Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 16 Aug 2012 (Thursday) 01:13
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

I want another 'magic' lens like the 70-200 mk2

 
dochollidayda
Goldmember
1,129 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2077
Joined Aug 2012
     
Aug 20, 2012 10:54 |  #46

NavyShrink wrote in post #14881215 (external link)
I concur. Sold our 24-70L to get the 35L, which wife was initially hesitant about. Six months later, we've never regretted it once. The 35L has become the default lens for us.

I have been thinking of going the same route. Use 70-200 for range, and shoot everything else with 50/35. I am on a crop sensor though, so not as much fun but the 50/1.4 is just razor sharp at ~F2.8. From what I have read 70-200 is even better. Which is great but I haven't read about any lens that's consistently sharp on the wide end.


flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
hyogen
Goldmember
Avatar
2,043 posts
Likes: 115
Joined May 2012
Location: Portland, OR
     
Aug 21, 2012 06:38 |  #47

the 70-200 f4l is supposed to be even sharper right? Is this magical quality you speak of the bokeliciousness of it?  :o

I'm a poor student right now, but I think I could afford the 70-200 f4l used......how much less magical will this be for me D: I'd also have to make a choice between having the 70-200 f4l and 50mm 1.8 *or* 3 lenses: Sigma 30 1.4, canon 85mm 1.8, and 50mm 1.8....


justinleeportland (external link)
facebook (external link)
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
EOS R6, 45mm TS-E / RF 35mm 1.8 / RF 28-70 2.0 / EF 16-35 2.8 ii / EF 70-200 2.8 ii / Zhiyun Weebill S / Moza Slypod

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,732 posts
Gallery: 141 photos
Likes: 1457
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Aug 21, 2012 09:55 |  #48

I will admit the 70-200mk2 does make some magical shots alot easier with that lens. The 85Lmk2 also suprises me still in the rendition but of course less versatile due to one FL.

I would hope a 35Lmk2 comes out relatively soon. That lens lacks the micro contrast you get with a 70-200mk2. I feel the 24Lmk2 has a more rich look due to the latest canon design and coatings.

I really would like the 24-70Lmk2 since its sure sounding like its more like it has the similar IQ as the 70-200mk2. One thing about the 24-70L is the extreme versatility but the old lens lacks contrast wideopen and IQ is adequate for a red ring lens. The age is certainly showing.

As far as the 35L is concerned....content/s​ubject and skills of the photographer will make that lens shine. Otherwise I still think its boring FL that is useable when you desire that FL. On a full frame its nice to have f/1.4 on a semi wide angle prime. Thing is the perspective is typically the "normal" perspective you naturally see with your own eyes. Its safe to say theres less dramatic distortion so its not far from the perspective of a 50mm. But it all really depends on what you shoot.

OP, you own a crop so you may find the 24Lmk2 a nice addition for your quest of amazing IQ. Put a 24Lmk2 on a full frame and you'll have a unique distortion look that is pleasant and not typical "normal" looking.

I'd probably suggest a tokina 11-16, 24Lmk2 and 85 f/1.8. All of these lenses have a different flavour in perspective with a crop body. What "typical/non photog" people see the difference in a DSLR user is the shallow dof and unique perspective you get compared to a run of the mill point and shoot.

UWA will be distorted but unique for story telling. 35L is not wide enough for a walk around in my case if I had a crop body. 24mm is a bit wider that allows a little more fov to take environmental shots without backing into a wall. 85 f/1.8 is simply a cheap lens that delivers incredible IQ for the money (dare I say 85+% of a 85L).


