Car Show Sunday, Looking for a lens

DJHaze596 wrote in post #17565976
I'm sure it does fine but Hence why i was suggesting the 17-40 which i would take over a kit lens any day unless its the 24-105.

I have used the 18-55mm for a Car show before, The EF-M 18-55 distorts like crazy and lacks sharpness. I prefer Primes or a good L Lens.

17-40L doesn't make much sense on a crop, with the other options available though...if you're fine with the small range, and lack of IS, get the sigma 18-35 f1.8...but if you want something a little more even one of the 17-5Xf2.8 lenses make more sense...hell even the 18-135STM makes more sense...over the same 17-40mm range, i think you give up a 1/3 of a stop, and you gain reach and IS

DJHaze596 wrote in post #17565976
I'm sure it does fine but Hence why i was suggesting the 17-40 which i would take over a kit lens any day unless its the 24-105.

I have used the 18-55mm for a Car show before, The EF-M 18-55 distorts like crazy and lacks sharpness. I prefer Primes or a good L Lens.

Please point out the distortion in the sample images.

DreDaze wrote in post #17565992
17-40L doesn't make much sense on a crop, with the other options available though...if you're fine with the small range, and lack of IS, get the sigma 18-35 f1.8...but if you want something a little more even one of the 17-5Xf2.8 lenses make more sense...hell even the 18-135STM makes more sense...over the same 17-40mm range, i think you give up a 1/3 of a stop, and you gain reach and IS

I had the 17-40 on a T3i years ago. Worked perfectly fine and was 100x sharper than the kit lens and will most likely be sharper than my 22mm f2. The 18-135 STM is a kit lens with not only terrible optics but also very over priced, The 55-250mm STM is a lot better. I have the 22mm f2 and 50mm f1.8 STM for the show, With my $1,000 Budget, I think i can skip the kit lens route. The only downside to this is i have to get the lens from Best Buy, there inventory is kinda limited.

DC Fan wrote in post #17565994
Please point out the distortion in the sample images.

I let my dad use my Original EOS M with 18-55 STM for a Car Show back in January, I remember spending a lot of time correcting the distortion the best i can, It was rather annoying. The point of this thread is i have a $1,000 Budget, I don't know why people keep recommending kit lenses.

http://www.johnniebutt​ers.com/2015/01/sunday​-01112015.html

Edit: Here is a perfect example takee from here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …-3.5-5.6-IS-STM-Lens.aspx

DJHaze596 wrote in post #17566002
I had the 17-40 on a T3i years ago. Worked perfectly fine and was 100x sharper than the kit lens and will most likely be sharper than my 22mm f2. The 18-135 STM is a kit lens with not only terrible optics but also very over priced, The 55-250mm STM is a lot better. I have the 22mm f2 and 50mm f1.8 STM for the show, With my $1,000 Budget, I think i can skip the kit lens route. The only downside to this is i have to get the lens from Best Buy, there inventory is kinda limited.

I let my dad use my Original EOS M with 18-55 STM for a Car Show back in January, I remember spending a lot of time correcting the distortion the best i can, It was rather annoying. The point of this thread is i have a $1,000 Budget, I don't know why people keep recommending kit lenses.

not sure if you've actually used the 18-135STM, i'm guessing no, based off of your description being so off...but it holds up pretty well to the 17-40L
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=1

you seem to be obsessed over if something is a kit lens or not...the bottom line is kit lens or not, there are better suited lenses than what you are looking at

if you think the best option for you is the 17-40L, then get it...but it's probably the last lens i would choose for your situation

i just shot a car show with a 135 f2 L and i loved the pictures. you definitely need to step back but its a beautiful lens. take a look at my flicker if you want. its the set with all the musclecars. and the ones with my car in the cemetery.

I always used the 35A alot at car shows.

DreDaze wrote in post #17566150
not sure if you've actually used the 18-135STM, i'm guessing no, based off of your description being so off...but it holds up pretty well to the 17-40L
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=1

you seem to be obsessed over if something is a kit lens or not...the bottom line is kit lens or not, there are better suited lenses than what you are looking at

if you think the best option for you is the 17-40L, then get it...but it's probably the last lens i would choose for your situation

That is not a real world test. Here is a full size picture of my cat with the 600D and 17-40L

https://djunreal.files​.wordpress.com/2015/01​/img_2435.jpg

I don't want kit lenses, why is that so hard for you to understand, I've looked at RAW files of the 18-135 STM on a 7D Mark II, I've owned a 55-250mm STM on a 7D Mark II, I understand its a decent lens but it's just not for me. I have a $1,000 Budget, Why would you recommend a kit lens? I am not saying the 17-40L is my best Option but the point is, It's an option. The car show is 5 hours long, I have time to switch lenses and get close up to capture details hence why i am looking for different lenses.

Astheros wrote in post #17566154
i just shot a car show with a 135 f2 L and i loved the pictures. you definitely need to step back but its a beautiful lens. take a look at my flicker if you want. its the set with all the musclecars. and the ones with my car in the cemetery.

I've owned the 135L before, Such a great lens, I would get it but my local best buy doesn't carry it.

Talley wrote in post #17566159
I always used the 35A alot at car shows.

I have never used a 35 before. I might look into this.

FEChariot wrote in post #17565441
I think a large percentage of POTN users resemble that remark. Just change car show for, soccer match, wedding invitation, birth of new child, Disney trip, etc, etc as the case may be.

