Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 2, 2013, 03:35 PM   #26
AT06
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Winwick, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinfulton.ca View Post
Be very careful about that decision. If you're prepared to drop that kind of money on a lens AND body, then you are much better off spending it on a killer lens instead IMO. I 100% understand your pain and that this puts off getting a full frame for longer then you'd like, but when you find yourself in a low-light situation, trying to freeze action, you're going to be kicking yourself that you don't have that f2.8 (plus, don't even get me started about how much sharper that lens is!). It's your money, your decision, and perhaps you don't shoot any low-light action, but definitely try and separate the short term value (lens and body) and consider the long term investment (killer lens and hold off on the body) before purchasing. Again, this is 100% your decision so do what you will, I've just seen too many people blow their cash on high end bodies and compromised on glass. If you can afford perfection, why not get perfection?
That's on my list of quotes I have on my notes app - "Buy once. Buy right."

Currently I do very little low light work. Hopefully over summer as the weather gets better and I start taking more photos, I will get a better idea of my true needs. Buying expensive things is always a pain as you spend SO much time weighing the pros and cons of all the various options in the hope you don't make a mistake.
__________________
"Twenty seconds of insane courage"
iMac 27"| iPad 32GB | iPhone 5 | Canon 6D, 24-105mm f/4L & 50mm f/1.8
AT06 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 05:43 PM   #27
tgara
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinfulton.ca View Post
... but when you find yourself in a low-light situation, trying to freeze action, you're going to be kicking yourself that you don't have that f2.8
With the insane high-ISO performance of today's DSLRs, especially the full frame versions, having f/2.8 for low light situations is not so important. This is partly why both Canon and Nikon came out with f/4 versions of their venerable 24-70 lenses. When in low light, crank up the ISO and you'll be fine with f/4.

Instead, when considering a 2.8 or faster lens, think most about the the creative effects of the lens (e.g., blurring background) and if you need that, rather than from a light-gathering standpoint.
__________________
27 Inch iMac i5 (Mid-2010); 11 Inch MacBook Air; iPad Air; iPhone 5s, and a bunch of Canon photography gear.
tgara is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 06:40 PM   #28
/"\/oo\/"\
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
tgara beat me to it- on any of the current Canon full frame offerings, the high ISO performance more than compensates for the one stop difference between f2.8 and f4 lenses in low light, and on a full frame body the difference in DOF isn't that big either.

That said, the OP hasn't really stated what they're going to be using either lens for, and if I only had the 18-55 and 50 to choose from...I probably wouldn't know what lens or lenses I'd get good use out of. Trying to nail down a lens that'll be good on both a crop sensor and full frame only muddies the water further.

So, what type of shots are you looking to create? And what are you looking to get out of a full frame body that you're willing to fork over a ton of cash for?

If you're dead set on full frame, I'm assuming it's a 6D. Without looking at UK pricing, the difference between the body only and body+lens kit at B&H is $500...that's a no-brainer to get the 24-105 that'll give you plenty of quality and plenty of focal length to play with a figure out what you actually use.

If you're not set on full frame in the immediate future, spend a little money renting lenses and figuring out what you like to shoot. Given that you don't seem to care much about low light performance, unless you're shooting landscapes, something where extreme detail is required or spending the majority of your time shooting wide angle/ultra wide angle, you're pretty well outside of the 6D's strong areas and money would be much better spent on a 7D and the difference on another nice lens.
/"\/oo\/"\ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 07:05 PM   #29
AT06
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Winwick, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by /"\/oo\/"\ View Post
tgara beat me to it- on any of the current Canon full frame offerings, the high ISO performance more than compensates for the one stop difference between f2.8 and f4 lenses in low light, and on a full frame body the difference in DOF isn't that big either.

That said, the OP hasn't really stated what they're going to be using either lens for, and if I only had the 18-55 and 50 to choose from...I probably wouldn't know what lens or lenses I'd get good use out of. Trying to nail down a lens that'll be good on both a crop sensor and full frame only muddies the water further.

So, what type of shots are you looking to create? And what are you looking to get out of a full frame body that you're willing to fork over a ton of cash for?

If you're dead set on full frame, I'm assuming it's a 6D. Without looking at UK pricing, the difference between the body only and body+lens kit at B&H is $500...that's a no-brainer to get the 24-105 that'll give you plenty of quality and plenty of focal length to play with a figure out what you actually use.