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji - gone
Sony 2 x A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Sigma 24-70 ART | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Sigma ART 35 f/1.2 | FE85 f/1.8 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hyogen
Goldmember
Avatar
2,043 posts
Likes: 115
Joined May 2012
Location: Portland, OR
     
Aug 21, 2012 10:05 |  #49

Thanks AlanU for the insightful comments :D Hit some pressure points there for me :)


justinleeportland (external link)
facebook (external link)
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
EOS R6, 45mm TS-E / RF 35mm 1.8 / RF 28-70 2.0 / EF 16-35 2.8 ii / EF 70-200 2.8 ii / Zhiyun Weebill S / Moza Slypod

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jwhittaker
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
111 posts
Joined May 2011
Location: Devon, England
     
Aug 21, 2012 10:14 as a reply to  @ hyogen's post |  #50

Yeah thanks Alan for your detailed response.
I think i am going to hang on to see what the 35L Mk2 shoots like, and also to see sample shots with the 24-70mk2 - I can't seem to find any right now.
From looking through the lens sample images thus far, for me, the 100L macro and the Zeiss distagon also have the magic I seek. The 35L has a strong character to it but I'm prepared to wait to see what mk2 brings - we are talking a lot of money here so I'm taking me time.


J u s t i n
Canon 600D, Canon 70-200 f2.8 mk2, Canon 15-85mm, Samyang 35 1.4, Canon 50mm F1.8,
Flikr Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,732 posts
Gallery: 141 photos
Likes: 1457
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Aug 21, 2012 10:19 |  #51

hyogen wrote in post #14886751 (external link)
Thanks AlanU for the insightful comments :D Hit some pressure points there for me :)

Those are just my "opinions". I know everyone's style is different but one thing to note is a zoom cannot replace a prime and vice versa.

I love both types of lenses and since they are tools one must pick the appropriate tool for the "moment".

A 24-70L mk2 my friend tested (pre release) he simply said its "stupid sharp". What an interesting description of that lens. He shot two weddings with that lens and said it was amazing compared to his mark1 version.

The 24-70L range can look very boring/non magical. Zooms can spoil your image or enhance it. With a zoom I equally foot zoom aswell as flick my wrist. 24mm and foot zooming a subject (people/object) can intrigue a viewer more than if you get the same FOV if you were standing further but at 70mm. Its all about perspective.

Yes the 70-200 can be magical because of the "different" perspective and potential to easily blow out creamy backgrounds. UWA and wide angle looses that easy bokeh magic.This is where perspective and choice of FL will tell "magical" storytelling with more of the magic based on facial expressions/photograph​er's skills in capturing a "moment"....(not to forget mentioning skills of post processing :)

85mm(non L or L), 100f/2 (even 100 macro f/2.8) and 135L also has "magical" potential. Primes sets more of a "built in perspective" if your trying to fill the frame with a human subject or object. A zoom you can at least manipulate foot work and change FL to fill the frame the way you like.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji - gone
Sony 2 x A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Sigma 24-70 ART | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Sigma ART 35 f/1.2 | FE85 f/1.8 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dochollidayda
Goldmember
1,129 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2077
Joined Aug 2012
     
Aug 21, 2012 11:09 |  #52

AlanU wrote in post #14886820 (external link)
Those are just my "opinions". I know everyone's style is different but one thing to note is a zoom cannot replace a prime and vice versa.

I love both types of lenses and since they are tools one must pick the appropriate tool for the "moment".

A 24-70L mk2 my friend tested (pre release) he simply said its "stupid sharp". What an interesting description of that lens. He shot two weddings with that lens and said it was amazing compared to his mark1 version.

The 24-70L range can look very boring/non magical. Zooms can spoil your image or enhance it. With a zoom I equally foot zoom aswell as flick my wrist. 24mm and foot zooming a subject (people/object) can intrigue a viewer more than if you get the same FOV if you were standing further but at 70mm. Its all about perspective.

Yes the 70-200 can be magical because of the "different" perspective and potential to easily blow out creamy backgrounds. UWA and wide angle looses that easy bokeh magic.This is where perspective and choice of FL will tell "magical" storytelling with more of the magic based on facial expressions/photograph​er's skills in capturing a "moment"....(not to forget mentioning skills of post processing :)

85mm(non L or L), 100f/2 (even 100 macro f/2.8) and 135L also has "magical" potential. Primes sets more of a "built in perspective" if your trying to fill the frame with a human subject or object. A zoom you can at least manipulate foot work and change FL to fill the frame the way you like.

