Photography Thailand Forum

[mahonyWeb]

Where is the rating shown Mark? I looked but couldn't see...

How do they rate the 35mm f1.4?

[Marc Schultz]

Try these 2 links for listings on all Canon EF USM lenses that they have information on. You will see ratings listed next to each lens on the lists.

http://www.photodo.com/products.html?mountid=18&name=Canon+EF+USM
http://www.photodo.com/products.html?mountid=20&name=Canon+EF-S+USM

[gregoire]

One thing about the 135 is that if you use extenders it can go up to 270mm f/4, right? Has anyone ever tried that? That looks appealing but the extenders are expensive.

I have a 17-40 f/4 and 24-105 f/4 IS but my favorite lens is my 50 f/1.4. Last weekend, I went to Hua Hin and didn't even take the other two. The thing is though, I shot it almost always at f/2.8 so I started wondering, maybe I should have a 24-70 f/2.8? How would my 50 f/1.4 shot at f/2.8 compare to a 24-70 shot wide open? Of course, the 50 should be sharper, but is it a big difference?

That 35mm f/1.4 looks very nice, too. I'm worried about money, of course, but perhaps even more importantly, how do you guys carry all this stuff!

[mahonyWeb]

Supposedly Canon's 2x extender is quite poor - the 1.4x said to give much better results.

The 135mm is so incredibly sharp that, in all honesty, I don't think you'd be upset with the results, even if used with the 2x extender.

I have the 17-40 lens too. I tried the mk1 16-35 but found it wanting, especially given its price. I'm hoping the mk2 is a lot better, but again, it's double the price of the 17-40. IMHO the 17-40 is an average lens at best - edge sharpness is appalling, and vignetting is a problem up to f11.

The 50mm f1.4 is nice, but it doesn't have the build of an 'L' lens. You should try the 35L Gregoire - I think you would like it a lot :)

Have you tried the 135 yet Mark?

[Marc Schultz]

Thanks, I have not gone to see one yet. I will get around to it and eventually if I found a used one in good condition at a decent price I might pick one up. Next time I am close to one of the camera shops in Bangkok I will have a look and will let you know my thoughts on it. Unfortunately though, handling one in a shop will only really give me a feel for focus speed and weight and I wont be able to tell anything about picture sharpness unless I take some snaps with one. I am still trying to think though in what situations I would really use a lens like this with a limiting focal length. I guess for studio stuff it could be good, but the crop will be a bit tight for torso shots. I guess it might also be good to keep in the bag in case there is a situation that warrants it. But it might be a lens that ends up being carried more than it is used. Hard to know I guess until owning one, but my fear is as with other gear sometimes where you buy it and don't use it nearly as much as you thought you would.

[David Salmanowitz]

I have big problems now as I am spoiled by the Canon 50mm 1.2 lens I bought. It is so much sharper than the zooms. Everything is a trade off, and it is nice to have more focal length range but the sharpness is not as good. Zooms have come a long way since the old days and I vigorously defended them, but now I am converted.

One thing I have noticed with many photographers using zooms is they just stay in place and just zoom in and out--a lot better to walk around and with a prime lens one would do that more anyway.

I am going to get rid of my 16-35 mm zoom as it is just not sharp at the edges, the new one they have is supposedly much better but Canon advertises well--that is sort of the dark secret that their wide angles are not sharp. Ok, on some online forums they are picked apart but to the general lay person they think they are fine. If not for losing auto focus I would put on a Zeiss or Contax wide angle. I think Nikon people retain the autofocus, but not positive about this.

I have a friend that is switching to primes as he noticed he was always at the the low or the high end of the zoom, not all that much in between.

As far as some lenses that have been mentioned I have the 24-70mm and I do like it very much, but the 50mm seems sharper though the 24-70 is still very good. I also have the 70-200 2.8 and it is a great lens, but with so many elements it still can give flare in extreme situations. I was photographing a subject with the lens shade on (I always have them on for protection and reducing flare) and even with my hand above the lens i still got flare. Someone next to me with a prime lens had none.

[aaronkok]

Starting photography with a zoom lens. Ever since i got a 50 1.8, it started a downwards spiral of L primes. Never actually got into the L zoom other than the 24-105 & 16-35.

Currenty own the 35L, 85L and 135L. All fantastic examples of Canon's best primes, other than the superteles. 85L for portraiture is just plan dreamy . :)
The 35L is also great for environmental available light portraits and street life.

[kinginexile]

But it might be a lens that ends up being carried more than it is used.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it's a lens that stays a lot at home, but nothing does what it does like it does. It is a must when shooting stage performances close-ups from a designed spot in low light. And sometimes, all you want is caviar, even if it does not mean a full meal! A very specific lens, indeed, especially if not on a FF sensor.

Merry Christmas to the TP forum, life has been busy lately for me, sadly it is not about photography or traveling. But... c' est la vie!

Herve

[danny88]

As for me I found 50mm f1.2 is a monster lens

[David Salmanowitz]

I assume you mean monster in that it is a great lens, or did you mean that is big and heavy? Whatever its size and weight, it is a nice sharp lens.

[bkkdave]

For those who have a Canon body with a full frame sensor and already have a 24-105 or 24-70 and a 16-35:

What are your thoughts about replacing the 16-35 with the 14mm f/2.8L II ?

It seems that most are very happy with the 24-105 and since the 16-35 duplicates some of the focal range of the 24-105 / 24-70; why not replace it with a prime at the wide end that has minimal distortion?

Have any members done this and what do you think about abandoning the 16-35mm f/2.8L zoom?

[aaronkok]

That would highly depend on the actual usage of the 16-35. I only use it for events and some travel/landscape shots. I can't replace it with the 14mm. i need the flexibility.
I personally think the 14mm would be mainly for wide landscapes or indoor architecture, to reduce time for stitchings.

Any one else?

[Marc Schultz]

The 14mm I think you will find has limited use unless you shoot a lot of super wide angle landscapes. For architecture it seems too wide and will cause some barrel distortion and converging lines in most cases. I normally shoot architecture with nothing wider than a 24mm shift lens for this reason.

The 24-105mm is a great lens as you said, but it definitely has some vignetting problems. Canon has admitted the presence of this, but claims the vignetting problems should not occur once the les is stopped down past F/5.6

Attached is a shot I took with it at F/8 where vignetting can still be seen and I would assume you need to shoot at F/11 to avoid it completely.

I hope this helps…

[bkkdave]

Aaronkok and Marc- Thank you for your input.

[ayushinx]

i am only rich for 50 1.8 which i think is alright :)