Alright I see, Yeah sorry about bringing the 24-105 up so much, i might settle on the 100mm L, is there gonna be any huge difference between the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8?
Alright I see, Yeah sorry about bringing the 24-105 up so much, i might settle on the 100mm L, is there gonna be any huge difference between the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8? Canon EOS R5, RF 15-35 f/2.8, RF 70-200 f/2.8, RF 50mm f/1.2
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 22, 2013 11:25 | #32 DreDaze wrote in post #16316273  you seem pretty dead set on getting the 24-105mm...as not a single person has recommended it, and you're bringing it up constantly... so get the 24-105mm... then get a cheap 50mm f1.8, because you should have a prime anyways...add some dumb extension tubes(no electrical contacts) since you'll be shooting in a studio setting anyways and be done i assume you already have some sort of lighting set up... yes, ill be having 2-3 softboxes or umbrellas going, im not really sure which to get as both are good for different subjects and sorry about bringing up the 24-105 over and over, so for what im shooting a fixed focal/macro lens should be my best choice? Canon EOS R5, RF 15-35 f/2.8, RF 70-200 f/2.8, RF 50mm f/1.2
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DreDaze happy with myself for not saying anything stupid  More info | Sep 22, 2013 11:26 | #33 jonathanheierle wrote in post #16316293 Alright I see, Yeah sorry about bringing the 24-105 up so much, i might settle on the 100mm L, is there gonna be any huge difference between the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8? no need to apologize, it's obviously a lens you want...no reason to go for the L in a studio setting Andre or Dre
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 22, 2013 11:33 | #34 DreDaze wrote in post #16316300 no need to apologize, it's obviously a lens you want...no reason to go for the L in a studio setting for the 50's there will be a big difference in bokeh, AF, build, maybe a slight difference in sharpness...but i don't really see any of those having an effect with your uses for the studio macro shots...it would matter outside of that though obviously a fixed true macro lens would be the best choice...but it sounds to me like it's not something you'd be doing very often...and there are ways to get away with doing it cheaper True, I'm just getting into studio photography, I'm still converting one of my rooms into a studio, Since I've never really tried studio photography I'm not sure if I want to get a lens that wont be useful outside of the studio, Canon EOS R5, RF 15-35 f/2.8, RF 70-200 f/2.8, RF 50mm f/1.2
LOG IN TO REPLY |
amfoto1 Cream of the Crop 10,331 posts Likes: 146 Joined Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, California More info | Sep 22, 2013 12:25 | #35 jonathanheierle wrote in post #16316320 True, I'm just getting into studio photography, I'm still converting one of my rooms into a studio, Since I've never really tried studio photography I'm not sure if I want to get a lens that wont be useful outside of the studio, If i decided to get a 50mm id probably go for the 1.4, since I shoot mountain biking, and need the fastest AF I can get, as well be able to use it in a studio The 50/1.4 isn't a macro lens, though it can be made to focus pretty close by adding macro extension tubes.  "In studio"... well actually my kitchen. Available light. Far from 1:1... probably not even 1:4 or 1:5 magnification (which the 24-105 can do all on its own), the lady slipper is pretty large. The image below is done with Canon 50/1.4 on 10D (crop sensor) with about 20mm extension tube...  For the above I used the lens fairly wide open because I wanted very shallow DOF and I knew there would be considerable light fall off (vignetting) and softening in the corners. It was an effect I wanted for this particular image. Stopping the lens down more would have given more sharpness, but it's not a macro lens and not "flat field", so don't expect corner to corner sharpness from it. With flowers it's very rare to use full 1:1 magnification... These are very tiny flowers, though (some sort of weed), so were pretty close to the max 1:1 magnification with the Canon 100/2.8 (on a crop camera):  Same lens on another crop camera, probably about 1:2 magnification...  Yes, you can use zooms... I was shooting birds and didn't have a macro lens with me when I spotted this black and yellow garden spider in its web, so a Canon 70-200/2.8 IS with 25mm extension tube (film camera, i.e. "full frame") had to do:  The Canon 24-70/2.8 can shoot slightly higher magnification than the 24-105. But both are closer to "true macro" than many zooms. So is the Canon 28-135 IS. This was shot without any extension tubes, at 68mm, on crop camera. It's a little hard to tell, but the magnification is close to the 1:4 the lens is capable of doing on its own...  The images below are just two of many (hundreds) I've shot for a client's catalog and website, using Canon TS-E 45mm lens on crop camera...   