First off, its great to see a fellow Vancouverite with extensive knowledge of the subject. Second, I have been looking at a wide angle lens since 15-85 doesn't really cut it in terms of sharpness. I am not sure if you have the opportunity to compare but is the 16-35L sharper than 15-85? I am on 7D so I understand my UWA will be around 24. So the question becomes is 16-35 somewhat comparable to 24L? I plan on going FF in the near future but I want to learn some more with the 7D first. Thanks.


flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Aug 21, 2012 11:42 |  #53

Lenses like the 85L, 135L and 70-200 f/2.8L have the ability to put the viewers attention entirely on the subject through selective focus. In the case of the 70-200, you'll need to use it at 200mm f/2.8 to get this effect. I think this is where most of the 'magic' comes from.

But none of these lenses let me use linear perspective to convey depth - at least not when photographing people in tight spaces. Only the wider-angle lenses let me do this. And a fast, wide prime, such as the 24 f/1.4L, also gives me some selective focus ability. If I were to call any of my lenses 'magical' this would be it. And what would be even more magical would be this lens in an f/1.2 flavor!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hyogen
Goldmember
Avatar
2,043 posts
Likes: 115
Joined May 2012
Location: Portland, OR
     
Aug 21, 2012 12:15 |  #54

how much less magical is the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 or the Tamron?  :o Less contrasty?

oh man... a local guy is willing to sell his like new sigma 70-200mm 2.8 for $500 flat and drive 20 miles one way to deliver (he lives in a rural area). He wanted $600, but i talked him down to $500...I can actually afford this....but can I afford to get less magic than the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II? How much less magic is the key.... Can anyone comment?


justinleeportland (external link)
facebook (external link)
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
EOS R6, 45mm TS-E / RF 35mm 1.8 / RF 28-70 2.0 / EF 16-35 2.8 ii / EF 70-200 2.8 ii / Zhiyun Weebill S / Moza Slypod

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mosabi
Senior Member
376 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Fargo, ND
     
Aug 21, 2012 14:25 |  #55

Canon 17-55 for crop body


Website:
www.nickluchau.zenfoli​o.com (external link)
40Dx2 gripped | 17-55 f/2.8 | 50 f/1.8 mk1 | 430ex II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
fishinfool
Senior Member
Avatar
262 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Hilo, Hawaii
     
Aug 21, 2012 15:20 |  #56

5280Pics wrote in post #14864738 (external link)
Canon 15-85L IS 1.8

. . .OK, so maybe I'm dreaming a bit! :)

You got me for just a millisecond. :lol: The 15-85 is no L lens but it does take very good and very sharp pics imo.


6D + BG-E13, 7D2 + BG-E16, 7D + BG-E7, 16-35 f/2.8L II USM, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM, + 1.4x III, 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, 24-105 f/4L IS USM, 100 f/2.8L IS USM Macro, 50 f/1.4 USM, 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, 580EX II & 430EX II, Manfrotto MT057C4 + RRS BH-55, Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 + Acratech GP, Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 + 128RC , Manfrotto 681B + Sirui L-10, Gorillapod Focus + Manfrotto 234RC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,732 posts
Gallery: 141 photos
Likes: 1457
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Aug 21, 2012 16:50 |  #57

The 70-200 mk2 is hard to describe. Its like a prime lens image quality but you have the versatility of a zoom. For me the cost of the canon 70-200mk2 is no doubt one of the best purchases I've ever did.

I'll have to say if your getting a 70-200mm lens I'd highly suggest getting "IS". At 200mm a large cup of cheap coffee with high caffeine can ruin your day with blurry images :eek:

hyogen wrote in post #14887313 (external link)
how much less magical is the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 or the Tamron?  :o Less contrasty?

oh man... a local guy is willing to sell his like new sigma 70-200mm 2.8 for $500 flat and drive 20 miles one way to deliver (he lives in a rural area). He wanted $600, but i talked him down to $500...I can actually afford this....but can I afford to get less magic than the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II? How much less magic is the key.... Can anyone comment?


