When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I'm satisfied. I got to see the venue at Friday's performance (before I shot on Saturday). As feared, it was about as dark as it could be and still take photos. I shot at 12800 ISO and wide open. Most shots were at 1/90th as a safety net- needing post process exposure adjustment. Once I had a load of those, I shot some slower with fingers crossed. The 100-400 zoom (IS off) and tripod was the right tool for this shoot. And not once did I trip or even make any noise while walking around with the rig during the performance.
1/45th Fortunately there's not a lot of motion
Choral Director blur at 1/90th- I'm calling it intentional
not bad. I can tell it was shot on a Canon (purple blacks), but they are completely fine. Would make great B&W conversions. especially 17_1216_AYS-1000-029 and 17_1216_AYS-1000-046
the blurring of her hand is great -- gives movement to an otherwise rigid scene. well done.
Recently got back into the swing of things myself with an older but low shutter count 5D MKii. Was using the 24-105L kit lens which is really nice actually, and a 50mm 1.8ii, but just yesterday picked up a Tamron 70-200 2.8 g2, awesome lens. Was able to handhold shots fully zoomed in at 1/10 of a second. Makes me want to sell my 24-105 and get a 24-70 2.8 as well, amazing how much more light gets in.
with today's sensors, f/4 is the new 2.8. I rarely shoot 2.8 unless it's required.
Post some examples with the G2. I have the first SP VC, I don't think it renders are nice as I'd like. For the price, totally, but the transition to OOF is "nervous" look here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/n1sdkxbwe...NISjtuQpa?dl=0
the OOF bulbs are blah, not smooth. I've seen it in other shots too, like the trees in the BG here:
https://flic.kr/p/rczxgQ
https://flic.kr/p/rczxgQ by https://www.flickr.com/photos/80607199@N08/, on Flickr
meanwhile my 58mm 1.4:
https://flic.kr/p/NF2wyhhttps://flic.kr/p/NF2wyh by https://www.flickr.com/photos/80607199@N08/, on Flickr
I'm actually considering selling my 24-70 and 70-200s and picking up the 105mm 1.4, a 24 or 35mm prime, and a teleconvertor if I need extra reach.
My 5D MKii is coming up on 10 years old so it doesn't have the same ISO capabilities of modern cameras. I know this lens is overkill for this body but eventually when I get a MKiii or IV it will be even better. My camera goes up to 6400iso and doesn't look bad, past that its kind of crap. I'm not as experienced as you so to me those photos look fine, but the reviews I saw all said there were some good improvements in the G2 over the G1. I can email you some RAW files if you want to look them over, I just got it yesterday so I don't have a ton of pictures yet, but the one I posted above with the lights is one I did last night with the 70-200. If anything is holding the lens back its my aging body and only having 9 focus points compared to 50+ like everything else has. Also shooting those lights to not get the flares I think I'd need a filter or to really close up the aperture to a point where I can't hand hold it anymore. I'll have to try taking some more daytime shots with it
I know this shot isn't well composed or even edited but just so you can see the transitions well.
f/2.8 1/160 ISO800
Unfortunately I'm not making money taking photos, but I simply wanted a longer lens that I could hand hold at night without jacking up my ISO and graining up all of the shots. It seems to be good for that. My fiancees sister asked me to take pictures of her and her daughter soon so we'll see how it does for portraits. One thing many noted was something with focus breathing and how it doesn't give as much compression as the Canon does. I really enjoyed watching Dustin Abbott's videos on youtube because he really dives into detail. Christopher Frost Photography also does some great analyses at various focal lengths and apperatures. The Canon MKii is still better, but considering one retails for 1299 and the other for 2099, I would HAVE to be making money to justify the difference
Edit: looking at those shots of the group of people I can see what you mean about the trees now. Let me load a similar shot up
Last edited by Mazdaspeeder; 12-19-2017 at 11:27 AM.
I bought it before sigma released their art version (their first one was AWFUL), and the only alternative for me with Nikon's which is incredibly overpriced. At the time all I cared about was sharpness -- and yeah the tamron is sharp, but its not as "pretty" the 58mm is actually the softest lens I've owned but it renders so lovely.
it really just depends on the shot and focal length. this one at 200mm and 2.8 it's fantastic:
https://flic.kr/p/ZuhgRLhttps://flic.kr/p/ZuhgRL by https://www.flickr.com/photos/80607199@N08/, on Flickr
even at 85mm, it's still pretty good -- not as great:
https://flic.kr/p/YvTigHhttps://flic.kr/p/YvTigH by https://www.flickr.com/photos/80607199@N08/, on Flickr
here again at 200mm it's pretty stellar:
https://flic.kr/p/Z9gAwGhttps://flic.kr/p/Z9gAwG by https://www.flickr.com/photos/80607199@N08/, on Flickr
Here's one of some tree branches f/3.2, I don't think it looks as busy as yours but the distance between subject and background isn't the same
https://flic.kr/p/22EvnfP
Most of the reviews say the Tamron is sharper than the Canon from 70-135 and past that the Canon becomes sharper. There IS a good comparison video of the new G2 vs the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 Gen 2 (I think, if theres even such a thing) but that lens is even more expensive than the Canon IIRC
Most of the reviews say the Tamron is sharper than the Canon from 70-135 and past that the Canon becomes sharper. There IS a good comparison video of the new G2 vs the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 Gen 2 (I think, if theres even such a thing) but that lens is even more expensive than the Canon IIRC
looks like an improvement, and everything I read says it is. I've just got to the point where I start to notice those differences -- where 80% of the population wouldn't. I used to love zooms for the versatility, but I'm becoming a prime snob as of late.
Lots of guys I know shoot primes only. One guy for weddings actually, but its a little easier since he's wearing 2 bodies with 2 different lenses on at the same time. I think the primes are better for the money, I just like the versatility of a zoom. Maybe once I get skilled enough I won't need them. I think a 24-70, 70-200, and a fast prime like a 50mm 1.4 (because the 1.2 is too expensive) or a 35mm f2 would round out the kit nicely (or the 40mm pancake). Then again, I've heard more than one person say that the Canon 50mm to buy are the 1.8 and 1.2, and that the 1.4 is a bit underwhelming in its performance.
The 50/1.8 EF-II is a sketchy focusing lens...it's not a reliable, fast-focusing lens, and it has noisy focusing as well. It has bad bokeh. It sometimes snaps into two pieces after receiving an impact (seriously). It has a skinny focusing ring at the front of the lens, and it does not allow manual focusing override when in autofocus mode. It is not a very good lens when shot toward strong light sources. It has a 1950's-style, five-bladed iris diaphragm, and one fewer element than most 50mm lenses made since the mid-1960's. It is a low-priced, cheap lens, and a lot of corners have been cut in the 1.8's design and its optics. The 50/1.4 EF is a **significantly** better designed, better made, and better performing lens.
An extended warranty covering accidental lens falling apart if it gets bumped hard. Canon calls that "barrel separation". It's a feature of the 50/1.8-II lens. Using a lens hood on this lens is risky, since the hood is what tends to cause the lens to snap into two pieces when there is an impact. And no, I am not 'kidding' about any of this. The hood effectively lengthens the front of the lens, giving increased leverage during impacts with fixed objects, or if the camera/lens combo is dropped.
You seem to be looking at IQ and nothing more. There is far more to be considered. The 5 blade aperture of the 1.8 renders some of the worst bokeh characteristics you will ever see. It's jagged and nervous, not appealing at all. The bokeh characteristics of the 1.4 are much, much better. Most people buy a fast prime for low light capability. The 1.8 struggles with this. All lenses will have a hard time focusing in low light from time to time, the 1.8 will hunt and fail to lock on a much higher percentage of the time than a better quality lens. The build quality of the 1.8 lends itself to a short life span, the build quality of the 1.4 lends itself to a long, useful life span. And then there's the issue of slow, noisy, clanky, AF. The 1.8 sounds like it is going to fly apart during focusing, as well as being loud enough to wake the dead in a three county radius. The 1.4 is quiet and much faster. Spend the money on the 1.4, it's a quality lens. The 1.8 is a bargain basement lens with decent IQ.Click to expand...
THIS OUGHT TO BE A STICKY!!! As the former owner of a 50/1.8 aka "nifty fifty", AKA "plastic fantastic" aka "the rubbish bokeh-er" aka "the sounds-like-a-combine-focuser", all I can say is subscuck hit basically every sour note that the 50/1.8 is capable of hitting. Buuuuuut, he left out one sour note, sort of the encore warm-up for the 50/1.8, which is called "barrel separation". The thing is literally pop-riveted together, not held together by screws...when it suffers impact while on a camera body, and MOST often when its lens shade is on, the "nifty fifty", the 1.8 model, often SNAPS INTO TWO PIECES. Seriously. NOT kidding. Oh, and did he mention, when shot toward the sun, the nifty fifty often suffers from almost an entirely green-flared-ruined image? Uh, yeah... The 50/1.4 EF USM, OTOH, is one of the PRETTIEST-IMAGING 50's I have ever owned, of ANY brand, and I have owned 10 or so. The Canon 50/1.4 is an excellent tool! It is worth every single penny you pay for it.
I gave my 50/1.8 EF-II to my wife's nephew went he went to art school to study photography in Seattle; they required entrants to have a 50mm lens. I told him, "Here,you can have this, but remember, it's a total POS when shot toward the sun."
But the new 50mm 1.8 STM has a 7 blade diaphragm, metal mount, and better overall build. The plastic fantastic is what it is for under $100. From what I've heard the 1.4 from Canon is just soft overall which might be a good or bad thing I suppose
I might give my friend's 50mm 1.4 Canon a try. I do know that he just paid Canon $150 to fix the AF which somehow just stopped working consistently, sometimes would work, other times not.
I think I'm set on glass for now. Even though my 50 is the junky one, I can still use it to learn composition and stuff. That's really what I need to work on the most, my creative aspect of things, and editing (using Canon DPP4 because I don't want to pay for Lightroom as a subscription because I don't make money with this). Once I get better I will think about some other glass or maybe going to a 5D MKiii, but they're still pricy. I paid 700 for my MKii with a battery grip, the 50mm, and a 75-300 which is pretty crappy too, but something to get me started (oh and 100GB worth of memory cards). Meanwhile MKiii body only are still 1200-1500ish. I got the 24-105 f/4L from the same guy for another $300 so $1000 all in for a kit that's ready to go vs more for a body only, that helped me decide.
Every time the mirror in the 5D2 moves it makes a loud clunk noise that reminds me of my old XTi (early Rebel series camera). My buddy has a new Rebel SL1 meanwhile, and its super quiet. Not a thing of function, but its kind of like comparing the sound of car doors closing changing over time. Before they sounded really metallic, now they sound different. Every time that mirror flips up and down, it just reminds me of an old cheap camera, then again a real old cheap camera sounds REALLY bad
12-18-2017, 11:18 AM
0