These shots are no where near 1:1 magnification (probably more like 1:10 or there-abouts)... so no extension tubes are needed on the tilt shift lens. I used available light for both the above (I had nice Northlight in my dining room/studio). There are numerous discussions of 50/1.8 vs 50/1.4 (Canon) vs 50/1.4 (Sigma) vs 50/1.2L.... yada yada. The main distinctions between the Canon 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 are build quality and AF performance. The 50/1.4 is considerably better in both respects. I would not buy the 50/1.8 because it wouldn't hold up to my use and it's AF is too erratic and tends to hunt badly in more challenging light. The 50/1.4 also has better image quality, though the differences are more subtle. On my 7Ds, the 50/1.4 is near instantaneous focusing. By comparison, most macro lenses are slower focusing. The Tamrnon SP 60/2.0 Macro/Portrait I'm experimenting with right now doesn't seem to be able to keep up with faster moving subjects I have no trouble capturing with USM lenses such as the 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2, 24-70/2.8, 28-135 IS, 70-200/4, 70-200/2.8, 300/4, 300/2.8 and others. For mountain biking, 50mm isn't very long! You might want to consider longers, and since it's outdoors and likely will mostly be in good light, an f4 or slower lens (28-135 IS USM is a far cheaper alternative... used ones go for about 1/4 or 1/5 the price of the 24-105... and manages to match the 24-105 in most respects other than build and sealing against dust and moisture). Alan Myers
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 22, 2013 12:29 | #36 amfoto1 wrote in post #16316416 The 50/1.4 isn't a macro lens, though it can be made to focus pretty close by adding macro extension tubes. This is done with Canon 100/2.8 USM Macro (not the L/IS) on a film camera (so it's "full frame"): "In studio"... well actually my kitchen. Available light. Far from 1:1... probably not even 1:4 or 1:5 magnification (which the 24-105 can do all on its own), the lady slipper is pretty large. The image below is done with Canon 50/1.4 on 10D (crop sensor) with about 20mm extension tube... For the above I used the lens fairly wide open because I wanted very shallow DOF and I knew there would be considerable light fall off (vignetting) and softening in the corners. It was an effect I wanted for this particular image. Stopping the lens down more would have given more sharpness, but it's not a macro lens and not "flat field", so don't expect corner to corner sharpness from it. With flowers it's very rare to use full 1:1 magnification... These are very tiny flowers, though (some sort of weed), so were pretty close to the max 1:1 magnification with the Canon 100/2.8 (on a crop camera): Same lens on another crop camera, probably about 1:2 magnification... Yes, you can use zooms... Canon 70-200/2.8 IS with 25mm extension tube (film camera, i.e. "full frame"): The Canon 24-70/2.8 can shoot slightly higher magnification than the 24-105. But both are closer to "true macro" than many zooms. So is the Canon 28-135 IS. This was shot without any extension tubes, at 68mm, on crop camera... The images below are just two of many (hundreds) I've shot for a client's catalog and website, using Canon TS-E 45mm lens on crop camera... These shots are no where near 1:1 magnification (probably more like 1:10 or there-abouts)... so no extension tubes are needed on the lens. I used available light for the above (nice northlight in my dining room/studio). woah some of those photos are really stunning man, props, about the 24-70, is there going to be a major difference in IQ? other than the fact that its an f2.8 what makes the thing so dang expensive? Canon EOS R5, RF 15-35 f/2.8, RF 70-200 f/2.8, RF 50mm f/1.2
LOG IN TO REPLY |
amfoto1 Cream of the Crop 10,331 posts Likes: 146 Joined Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, California More info | Sep 22, 2013 12:58 | #37 There isn't all that much difference in IQ from either version of 24-70 (above was shot with the "Mark I), or 24-105, or for that matter the much cheaper 28-135. The 24-70s are real workhorses, though. Most pros go with them for that reason, as well as the f2.8 aperture of course. The 24-70 Mark II improves on reliability and durability over the Mark I. Both are a step up from the 24-105. And all are a several steps up in build quality from the 28-135 (but it's so cheap, you can afford to replace it every few years). Alan Myers
LOG IN TO REPLY |
1Tanker Goldmember  4,470 posts Likes: 8 Joined Jan 2011 Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction More info | jonathanheierle wrote: woah some of those photos are really stunning man, props, about the 24-70, is there going to be a major difference in IQ? other than the fact that its an f2.8 what makes the thing so dang expensive? Maybe you should start a new thread regarding walkaround zooms? You seem to have forgotten the idea of a macro lens, which this thread was about. Kel
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 22, 2013 13:00 | #39 amfoto1 wrote in post #16316469 There isn't all that much difference in IQ from either version of 24-70 (above was shot with the "Mark I), or 24-105, or for that matter the much cheaper 28-135. The 24-70s are real workhorses, though. Most pros go with them for that reason, as well as the f2.8 aperture of course. The 24-70 Mark II improves on reliability and durability over the Mark I. Both are a step up from the 24-105. And all are a several steps up in build quality from the 28-135 (but it's so cheap, you can afford to replace it every few years). I haven't used/compared the relatively new 24-70/4 IS. Seems like a scaled down 24-70/2.8, a bit lighter and smaller, plus IS. It might make a nice lens on 6D, for example. But since you are using a crop camera, you really don't need the full frame capabilities of any of the above. The EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS might do... Or if you don't need f2.8, the EF-S 15-85 IS (such as if you also have some fast primes to complement it). Oh alright, I figured the difference isnt huge, I was mainly thinking of the 24-105 because I shoot super fast mountain biking and need lighting quick AF Canon EOS R5, RF 15-35 f/2.8, RF 70-200 f/2.8, RF 50mm f/1.2
