable release and a Gitzo tripod and RRS head. I shot from wide open with each lens and every f-stop available and at all major zoom settings for zoom lenses. All shots were at 100 ISO. I shot with a 5DMK II, 7D, and now a 60D.
What I found is that the absolute winners in the tests were my tilt shift lenses regardless of camera body. The tilt shift lenses had great shapness edge to edge including all the corners. The tilt shift lenses were the 17 TSE L, and the 24 TSE L II. The next best lenses were the primes like the 24 1.4 L, 35 1.4 L, 50 1.2 L, 50 1.4 (non L can win), 85 1.2 L, 100 2.8 Macro L, and my new favorite 135 F2 L. I'm considering the 14 mm 2.8 L but I'm not sure yet.
Next came the zooms and I the ones I really found great was the 70-200 F2.8 L II and the new 70-300 L. The new 70-300 L is just so much fun to use and so much lighter than the 70-200 that zooms are fun again.
As others have said, the primes are always better indoors because they are faster. Also better indoors because they are black and smaller and draw less attention than the big white guys not to mention that they are much lighter and easier to work in a crowd.
Since I have the flexibility of putting any of these lenses on the 60 D (which I like the noise pattern better than my 7d) or the 7D, the 135 F2 is now 216 effective mm and 300 if I put on a 1.4 extender and the lens with extender is still 2.8 at far less weight than the 300 F2.8. Of course the 300 F2.8 has IS and that might be my next wish list lens but I'll wait until the price stablizes (if it does). I'm concerned over the value of our dollar. Will that lens also be put into the over 10K limit that I've set for myself like the other super teles? I hope this rapid price increases on the super teles stops next year.
Since I always have had the Canon 50 1.4 and the Canon 85 1.8 from the beginning of my digital conversion and since then I've bought so many lenses at this point, I started a large project in defining a test senario in testing all my Canon cameras and all my lenses regardles of make. I'm mostly a landscape and seascape photographer making large prints. I choose one location to do all my shooting and one rock in the scene to set my focus point. All shots used live view (10x for manual focus, no IS) with a cable release and a Gitzo tripod and RRS head. I shot from wide open with each lens and every f-stop available and at all major zoom settings for zoom lenses. All shots were at 100 ISO. I shot with a 5DMK II, 7D, and now a 60D.
What I found is that the absolute winners in the tests were my tilt shift lenses regardless of camera body. The tilt shift lenses had great shapness edge to edge including all the corners. The tilt shift lenses were the 17 TSE L, and the 24 TSE L II. The next best lenses were the primes like the 24 1.4 L, 35 1.4 L, 50 1.2 L, 50 1.4 (non L can win), 85 1.2 L, 100 2.8 Macro L, and my new favorite 135 F2 L. I'm considering the 14 mm 2.8 L but I'm not sure yet.
Next came the zooms and I the ones I really found great was the 70-200 F2.8 L II and the new 70-300 L. The new 70-300 L is just so much fun to use and so much lighter than the 70-200 that zooms are fun again.
As others have said, the primes are always better indoors because they are faster. Also better indoors because they are black and smaller and draw less attention than the big white guys not to mention that they are much lighter and easier to work in a crowd.
Since I have the flexibility of putting any of these lenses on the 60 D (which I like the noise pattern better than my 7d) or the 7D, the 135 F2 is now 216 effective mm and 300 if I put on a 1.4 extender and the lens with extender is still 2.8 at far less weight than the 300 F2.8. Of course the 300 F2.8 has IS and that might be my next wish list lens but I'll wait until the price stablizes (if it does). I'm concerned over the value of our dollar. Will that lens also be put into the over 10K limit that I've set for myself like the other super teles? I hope this rapid price increases on the super teles stops next year.
Upvote
0
Own:
EF 35mm f1.4L
EF 50mm f1.8 II
EF 85mm f1.8
Sigma 50mm f1.4
Sigma 30mm f1.4
The Sigma 30mm and nifty-fifty hardly get any use now, I love both the 35mmL and Sigma 50mm on the 5Dii.
Wishlist:
EF 85mm f1.2L/Sigma 85mm f1.4 (can't decide on the cost vs. performance balance here!)
100mm Macro (can't decide on the L vs. non-L for the same reason as above)
A recent shot with the 35mmL on my 5Dii:
EF 35mm f1.4L
EF 50mm f1.8 II
EF 85mm f1.8
Sigma 50mm f1.4
Sigma 30mm f1.4
The Sigma 30mm and nifty-fifty hardly get any use now, I love both the 35mmL and Sigma 50mm on the 5Dii.
Wishlist:
EF 85mm f1.2L/Sigma 85mm f1.4 (can't decide on the cost vs. performance balance here!)
100mm Macro (can't decide on the L vs. non-L for the same reason as above)
A recent shot with the 35mmL on my 5Dii:
Upvote
0
once you have a fast, good iq prime, you will use it. it happened to me with the 60 2.8.Cetalis said:Lol. Problem is I have an 18-135 and EXIF says that i never shoot at 25-84mm. I'm hoping canon makes a cheap and fast 24mm EF-S though.whatta said:50 f1.8 is for you then. sharp, fast and cheapCetalis said:
Upvote
0
tron said:
May I ask why? The DO lenses seem to have low contrast (that was my experience with the 70-300 DO, at any rate). The MkII supertele lenses are also lighter - the 300/2.8 II is just 10 oz. heavier and not much longer than the 400/4, and the 300/2.8 II + 1.4x III doesn't add much weight or length, but the 420/4 combo has IQ that's as good or better than the 400/4 DO.