+1.

DJHaze596 wrote in post #17566002
I had the 17-40 on a T3i years ago. Worked perfectly fine and was 100x sharper than the kit lens and will most likely be sharper than my 22mm f2. The 18-135 STM is a kit lens with not only terrible optics but also very over priced, The 55-250mm STM is a lot better. I have the 22mm f2 and 50mm f1.8 STM for the show, With my $1,000 Budget, I think i can skip the kit lens route. The only downside to this is i have to get the lens from Best Buy, there inventory is kinda limited.

I let my dad use my Original EOS M with 18-55 STM for a Car Show back in January, I remember spending a lot of time correcting the distortion the best i can, It was rather annoying. The point of this thread is i have a $1,000 Budget, I don't know why people keep recommending kit lenses.

http://www.johnniebutt​ers.com/2015/01/sunday​-01112015.html

Edit: Here is a perfect example takee from here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …-3.5-5.6-IS-STM-Lens.aspx

The image of the building with the colonnade demonstrates the sort of geometric distortion that's not unknown among wide angle lenses. That distortion is so common that most versions of Photoshop have a function to correct it.

If that distortion is present in the previously posted car show examples - and no one has spotted any problems yet - it's not noticeable because the lens was used in a fashion where any such distortion is not going to be a factor. The low angle used in those examples renders any distortion moot.

Sometimes the manner in which a lens is used counts for more than reputation.

Also, a correction in my previous posting. The lens used for the car show examples was a versatile Canon 18-200mm IS unit, which has been bundled as a "kit lens" with Canon DSLR's along with EF-S varieties of the 18-55mm unit, the 17-85mm and the 18-135mm and, if I'm not mistaken, even one of the versions of the 24-105mm unit, maybe the "L" version.

DJHaze596 wrote in post #17564149
Heading to a car show Sunday at an Airport with the Canon EOS M3. I currently have the 22mm and picking up the 50mm f1.8 STM hopefully tomorrow. I was thinking either the 100mm L Macro, 70-200 f4, couple Primes, or another wide angle like the 17-40mm. Budget is $1,000.

Heya,

I think you'll find wider angle more useful in general, because others people will just be standing there in the way constantly. At least at wide angle you can get up close, fill the frame, and not have people standing in your frame as much. I think your M3 + 22F2 will be good to go as it is. That's about the same as using a 35mm on a full frame. So you're already there, no need to look into a 35mm. I wouldn't bother with the longer lenses unless you're interested in details inside the car at a further distance. Otherwise, just get close and use the same wide lens with a fast aperture for when you want that (again, the 22F2 does this fine).

If specifically going for wider angles, the 10-18 makes a lot of sense and is useful on more than just the EOS-M series.

Otherwise, the EOS-M's wide angle 11-22 is quite good though you will not have the thin depth of field option for some detail shots inside cars, unless you get very close.

Me, I'd probably take the EOS-M with 22, or my 10-22 with an adapter, on a small portable tripod so that I could do multiple exposures and blend them later (tonemap), or to be able to take multiple shots at the same exposure but with different points of focus so that I could focus stack later (such as using a really thin depth of field and getting all the car in focus while not stopping down to avoid getting the background in focus). Plus batteries. The only other thing I'd toy with, would be strong ND filters for long exposure use, for shooting images where people just can't seem to get out of the way, so I would make them ghosts in a long exposure (might be annoying, might not even be possible for the show, but it's another option for "crowded" stuff that is immobile, like cars).

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17568233
Heya,

I think you'll find wider angle more useful in general, because others people will just be standing there in the way constantly. At least at wide angle you can get up close, fill the frame, and not have people standing in your frame as much. I think your M3 + 22F2 will be good to go as it is. That's about the same as using a 35mm on a full frame. So you're already there, no need to look into a 35mm. I wouldn't bother with the longer lenses unless you're interested in details inside the car at a further distance. Otherwise, just get close and use the same wide lens with a fast aperture for when you want that (again, the 22F2 does this fine).

If specifically going for wider angles, the 10-18 makes a lot of sense and is useful on more than just the EOS-M series.

Otherwise, the EOS-M's wide angle 11-22 is quite good though you will not have the thin depth of field option for some detail shots inside cars, unless you get very close.

Me, I'd probably take the EOS-M with 22, or my 10-22 with an adapter, on a small portable tripod so that I could do multiple exposures and blend them later (tonemap), or to be able to take multiple shots at the same exposure but with different points of focus so that I could focus stack later (such as using a really thin depth of field and getting all the car in focus while not stopping down to avoid getting the background in focus). Plus batteries. The only other thing I'd toy with, would be strong ND filters for long exposure use, for shooting images where people just can't seem to get out of the way, so I would make them ghosts in a long exposure (might be annoying, might not even be possible for the show, but it's another option for "crowded" stuff that is immobile, like cars).

Very best,

Thanks, I'm sticking with the 22mm and new 50mm STM for tomorrow, Also have two Polorizers just in case. Thanks for your input.

So how did it work out?

I guess it depends on the show, but I've shot several car shows (actually, Jeep shows) and the cars are usually parked close together, and the subject itself benefits from the perspective caused by shooting close with a wide angle. I went through several past car shows and find that my most use focal lengths of the vehicles were 13-17mm, then some smaller clusters around 70 and 120mm of people. All of this on an APS-C crop sensor.