Brisbane POTN: General Ramblings Thread v2.0

Jim G wrote in post #4124377
Wah! I just looked up the price of the 135L at Photobuff and it's now $1590... I paid $1259 for mine from him only a couple of months ago!

Maybe that means I should snap up a 200mm 2.8 before the price rises.. *nod self* - if only I had the money.. and didn't want a tripod!

Edit: I wonder if they did some subtle upgrade and that's why the prices have gone up again... hrmm...

I just checked their price on a lens I'm looking at and it hasn't changed - like you I thought the closure over the weekend was for a revamp - of their prices!

Correction - that was B&H.

As you were.

HelenThura wrote in post #4124720
Yeah I have Feng's at the moment, and I was extremely pleased with it and I think I can cope with f/4 and only been 17mm compared to 16mm goodness. It also becomes a whole lot more cheaper in terms of grad filters

Hey, Helen - how much difference in IQ will I find between the 17-40 and 17-85 in your opinion? I know the 40 is an L lens.

Jim G wrote in post #4124366
I had a few stacks on the mountain where I'd fall and slam my hand down onto my skis... could feel the shoulder move about a bit there and by later in the evening hoo boy, was it hurting. 'sall fun though.. I've got a few bruises on my backside that are probably an interesting shade of blue

What's your opinion on the 200mm 2.8? The 300mm looks like a lovely lens but there's soooo many more that I'd buy before that.. 85 1.2 would probably be on that list

Doh @ the stack

Yeah a great lens Jim... 85 1.2 is ALSO purdy /me pets his permanent loaner

-spam- wrote in post #4124370
If you want to that'd be good. Thinking i might go get a hair cut today, getting sick of it being in my eyes and its time my forehead got a tan

yeah cool... i'll call you when I'm on the way.

Jim G wrote in post #4124377
Wah! I just looked up the price of the 135L at Photobuff and it's now $1590... I paid $1259 for mine from him only a couple of months ago!

Maybe that means I should snap up a 200mm 2.8 before the price rises.. *nod self* - if only I had the money.. and didn't want a tripod!

Edit: I wonder if they did some subtle upgrade and that's why the prices have gone up again... hrmm...

mmm you want a tripod

HelenThura wrote in post #4124642
I want one too. though 17-40 or 24mm 1.4 is the next cab off the rank

Wasn't my fault

willstar wrote in post #4124975
Hey, Helen - how much difference in IQ will I find between the 17-40 and 17-85 in your opinion? I know the 40 is an L lens.

people will tell you it's not much... in terms of sharpness etc..

i had a 17-85 and that's my 17-40, and I can tell the difference... particularly in the optical distortion etc at the wide end of the 17-85... and IQ at 17-24 and 70-85. hence why I got the 24-70 I found myself shooting in that range to avoid the dodgy bits

wakko wrote in post #4124978
people will tell you it's not much... in terms of sharpness etc..

i had a 17-85 and that's my 17-40, and I can tell the difference... particularly in the optical distortion etc at the wide end of the 17-85... and IQ at 17-24 and 70-85. hence why I got the 24-70 I found myself shooting in that range to avoid the dodgy bits

OK. I'd heard similar opinions in that there's not much diff - but again, I guess it depends on how particular you are.

What about the f4 - 5.6 in the 17-85 vs f4 in the 17-40 (excuse my ignorance) how does that differ between the lenses?

Cheers for your comments, Feng

willstar wrote in post #4125018
OK. I'd heard similar opinions in that there's not much diff - but again, I guess it depends on how particular you are.

What about the f4 - 5.6 in the 17-85 vs f4 in the 17-40 (excuse my ignorance) how does that differ between the lenses?

Cheers for your comments, Feng

that's cool.

Here were my pet 'dislikes'...

1. distortion at 17-24mm
2. non constant aperture (i.e. f/4-5.6)
3. IQ at 17-24 and 70-85 not fantastic wide open. Not bad stopped down.

That's about it really.

I like little to no distortion in any lens I buy (unless it's designed to have distortion). don't get me wrong... 17mm on a 5D curves a bit at the edges (by nature of a UWA).... on a 30D (what I had) it was to be equiv to 28-135. I don't reckon there should be much image distortion at the equiv of 28mm-35mm. The 17-40 on the 30D showed to have next to none.

Non constant aperture. just proved to be annoying when zooming in and out. The 17-85 has f/4 at the wide end, and 5.6 at the long end... meaning if you zoom to 85mm, it'd automatically change to f/5.6... then if you went wide again it'd stay at f/5.6 which was frustrating. constant f for me is better in that it's always f/4 from start to end... even better with the 24-70 with constant f/2.8.

IQ just seemd wayward on my copy. David (three) may tell you otherwise but after using the 24-70, I'll not look back to it again.