If you're not set on full frame in the immediate future, spend a little money renting lenses and figuring out what you like to shoot. Given that you don't seem to care much about low light performance, unless you're shooting landscapes, something where extreme detail is required or spending the majority of your time shooting wide angle/ultra wide angle, you're pretty well outside of the 6D's strong areas and money would be much better spent on a 7D and the difference on another nice lens.

Well the 6D is something I like the look of especially due to the GPS which would be great on my travels. Buying as a kit or separate in the UK rarely saves you much, if any, money.

I'm leaning towards getting the 24-105mm L as it has much better optics than my current lenses, IS, and offers me a nice focal range - but I'm in no rush so I'm going to wait until I'm 100% certain it fits my needs before dropping the cash.

This thread has extremely useful to me. Whilst I wasn't very specific of my needs in the first place, having a few different ideas/routes chucked around has certainly helped me, and I appreciate the wealth of advice received from everyone - thanks guys!
__________________
"Twenty seconds of insane courage"
iMac 27"| iPad 32GB | iPhone 5 | Canon 6D, 24-105mm f/4L & 50mm f/1.8
AT06 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 07:18 PM   #30
snberk103
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: An Island in the Salish Sea
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinfulton.ca View Post
Be very careful about that decision. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AT06 View Post
....
This thread has extremely useful to me. Whilst I wasn't very specific of my needs in the first place, having a few different ideas/routes chucked around has certainly helped me, and I appreciate the wealth of advice received from everyone - thanks guys!
I have no experience with Canon gear, but I have been in business for over 20 years and have picked up a few things here and there. One is that you invest in lenses, and you buy camera bodies. Kevinfulton.ca is giving really good advice. Buy the best glass that you can afford. Or to put it another way, a crappy lense on a great camera body is going to produce less than great images. You can not overcome the shortcomings of bad glass with a fancier camera body. Put great glass on a less than great camera body and the only limitation is your own technique and experience.

Invest in good glass now and you will probably use those lense on several camera bodies over time.

Also, don't overlook the importance of a fast 2.8 lense. Yes, high ISO cameras have made f/4 the new f/2.8.... but imagine using high ISO & f/2.8. And, at high magnifications a lower ISO is still less grainy and contains more data than a higher one.

Good Luck....
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - Jack Layton
snberk103 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 08:56 PM   #31
kevinfulton.ca
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgara View Post
This is partly why both Canon and Nikon came out with f/4 versions of their venerable 24-70 lenses. When in low light, crank up the ISO and you'll be fine with f/4.
.
I, respectfully, disagree with this statement. If this were true the optical quality of these lenses would be equal to their higher end brothers. Sadly, this is not the case. Even the new 24-70 f/4L is no where near the 2.8L (it's very soft around the 50mm range). Canon and Nikon make f/4 lenses for one reason only, a lower cost options for customers.
__________________
13" White Macbook, 4 GB RAM, 500GB HD, 22" external monitor, 320 GB Firewire scratch disc, 2 TB partitioned expansion/backup HD; iPad 2, 64 GB, 3G; iPhone 4S, 16 GB.
kevinfulton.ca is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 12:09 AM   #32
/"\/oo\/"\
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinfulton.ca View Post
I, respectfully, disagree with this statement. If this were true the optical quality of these lenses would be equal to their higher end brothers. Sadly, this is not the case. Even the new 24-70 f/4L is no where near the 2.8L (it's very soft around the 50mm range). Canon and Nikon make f/4 lenses for one reason only, a lower cost options for customers.
This wanders off on a different topic, but saying the Canon 24-70 f4 is nowhere near the f2.8 is hyperbole typical of online equipment discussions. It's pretty obvious by the pricing differentiation which is the superior lens. For the vast majority of people out there, the optical differences between the two will be negligible at most.