Upvote
0
Have:
Samyang 8mm fisheye - for fishy fun
TS-E 24mm f/3.5L mk1 - for tilty-shifty fun
EF 35mm f/2 - normal-ish view with better than average close focus and therefore maximum magnification
EF 50mm f/1.8 II - it was cheap
FD 50mm f/1.2 - it was fast and cheap
Zeiss 50mm f/2 makro - fast-ish 50mm with close focus!
MP-E65 - if I really want to get close...
EF 85mm f/1.8 - fast focus and tighter framing
EF 135mm f/2L - optical quality for astro imaging
Sigma 150mm macro - for erm... macro?
Wants:
EF 50mm f/1.4 (future II preferably) - I want nicer AF, but not enough to want the f/1.2L
Either EF 100mm macro IS L or Sigma 150mm macro OS.
Samyang 8mm fisheye - for fishy fun
TS-E 24mm f/3.5L mk1 - for tilty-shifty fun
EF 35mm f/2 - normal-ish view with better than average close focus and therefore maximum magnification
EF 50mm f/1.8 II - it was cheap
FD 50mm f/1.2 - it was fast and cheap
Zeiss 50mm f/2 makro - fast-ish 50mm with close focus!
MP-E65 - if I really want to get close...
EF 85mm f/1.8 - fast focus and tighter framing
EF 135mm f/2L - optical quality for astro imaging
Sigma 150mm macro - for erm... macro?
Wants:
EF 50mm f/1.4 (future II preferably) - I want nicer AF, but not enough to want the f/1.2L
Either EF 100mm macro IS L or Sigma 150mm macro OS.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I like its size and weight.
I know that the 400mm DO has been reported to have low contrast but it has also been reported that this can be easily corrected later. Many report that later versions of this lens (post-2003) are much better.
Having 300mm f/4L (non IS) I do not think I would be interested in 300mm f2.8 (and I cannot afford it too).
Instead I would prefer to go for longer tele lenses.
Anyway this is such an expensive item that there is no way I will buy it (I am an amateur).
Instead I got a 100-400 L and I like it a lot. It's not perfect but it is very very good. It is sharp, it focuses correctly and it is very versatile (it's a zoom and it focuses close enough).
Since I have read in a post of yours that you have 7D and 100-400 (among other equipment) could you tell me
your opinion of this combination? (I have 5DmkII) Are you satisfied with the sharpness of 100-400 on the 7D ?
Upvote
0
tron said:
I hear you on the size/weight...I picked up a used 70-300 DO for the compact retracted size. I later sold it (no loss) because I wasn't thrilled with the IQ. The contrast could be corrected well in post, but the 70-300 also has an odd and rather unpleasant bokeh that can't be fixed. Despite that, I was tempted recently when a used but mint 400/4 DO came up locally for $4K. Tempting, but the money is intended for the 1D X, and I really want the extra 100mm from the 500L anyway.
I'm quite pleased with the 100-400mm on my 7D. That's the lens on that body ~90% of the time, and in fact, I've only used the 100-400 on my 5DII a couple of times. The IQ of the 5DII is better than the 7D, but when I need 400mm, I almost always need more - and a 7D image at 400mm beats a 5DII image at 400mm cropped to a 640mm AoV (meaning 8 MP). Plus, I usually need to crop the 7D images a bit (thus the desire for the 500L). The 7D's AF is also much better for the things I shoot with the 100-400mm (birds/wildlife). Assuming I get the 1D X, I plan to keep the 7D for focal length-limited situations (although with the ISO and AF capabilities of the 1D X, I expect I'll use the 100-400mm more with that body than I do on the 5DII).
Upvote
0
I have:
24 2.8
30 1.4 (Sigma)
50 1.4
50 1.4 (Super Takumar)
180 3.5 Macro (Sigma)
300 F4
300 F2.8
I want:
600 f4
85 f1.4 (Sigma)
8mm f2.8 (still needs to be invented)
200 f2
I also own a 135 4.7 Raptar, and a 90 6.8, but they aren't hugely mountable on the eos system...
24 2.8
30 1.4 (Sigma)
50 1.4
50 1.4 (Super Takumar)
180 3.5 Macro (Sigma)
300 F4
300 F2.8
I want:
600 f4
85 f1.4 (Sigma)
8mm f2.8 (still needs to be invented)
200 f2
I also own a 135 4.7 Raptar, and a 90 6.8, but they aren't hugely mountable on the eos system...
Upvote
0
To chip in on the DO contrast, I also used to have the 70-300DO, and the contrast was a bit lacking at times wide open, but it perks up a lot stopped down a bit. I had also wondered if the 400/4DO would be similar in characteristic, although if you stop down often you lose the f/4 advantage you got it for in the first place...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