17-40 is a bit short for a general walk around lens on a crop... another lens to consider would be the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I hear reports of it being L grade glass with constant f/2.8 and IS! .. if you look after your gear, it'll serve you well (some copies have dust issues).

hope that helps.

edit: I found that cos most of my shots were at 24-70 anyway, that this lens suited me more. Some find it a bit long at the wide end on a crop body... now I have a 5D, it's even better for me... I don't miss the length one bit

wakko wrote in post #4125059
that's cool.

Here were my pet 'dislikes'...

1. distortion at 17-24mm
2. non constant aperture (i.e. f/4-5.6)
3. IQ at 17-24 and 70-85 not fantastic wide open. Not bad stopped down.

That's about it really.

I like little to no distortion in any lens I buy (unless it's designed to have distortion). don't get me wrong... 17mm on a 5D curves a bit at the edges (by nature of a UWA).... on a 30D (what I had) it was to be equiv to 28-135. I don't reckon there should be much image distortion at the equiv of 28mm-35mm. The 17-40 on the 30D showed to have next to none.

Non constant aperture. just proved to be annoying when zooming in and out. The 17-85 has f/4 at the wide end, and 5.6 at the long end... meaning if you zoom to 85mm, it'd automatically change to f/5.6... then if you went wide again it'd stay at f/5.6 which was frustrating. constant f for me is better in that it's always f/4 from start to end... even better with the 24-70 with constant f/2.8.

IQ just seemd wayward on my copy. David (three) may tell you otherwise but after using the 24-70, I'll not look back to it again.

17-40 is a bit short for a general walk around lens on a crop... another lens to consider would be the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I hear reports of it being L grade glass with constant f/2.8 and IS! .. if you look after your gear, it'll serve you well (some copies have dust issues).

hope that helps.

edit: I found that cos most of my shots were at 24-70 anyway, that this lens suited me more. Some find it a bit long at the wide end on a crop body... now I have a 5D, it's even better for me... I don't miss the length one bit

Thanks (again ) for the info - as before, lots for me to learn. I have found that I'm using 18-55 mostly, and not often at the 18 end. I'm trying to be practical and get me something that'll cover a range of uses too.

I get it now re the fixed vs variable f-stop, shouldn't pose too much of a problem as I tend to check each time anyway.

Whilst I might lose a bit in the lack of L lens in 17-85, the IS is an attraction for me. This means it could be used indoors without too much hassle, (without flash), or lowlight outside. I'll have a look at the 2.8 IS you mentioned.

As you've said before, it's a bit of trial and error to see what suits and what I'm photgraphing mainly. I just don't want to end up with a lot of unused glass in the bag.

Cheers for the heads up, Feng

willstar wrote in post #4124975
Hey, Helen - how much difference in IQ will I find between the 17-40 and 17-85 in your opinion? I know the 40 is an L lens.

Here's my 0.02 if you want - having owned both lenses... the 17-85 is no slouch when it comes down to it with straight-out sharpness but it's not mind-blowing either - my copy, at least. The distortion at 17mm was fun but not always desirable... something the 17-40L improves on heaps.

Between the two.. sometimes I miss the IS but I'd take the 17-40 any day. I didn't like the amount of dust my 17-85 sucked in and used it 95% on the wide end so the build quality, flat f/4, weather sealing and (slightly) better sharpness and colour wins for me.

willstar wrote in post #4125161
Thanks (again ) for the info - as before, lots for me to learn. I have found that I'm using 18-55 mostly, and not often at the 18 end. I'm trying to be practical and get me something that'll cover a range of uses too.

I get it now re the fixed vs variable f-stop, shouldn't pose too much of a problem as I tend to check each time anyway.

Whilst I might lose a bit in the lack of L lens in 17-85, the IS is an attraction for me. This means it could be used indoors without too much hassle, (without flash), or lowlight outside. I'll have a look at the 2.8 IS you mentioned.

As you've said before, it's a bit of trial and error to see what suits and what I'm photgraphing mainly. I just don't want to end up with a lot of unused glass in the bag.

Cheers for the heads up, Feng

That's cool...

Just always remember that IS only helps the shaky hands and won't freeze motion like an additional stop can and you'll be fine.

Jim G wrote in post #4125168
Here's my 0.02 if you want - having owned both lenses... the 17-85 is no slouch when it comes down to it with straight-out sharpness but it's not mind-blowing either - my copy, at least. The distortion at 17mm was fun but not always desirable... something the 17-40L improves on heaps.

Between the two.. sometimes I miss the IS but I'd take the 17-40 any day. I didn't like the amount of dust my 17-85 sucked in and used it 95% on the wide end so the build quality, flat f/4, weather sealing and (slightly) better sharpness and colour wins for me.

yeah he summed up pretty much what I rambled on about in two simple paragraphs hehehe...

