Bill Emmett wrote:
Another thought. I also shoot birds, and other small animals. I suggest using one of the new Tamron SP 150-600mm VC lens. Although it has a f5-6.3 I've found I mostly use the lens a bright days, out in the open for my shots. The lens is also a full frame mount, and can be used on my 6D when the light is really low, and I'll use a higher ISO. The cost for the lens is $1069.00 new with a 6 year warranty. Sigma also makes the same range lens, but at twice the price. Many talk about buying the Sigma update item for some extra cash to update the firmware. I have to question this thinking, how often does Sigma update the firmware for a individual lens? I've witnessed the quality of my shots, and others on the "Hog" and really see no difference in quality, but considering the dpi limits on the posts I feel the difference between the two lenses is a wash. But, of course it's your money. BTW, I've found the Tamron 150-600mm is compatible to both the 1.6 and the 2X Tamron converters.
B
Another thought. I also shoot birds, and other sm... (
show quote)
Thanks! I'll definitely have a look at this lens. The 500 is on hold for the moment. Uncle Sam weighed in with a bit of a shock this year.
Bill Emmett wrote:
You don't mention what you will be shooting. Of course you can zoom with your feet, but in some instances that is impossible. Just a twist of the zoom ring changes the framing of the photo. I took a few clients to a St. Patrick's Day parade over the weekend. One client only had a 50mm lens on his new camera. As the floats moved and the crowd surged he had to be at a fixed distance from the street. Many of his shots included hands, back of heads and other items. Another client, who had a 18-135mm lens just stood back and got some pretty good shots. As far as the "good deal" on a 500mm lens, you may want to think about what you're going to use it on, and how often. As far as general usage, I find the 3 lenses you have are much more useful. The 16-35mm for great landscape, the 24-70mm great for street, portraits, and a 70-200mm for portraits and mild telephoto. The money for the 50mm could be better spent eleswhere. Maybe just pick up a 50mm f1.8. Also keep in mind you already own quality lenses, that 50mm f1.4 will not give you very much of an edge over the 24-70 at 50mm, unless you're a pixel peeper.
B
You don't mention what you will be shooting. Of c... (
show quote)
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm mostly interested in bird photography, the reasoning for the 500. But here in New York there's lots to photograph that doesn't fly away for the winter, hence my concentration on wide angle through medium tele as well. I take your point about the power of the zoom though. :)
jeep_daddy wrote:
Do what you have to do to get the 500mm f/4. Later you can acquire another 24-70mm lens. They can be had used for much less - and you don't have to have the latest Mark II. I have the mark 1 - 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 16-35mm f/2.8. All are the earlier models and not the mark II lenses. They are all awesome and I don't think I need the latest and greatest. Also, my 500mm f/4 is the older model and not the mark II. I wouldn't pay the extra money just to save a pound and a half.
Do what you have to do to get the 500mm f/4. Late... (
show quote)
Thank you so much for that. :-D :-D
dugole wrote:
Crop or full frame - a major consideration? On my 5D III I use the 24-70 as a good all around/travel lens. Without changing and carrying 2 lenses, the 24-70 makes a very usable wide angle to a slightly longer standard lens. It's as simple as that. When I travel, I carry both the 24-70 & the 70-200 - one lens less than you need to carry - and much less lens changing.
Yep, good point. 5D III for me too.
I'm thinking about returning this lens and replacing it with a way cheaper and way lighter 50mm 1.4. So my lenses covering under 100mm would then be the 16-35 F4, the 50mm 1.4, the 70-200 2.8 Mk II. Yes, trying to save a little so I can justify taking a good deal on an used old 500 F4. Thanks.
tommyf wrote:
OK, I am not a professional photographer. With that said, what are the decisions in choosing either format? Thanks for your input.
It's a big question. I'm not sure whether or not it matters much if you're a professional photographer. What might matter is whether you are primarily interested in having lots of casual fun with the flexibility of a DSLR (in which case a good crop frame camera with special crop frame lenses that deliver an excellent overall quality of photograph will delight you) or if you feel you are interested in learning about "the art." And still it makes sense to start smaller with good equipment that maybe has some resale value, and upward compatible lenses, and work yourself up.
That said, the "gross" considerations for me were budget, weight and size of the camera and file size and whether I needed the extra overall heft of a full frame camera as compared to the handiness of a more compact and lighter camera. Another classic delimiter is what you want to shoot. Crop factor cameras tend to draw wildlife enthusiasts because they are often composed of "subject(s)" and "background." Since the frame of a crop factor camera is smaller, there is less background to crop away so less post processing work and more pictures that are good to go right out of the camera. Landscapes, cityscape people tend to go full frame because aside from minor cropping, the entire frame tends to be artistically important. So, if you already know you're particularly interested in one or the other, or both, that would help you. Also it is widely contended that full frame sensors can deliver a better quality image than crop frame sensors. This is debatable but you should consider this before deciding on a specific camera to make sure the sensor will meet your requirements regarding overall quality. Beware, more megapixels do not necessarily yield a better picture. I'm sure there is more to be said, but maybe this will help you establish your perspective. Just one person's thoughts.
This is not a logical process. Nothing said or not said will stop you from what you want. That said, it's still a great process for crystalizing this reality for you. Enjoy!
Adorama has about three used 400 5.6s at this time. Also, Artie Morris has a used photo equipment page. Follow link, scroll down for 400 5.6 offering.
http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/used-photography-gear-for-sale/I have enjoyed this lens very much. It has been a joy for birding. Effortless sharp pictures (because it's so light). No IS needed.
Well, you guys pretty much instinctively knew what he wanted. And I benefited big time, so thanks from me anyway! I have more than one lens, but also deciding on a general purpose lens to compliment my wide angle and telephoto. davidrb's recommendation of the 50mm is intriguing, and so cheap to grab the 1.8. But the refurb 24-105 definitely caught my eye. That lens seems to have its loyal followers as well as its detractors.
Thank you for that. A nice perspective on this lens. I have the 16-35 and am planning on a 70-200. I could forget about the 24-70 zoom and get the fast 50mm.
SharpShooter wrote:
I have not looked at the 24-70 f4.
That said, I don't know why I would get an f4 lens that covers 1/2 of the range as the 24-105 at the same aperture? Personally I would get the longer range lens. The 24-105 is my most used lens. I can't begin to imagine that the 24-70 could come close to being as useful at the same aperture. Though IF it has a decent Macro component, that would be worth something! ;-)
SS
Good points. Reports seem to be that the macro capability on the 24-70 F4 is useful, close to 1:1. I wonder if the F4 with IS would be roughly equivalent in speed to the 24-70 2.8 without IS. Still concerned about "real life" differences in IQ.
LFingar wrote:
I have the 24-70 f/4 which I use primarily on my 6D. For routine use I find it to be excellent. Sharp throughout the range with little distortion or CA. Of course, the 6D, like all the newer Canons, incorporates correction data for the lens. If you are using an older body you may get different results.
I guess the software for my 5DIII could probably be updated, if there's a new version since then. Thanks for that!
MT Shooter wrote:
The 24-70mm F4L sacrificed a lot to downsize from the F2.8 version. Its a compromise for people wanting to get by for less money. The Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 VC lens is MUCH sharper and a much better buy if you are counting pennies. Otherwise save for the F2.8L to satisfy your Canon brand urge.
Thanks MT Shooter. That's just the kind of summation I was hoping for. For better or worse, for my wallet and back.