I guess the "buy the best or don't even bother" approach is a bit lost on me, especially looking at what people in the monthly photo of the day threads here can do with a lot of "inferior" equipment.
/"\/oo\/"\ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 01:17 AM   #33
OreoCookie
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by snberk103 View Post
I have no experience with Canon gear, but I have been in business for over 20 years and have picked up a few things here and there. One is that you invest in lenses, and you buy camera bodies. Kevinfulton.ca is giving really good advice. Buy the best glass that you can afford. Or to put it another way, a crappy lense on a great camera body is going to produce less than great images. You can not overcome the shortcomings of bad glass with a fancier camera body.
Quoted for truth: new bodies with new sensors and even more spectacular high-ISO capabilities seem shinier to newbies, but lenses last a damn near eternity. My 80-200 mm f/2.8 Nikkor is 15~20 years old and in perfect working order. Even optically, it's at least in A- condition. If I were to sell it now and do the math, I'd get around 200 for it, perhaps a bit more. That means, I have lost 250 in depreciation over the course of 6 years. Some sought-after lenses lose even less relative to the cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinfulton.ca View Post
I, respectfully, disagree with this statement. If this were true the optical quality of these lenses would be equal to their higher end brothers. Sadly, this is not the case. Even the new 24-70 f/4L is no where near the 2.8L (it's very soft around the 50mm range). Canon and Nikon make f/4 lenses for one reason only, a lower cost options for customers.
I agree with the premise that the f/4 lenses are designed as cheaper alternatives to their faster brethren. But that does not mean that in every case, the f/2.8 lenses (or in case of primes, the even faster versions) are optically superior to their slower counterparts. Nikon's new 70-200 mm f/4 is an example that comes to mind, as is Canon's or Sigma's 50 mm f/1.4 compared to Canon's giant f/1.2. One other aspect is weight: there are some cases where you don't want to lug around a lens twice the weight (noobs sometimes underestimate the weight for the 70-200 mm f/2.8 they lust for).
__________________
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
OreoCookie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 01:25 AM   #34
Laird Knox
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodriguise View Post
If you aren't worried about warranties (which if you are game to buying used you probably aren't), look up gray-market lenses. These are new lenses packaged for international sale and you get them at a $100-$300 discount over the retail market lenses. Some people say Canon will actually repair them under warranty. Even so, it can still be a better guarantee over a used.
Another route is referb. I just bought a second D800 and went refurb with a Mack Diamond warranty. I ended up with the same camera and a three year warranty that includes accidental damage for less than the cost of a new camera.
Laird Knox is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 01:52 AM   #35
kevinfulton.ca
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Quoted for truth: new bodies with new sensors and even more spectacular high-ISO capabilities seem shinier to newbies, but lenses last a damn near eternity. My 80-200 mm f/2.8 Nikkor is 15~20 years old and in perfect working order. Even optically, it's at least in A- condition. If I were to sell it now and do the math, I'd get around 200 for it, perhaps a bit more. That means, I have lost 250 in depreciation over the course of 6 years. Some sought-after lenses lose even less relative to the cost.

I agree with the premise that the f/4 lenses are designed as cheaper alternatives to their faster brethren. But that does not mean that in every case, the f/2.8 lenses (or in case of primes, the even faster versions) are optically superior to their slower counterparts. Nikon's new 70-200 mm f/4 is an example that comes to mind, as is Canon's or Sigma's 50 mm f/1.4 compared to Canon's giant f/1.2. One other aspect is weight: there are some cases where you don't want to lug around a lens twice the weight (noobs sometimes underestimate the weight for the 70-200 mm f/2.8 they lust for).
Fair enough. I can't speak for Nikon since I'm a Canon shooter, but you are right that there are the occasional gems at lower price brackets if certain features are not needed. Again, I admit that I'm not sure what subject matter the OP will be shooting. I guess I should be rephrase things a little and make it clear that he needs makes sure that he gets the best lens he could afford for what he wants to capture. In this case it appears he's looking for something general purpose. If that's true I'd always recommend the 24-70 2.8 over getting a body with the f/4 kit. It can't be argued that this is probably one of the best (if not THE best) general use zoom lenses available. Telephotos are a little different in the sharpness department with Canon's. It seems you don't sacrifice near as much IQ compared to their more expensive offerings. If the OP doesn't need anything faster then f/4 on the telephoto side I'd agree that those would be great choices.
__________________
13" White Macbook, 4 GB RAM, 500GB HD, 22" external monitor, 320 GB Firewire scratch disc, 2 TB partitioned expansion/backup HD; iPad 2, 64 GB, 3G; iPhone 4S, 16 GB.
kevinfulton.ca is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 02:25 AM   #36
kevinfulton.ca
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by /"\/oo\/"\ View Post
This wanders off on a different topic, but saying the Canon 24-70 f4 is nowhere near the f2.8 is hyperbole typical of online equipment discussions. It's pretty obvious by the pricing differentiation which is the superior lens. For the vast majority of people out there, the optical differences between the two will be negligible at most.