LOG IN TO REPLY |
amfoto1 Cream of the Crop 10,331 posts Likes: 146 Joined Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, California More info | Sep 22, 2013 13:32 | #40 jonathanheierle wrote in post #16316476 Oh alright, I figured the difference isnt huge, I was mainly thinking of the 24-105 because I shoot super fast mountain biking and need lighting quick AF All Canon cameras, your 7D included, have at least one enhanced AF point at the very center (some have several).... that requires lenses f2.8 or faster. So, to at least some small degree, an f2.8 lens' focus performance should be superior to an f4 lens. With less than an f2.8 lens, that center point performs about the same as the other dual axis "cross type" AF points the camera offers (varies, depending upon model... in your 7D it's all 18 of the other points that are this type... in contrast, 6D only has cross type at the center, the other 10 are single axis type... and 5D3 has 41 out of 61 total AF points, scattered throughout the viewfinder,).  70-200/4 IS...     300/4 IS...  In fact, I have more trouble with dust, which also can and does effect AF. 70-200/2.8 IS "Mark I"...  You appear to be vacillating back and forth between walk-around lenses and macro lenses.... perhaps wanting something that does both. I would note, though, that true macro lenses tend to be slower focusing. Some are a whole lot slower. For one, they have to move their focusing group a long, long way to go all the way from infinity to 1:1. Some have USM or equivalent and/or focus limiters to help them focus a bit faster... But for non-macro purposes most (all?) are still going to be slower than comparable non-macro lenses. The Tamron SP 60/2.0 I'm trying out right now is plenty fast acquiring initial focus, even with a simple micro motor focus drive. But I find it doesn't track movement very well... so I won't be using it for action photography. I don't use my Canon 100/2.8 for action photos, either. Either is fine for more sedate non-macro shots... portraits, etc. A "true macro" lens will do macro better... Most macros are a flat field design that will minimize vignetting and give a sharp images from corner to corner when focused very close. Many non-macro lenses can be made to shoot macro, such as with an extension tube (you could use the 70-200 you already have, for example... I'd recommend the Kenko set tubes, though, both for the flexibility of three different lengths of tubes and for the better value than the individual Canon tubes offer.... quality is nearly identical and function is exactly the same). A non-macro lens, such as 24-105 or 17-55 or 15-85 or 28-135 or 24-70 zooms, or primes such as 50/1.4, 85/1.8... will all be better than macro lenses for focus speed and general non-macro use, but won't do macro quite as well or conveniently as a true macro lens would. Still, they can do it pretty darned well and adding extension tubes can nicely increase their potential magnification. Alan Myers
LOG IN TO REPLY |
oh alright, thank you, i think i might settle for the 100mm L f2.8, I'm pretty sure im going to need to buy 2 lenses if i want a good walk around and a perfect macro Canon EOS R5, RF 15-35 f/2.8, RF 70-200 f/2.8, RF 50mm f/1.2
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 22, 2013 13:50 | #42 |
amfoto1 Cream of the Crop 10,331 posts Likes: 146 Joined Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, California More info | Sep 22, 2013 18:47 | #43 gnome chompski wrote in post #16316549 I would save yourself $500 and get the non L. I didnt see any difference in image quality between the two, except the non L actually giving a bit better resolution on the extreme edges of the frame. Might not matter on a 1.6x sensor. Agreed....  Amaryllis are quite large flowers and this was shot using a tripod and from a distance of about 10 or 12 feet, if I recall correctly. Outdoors, thanfully. I wouldn't have room indoors for the shot. Especially not on a crop camera. Alan Myers
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 23, 2013 14:52 | #44 How about the Sigma 105 ? ? ? This extreme macro below, is with a Raynox 250 and the Sigma. This gives you huge magnification on a budget and will free up funds for a 24-105 if you're set on one. This is a Lily stamen about 5/6mm in length, the water droplet was invisible to the naked eye............ Ian
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Sep 23, 2013 15:08 | #45 h14nha wrote in post #16319069 How about the Sigma 105 ? ? ? This extreme macro below, is with a Raynox 250 and the Sigma. This gives you huge magnification on a budget and will free up funds for a 24-105 if you're set on one. This is a Lily stamen about 5/6mm in length, the water droplet was invisible to the naked eye............ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianhatch/4790245979/ Sorry for link my iPad wont allow me to cut n pastethats super sharp and awesome, still a little pricey though Canon EOS R5, RF 15-35 f/2.8, RF 70-200 f/2.8, RF 50mm f/1.2
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is SteveeY 1259 guests, 180 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