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji - gone
Sony 2 x A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Sigma 24-70 ART | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Sigma ART 35 f/1.2 | FE85 f/1.8 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,732 posts
Gallery: 141 photos
Likes: 1457
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Aug 21, 2012 17:03 |  #58

dochollidayda wrote in post #14887031 (external link)
First off, its great to see a fellow Vancouverite with extensive knowledge of the subject. Second, I have been looking at a wide angle lens since 15-85 doesn't really cut it in terms of sharpness. I am not sure if you have the opportunity to compare but is the 16-35L sharper than 15-85? I am on 7D so I understand my UWA will be around 24. So the question becomes is 16-35 somewhat comparable to 24L? I plan on going FF in the near future but I want to learn some more with the 7D first. Thanks.

I'll have to say I absolutely love my 16-35Lmk2. I'll also add I really loved my 17-40L but for some paid events I needed f/2.8. I was scared purchasing the 16-35L mk2 because the IQ of the 17-40L was excellent. Luckily the 16-35L is on par as far as colour rendtion is concerned.

For a crop body many will say its not the most ideal decision to buy a 16-35L. I'll have to agree at some point but on the other hand if your gonna buy a FF in the near future ....its a no brainer decision. The 16-35L is very sharp wideopen for events photography. For the UWA the bokeh is pleasant.

The 24Lmk2 is ridiculously sharp and has similar micro contrast as the 70-200 mk2. On a crop body the FOV is useable and somewhat wide enough for my style. One interesting thing to note is that its unique that you can shoot f/1.4 and get some "POP" out of a wide angle photo. That gives a unique characteristic.

I have my 24Lmk2 almost permanently one one of my full frames. I also use my 16-35L alot. IQ wise I'm extremely pleased with those two lenses. Its definitely better than my 24-70L.

I've never used a 15-85mm lens. Many do like the zoom but my only issue is that I loose creative control when the aperture stops down as I zoom in. This is why its nice to have a constant aperture lens.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji - gone
Sony 2 x A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Sigma 24-70 ART | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Sigma ART 35 f/1.2 | FE85 f/1.8 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dochollidayda
Goldmember
1,129 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2077
Joined Aug 2012
     
Aug 21, 2012 22:28 |  #59

AlanU wrote in post #14888663 (external link)
I've never used a 15-85mm lens. Many do like the zoom but my only issue is that I loose creative control when the aperture stops down as I zoom in. This is why its nice to have a constant aperture lens.

That's really one of the big problems I have at this time, I lose way too much contrast and distortion becomes obvious zoomed in all the way. 16-35mm seems like a great option for UWA but I mostly shoot at 85mm end of the 15-85 and that's only because I can't zoom in any further. I think I am going to get 70-200 F4IS first and leave the 15-85 for the UWA until I have enough saved up to invest in 24L or 16/35L.

Thanks for all your advice, must appreciated.:)


flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hyogen
Goldmember
Avatar
2,043 posts
Likes: 115
Joined May 2012
Location: Portland, OR
     
Aug 21, 2012 23:43 |  #60

AlanU wrote in post #14888612 (external link)
The 70-200 mk2 is hard to describe. Its like a prime lens image quality but you have the versatility of a zoom. For me the cost of the canon 70-200mk2 is no doubt one of the best purchases I've ever did.

I'll have to say if your getting a 70-200mm lens I'd highly suggest getting "IS". At 200mm a large cup of cheap coffee with high caffeine can ruin your day with blurry images :eek:

hmm. you're not really talking about bright sunny days though, right? I would think that f2.8 would be fast enough to minimize blur.

I think I"ve decided that the 70-200mm F4L is probably good enough for me because it'll mainly be used for portraits or nature photography outdoors.. It's a bit long on a crop sensor for indoors anyway--


justinleeportland (external link)
facebook (external link)
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
EOS R6, 45mm TS-E / RF 35mm 1.8 / RF 28-70 2.0 / EF 16-35 2.8 ii / EF 70-200 2.8 ii / Zhiyun Weebill S / Moza Slypod

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,175 views & 0 likes for this thread
I want another 'magic' lens like the 70-200 mk2
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kubo456
838 guests, 260 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.