Jim G wrote in post #4125168
Here's my 0.02 if you want - having owned both lenses... the 17-85 is no slouch when it comes down to it with straight-out sharpness but it's not mind-blowing either - my copy, at least. The distortion at 17mm was fun but not always desirable... something the 17-40L improves on heaps.

Between the two.. sometimes I miss the IS but I'd take the 17-40 any day. I didn't like the amount of dust my 17-85 sucked in and used it 95% on the wide end so the build quality, flat f/4, weather sealing and (slightly) better sharpness and colour wins for me.

OK - fair comments, Jim. I guess you take a chance whenever you buy a lens - as with anything you get some good and some not so good, even tho quality should be consistent. I know I'd see a big improvement in quality on the 17-85 or 17-40 over my 18-55 either way. Re distortion I figured that I'd have a bigger range (than with 18-55) and could come down to 18-20 ish to keep away from the limits and the restrictions (or distortions) that sometimes creeps in when out wide

wakko wrote in post #4125180
That's cool...

Just always remember that IS only helps the shaky hands and won't freeze motion like an additional stop can and you'll be fine.

yeah he summed up pretty much what I rambled on about in two simple paragraphs hehehe...

Yeah - I remember, but my 45 year old hands sometimes get a bit shaky anyway! Something for you to look forward to in old age

Jim is a man of few (but sometimes meaningful) words, I've noticed!

willstar wrote in post #4125290
OK - fair comments, Jim. I guess you take a chance whenever you buy a lens - as with anything you get some good and some not so good, even tho quality should be consistent. I know I'd see a big improvement in quality on the 17-85 or 17-40 over my 18-55 either way. Re distortion I figured that I'd have a bigger range (than with 18-55) and could come down to 18-20 ish to keep away from the limits and the restrictions (or distortions) that sometimes creeps in when out wide

Yeah... everyone's usage will be different - for me I was taking a great deal of my photos at 17-20mm and never using the long end so that factored greatly in my upgrading decision. I know the person I sold my 17-85 to is over the moon about it and it suits their needs perfectly...

willstar wrote in post #4125290
Jim is a man of few (but sometimes meaningful) words, I've noticed!

Only sometimes!?

Jim G wrote in post #4125305
Yeah... everyone's usage will be different - for me I was taking a great deal of my photos at 17-20mm and never using the long end so that factored greatly in my upgrading decision. I know the person I sold my 17-85 to is over the moon about it and it suits their needs perfectly...

same with me I think? though after he tried the 24-70... lol... he wants one of them now

Only sometimes!?

most definitely only sometimes!

wakko wrote in post #4125317
same with me I think? though after he tried the 24-70... lol... he wants one of them now

Eh, I solved that problem by buying both

For me at least they serve very different purposes - 17-40L is strictly a landscape/casual photos-of-friends-with-flash-at-parties lens whereas the 24-70L is my workhorse for gigs and portraits... I don't take the brick when I'm out doing landscapes (having a 50mm 1.4 as backup in case something desperately cries out for bokeh/portraiture) and I don't take the 17-40L to gigs

Once I get a 5D things may change a little as the ranges will change quite a bit.. I'm looking forward to that, though


ooh, and if you get both the 17-40 and the 24-70 you'll SAVE money by only having to buy 77mm filters!

Jim G wrote in post #4125305
Yeah... everyone's usage will be different - for me I was taking a great deal of my photos at 17-20mm and never using the long end so that factored greatly in my upgrading decision. I know the person I sold my 17-85 to is over the moon about it and it suits their needs perfectly...

It really comes down to need and price - I'd love to go out and get me a decent set of glass - could easily spend (in my mind) several thou $'s - 300mm f/2,8 or 400mm etc etc. As we say in the financial world - if your outgoings exceed your income, your upkeep becomes your downfall. I could really do some damage on the upkeep side of things!!

Jim G wrote in post #4125305
Only sometimes!?

Well, interspersed with long periods of silence.....

Jim G wrote in post #4125331
Eh, I solved that problem by buying both

For me at least they serve very different purposes - 17-40L is strictly a landscape/casual photos-of-friends-with-flash-at-parties lens whereas the 24-70L is my workhorse for gigs and portraits... I don't take the brick when I'm out doing landscapes (having a 50mm 1.4 as backup in case something desperately cries out for bokeh/portraiture) and I don't take the 17-40L to gigs

Once I get a 5D things may change a little as the ranges will change quite a bit.. I'm looking forward to that, though


ooh, and if you get both the 17-40 and the 24-70 you'll SAVE money by only having to buy 77mm filters!

lol have you not looked at my gear list?

I have both too... and on a 5D hehehe...

but yeah... had the 30D with a 17-85, 17-40, 24-70 and the 17-85 sat on the shelf until I sold the 30D (enthusiast kit)

edit: I only ask cos your post sounded like you were trying to sell it to me hehehe...