I guess the "buy the best or don't even bother" approach is a bit lost on me, especially looking at what people in the monthly photo of the day threads here can do with a lot of "inferior" equipment.
It's not really a case of "buy the best or don't even bother". It's just something to really consider. Does the OP have the eye to see the difference? I'm not sure. They're the only one that would really know.

I agree that it's never in the final product that anybody will notice the differences. It's when using the lens, and working on your photos in post that the photographer notices these differences and it WILL drive them nuts when honeymoon is over and they get to know their gear. Sure the end products could look great, but it just means that more time will need to be put into compensating for limitations and less time being creative. It's not "hyperbole". If the OP gets very serious about photography and has the 24-105, they will eventually start seeing the short comings, get tired of compensating for them, and lust after the 24-70 2.8. Get something good now and sell it later to get the best (and lose some money) or save a little longer and get the best and grow into it. Neither one is wrong. I've just always purchased lenses with the long term in mind. It's just my personal preference.

Good conversation though!
__________________
13" White Macbook, 4 GB RAM, 500GB HD, 22" external monitor, 320 GB Firewire scratch disc, 2 TB partitioned expansion/backup HD; iPad 2, 64 GB, 3G; iPhone 4S, 16 GB.
kevinfulton.ca is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 03:16 AM   #37
rodriguise
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laird Knox View Post
Another route is referb. I just bought a second D800 and went refurb with a Mack Diamond warranty. I ended up with the same camera and a three year warranty that includes accidental damage for less than the cost of a new camera.
Yup refurb and reconditioned are good compromise too, especially with the warranty. If you want to save some coin on pro glass it's the way to do it.
__________________
"If you gotta ask, you'll never know..."

Late 2008 MBP | iPhone 5 | Box of stale Ritz | 3 Paperclips | A Roll of duct tape | Fifth of Tullamore (neat)
rodriguise is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 03:37 AM   #38
AT06
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Winwick, UK
I'm looking to eventually do prints (only for putting up in my house, not selling them) of around 20"x24", maybe a little bigger. Does the IS in the 24-105 not also help with lower light capability?
__________________
"Twenty seconds of insane courage"
iMac 27"| iPad 32GB | iPhone 5 | Canon 6D, 24-105mm f/4L & 50mm f/1.8
AT06 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 04:55 AM   #39
OreoCookie
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by AT06 View Post
I'm looking to eventually do prints (only for putting up in my house, not selling them) of around 20"x24", maybe a little bigger. Does the IS in the 24-105 not also help with lower light capability?
For static objects, yes, but image stabilization does not help with moving subjects. (Image Stabilization compensates for camera shake, but cannot account for the motion within your subject.) And once you get used to shooting with primes, f/4 feels really, really slow.

I wouldn't worry about print size, if the photo is good, nobody will pixel peep and complain.

@kevinfulton
I was just being very pedantic, and I'm agreeing with the basic premise of your post anyway.
__________________
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

Last edited by OreoCookie; Apr 3, 2013 at 05:20 AM.
OreoCookie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2013, 11:29 AM   #40
cocky jeremy
macrumors 68040
 
cocky jeremy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntington, WV
Send a message via AIM to cocky jeremy Send a message via Skype™ to cocky jeremy
I'd save longer and get the 70-200 2.8 instead. Much better lens than the f/4.
__________________
 27" iMac. 3.4 GHz i5. 24 GB RAM. 512 GB SSD - 64 GB iPhone 6 Plus 
cocky jeremy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2013, 10:51 AM   #41
AT06
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Winwick, UK
Well I just took delivery of a 24-105mm f4 L IS and a Giottos Silk Road tripod and couldn't be happier. I plan on buying the 70-200mm f4 at some point later this year, then go FF next year.
__________________
"Twenty seconds of insane courage"
iMac 27"| iPad 32GB | iPhone 5 | Canon 6D, 24-105mm f/4L & 50mm f/1.8
AT06 is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Canon Lenses Kebabselector Digital Photography 16 May 25, 2014 11:28 AM
Advice on lenses Urgent shuttergod Digital Photography 16 May 7, 2014 07:46 AM
Best Lenses for Fashion Photography gdeusthewhizkid Digital Photography 32 Mar 27, 2014 09:47 AM
Why are fast wide lenses so expensive vs long lenses nateo200 Digital Photography 12 Oct 30, 2012 01:30 PM
Lenses rubsal70 Digital Photography 47 Aug 6, 2012 12:35 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC