I never needed the lens corrections much shooting my 40D, but with the full frame, I use it for the 24-105 quite a bit. Does a great job. In curious to play with the new canon DPP version which can correct a whole host of issues (including I believe chromatic aberration).
Think I've got the spectrum covered .. 1. 10.5 Fisheye...2.8 2. 85mm 1.4 potrait.. 3. 105mm 2.8 macro.. 4. 14-24 wide angle zoom..2.8 5. 70 - 200 tele zoom...2.8 All Nikon lenses.. My Favorites are the 85 1.4..cannot take a bad pic. then 105 macro...laser sharp. The fisheye is a secret weapon when cropped in post pro..really great close up big images. The tele zoom is textbook perfection. and the wide zoom...great indoor architecture capture love em all.. would love a 400 2.8 with 2x converter to really complete collection. cant wait to try on D800e body , and process in Lightroom.. Image Unavailable, Please Login
So, I am a bit scared of buying the 85mm 1.2. I think I am not good enough to justify the money it cost :-/ I am leaning more towards the 24-70 2.8 (old one) and of course the 70-200 2.8. I am just not sure what to go with. Probably add the 50mm 1.2. How close will I be to the object? When I shoot now I always seem to be more on distance. The prices are a bit extreme as well. I can totally relate to the 70-200, but the 24-70 would cost as much as my 100-400 which makes sense, but seem weird when you compare sizes *LOL* Edit. How is it shooting without IS? I am kinda used to it and my "photo style" is "moving/flowing", I am moving a lot to try and get what I want. Result in A LOT of crappy pics.
Yeah, but it can be a pain when it's on every single shot. Sometimes the hue is just right that you can't rid of it with the normal tools and have to resort to spot editing which takes awhile. I do however freely admit to being a lazy photo editor.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/40028afi.htm http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2171/AF-S-NIKKOR-400mm-f%252F2.8G-ED-VR.html THE KING
It does not have to be Canon. Could also be Sigma, Tamron or Tokina for that matter. Nikon users are welcome to give input about their cameras and lenses as well. what did I miss The Nikon users are Democrats..Optimists The Canon sympathizers are republicans , Pessimists Its Quite obvious you will vote for Romney..
my bad, seems I'm the one that "missed"... not even close, I shoot Oly, call me an independent not happy with any of the common choices... ;-) If I had to switch the d800e could almost sway me but my bag of glass similar to yours and the great new performance of the OM-D(see the samples link in the OM-D thread compared to d800/mk III, 90% of the performance @ 1/3rd the price/weight) will keep me where I am for the foreseeable...
I take all of his advice with a very large grain of salt. That said, I think he does a fantastic job with lens reviews.
FYI the 50 1.2 is supposedly not as sharp as its vastly less expensive brethren. Do you need that last 1/3 stop? It probably locks focus faster though. Also has I think 9 rounded blades for better bokeh. The 85 1.2 on the other hand is a great piece of glass. I know 85 is like *the* portrait lens, but for me 50mm is working nicely. I spent many years neglecting my film camera and shooting APS-C, where I felt the 50mm wasn't quite wide enough. On the FF at 2.8, it's perfect for my uses, and 85 would leave me with that same headache. However adults/older kids are probably easier than babies. I like to stay pretty close to my son when taking photos, hence my appreciation for 50mm on FF. When he gets older and I can back up more freely, maybe the 85 will be more appealing. But personally, I'd probably get the 135 2.0 sooner. Generally regarded as Canon's sharpest offering, and WAY cheaper than the 85.
Thanks for the info. You are right, do I need the last 1/3 stop? I have been asking myself that as well. So far I have done "okay" with what I got, I think.
Here's 50mm at 1.4: http://www.hypercontrast.com/WilliamJosephBlackwood/January-2012/i-vkgNKSk/0/X2/MAB-20120119-7210-X2.jpg http://www.hypercontrast.com/WilliamJosephBlackwood/January-2012/i-xrMvb4H/0/X2/MAB-20120108-6643-X2.jpg In the second image, he's about 2 feet in front of a textured concrete wall in the park. Leaves a nice dreamy bokeh.
I've taken the tact to invest in good glass as it "lasts" longer than bodies do and avoided the body upgrade habitrail they want to keep you on... If interested in any particular lens I'd not be too afraid to invest as worse case scenario is good glass retains a better portion of its value. Even if you do decide to flip it due to lack of interest you've maybe lost what might have been an extended rental fee for using it for a bit at worst. To help a budget extend there is always the used market which helps make your chance of financial loss on a well chosen lens even less likely.
I was going to post something like this as well. Lens prices have actually been creeping up for a while now and I feel fortunate to have bought some of mine when I did, for example I got a Nikkor 70-200 F/2.8 VR 1 back when it cost $1,600. The newer VR version costs $2,400 now. I am not sure I would spend that much on the lens, even though it is fantastic. Investing in good lenses up front may save you money in the long run.
OK, I've deduced that you have a crop frame camera since you have a 60 macro. I have a short bit of advice, and a new lens for you to try. Advise: Stop obsessing about sharpness. If you worry about anything, worry about composition. An interesting picture > a sharp picture, any day of the week. Nobody but you looks at your pictures at 100% on a monitor unless they are internet trolls. BTW, I like a lot of your pictures, so you have some mad skillz in the composition area to expand on. Action: Go get a 10-22. Buy used. Rent it if you must, but check it out for a while and see if this direction interests you. You want architecture? You need wide, especially once you start photographing inside the buildings. I ALWAYS have this lens with me on vacation (unless I'm packing the 17-40 and a FF.) If you don't bond with this lens, sell it for what you paid for it (assuming you bought used) and the experience was free. Just do it. Don't read some wishy-washy review where some internet "expert" claims some other lens has 0.1% better contrast or some other pile of manure. JUST. DO. IT.
Thanks for the nice words And advice Yep I have a crop frame, EOS 7D. Bought it in 2010 and have been very happy so far. Was a difficult choice though. I had to decide between the house of the 5D mk II or the kit 7D with the standard 18-135 and additionally the 100-400. Had I bought the 5D it would have been pointless as I had no money for extra lenses. Now I do have a wee bit again and want to expand and eventually prepare for the 1DX. Biggest dream is to make money and live off this hobby.
Help. I have a canon 17-40 and 10-22 and i find myself using mostly the 10-22 so im wondering if i should sell the 17-40 and get a 24-105. Any advice?
I would, any time I'm not using a lens much it goes up for sale. I do suggest buying used though, I can usually get away with only losing shipping costs on a lens I bought used and then sold later. Plus the 24-105 comes in all the high end kits so you can pick up a brand new (out of the box) one for about $800.
Good to hear, I gave in and sold my D7000 last night and am in the process of selling my 18-200mm. Picking up a 5D2 asap and then a 24-105mm.
When I bought my Canon Rebel XTi, the only lens I bought with it was Canon's 28-135 f3.5-5.6 zoom, and while I later bought a longer zoom for use when necessary, I use the 28-135 for most of my shots. It has an ultrasonic motor and available image stabilization, and does fine as both a normal lens and a medium telephoto. It balances very nicely on the camera, such that I have shot as slow as 1/8 second (without the I.S. turned on!) and gotten good results. It may be an old design (1997) and not the most expensive, but I certainly do not regret going with it when I bought the camera. P.S. I also got a Canon SX 200IS for those times when I didn't want to lug the SLR around. It's a great little camera, though it's poor at shooting action pictures and is rather hard on the battery, so I always carry a spare battery in my pocket.