Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: LukeH on May 12, 2009, 12:41:00 am
-
I am about to get one of the above mentioned cameras, and the guy in the shop told me not to buy the twin lens kit but to by my lens' separate. What do you guys recommend?
-
I am about to get one of the above mentioned cameras, and the guy in the shop told me not to buy the twin lens kit but to by my lens' separate. What do you guys recommend?
I would buy the 5DII w/24-105IS as a package and a 70-200 f4 IS
Marc
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5839...5D_Mark_II.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/583987-REG/Canon_2764B004_EOS_5D_Mark_II.html)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/4576..._4L_IS_USM.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457678-USA/Canon_1258B002AA_70_200mm_f_4L_IS_USM.html)
-
I agree with the above post. The 24-105 is an excellent lens, and it saves you a bit well actually a lot when bought as the kit.
Otherwise for both beauty and still lifes I use the 100 mm 2.8 macro which is one of Canon's sharpest.
-
I agree with the above post. The 24-105 is an excellent lens, and it saves you a bit well actually a lot when bought as the kit.
Otherwise for both beauty and still lifes I use the 100 mm 2.8 macro which is one of Canon's sharpest.
I agree, I use the 100 macro and it's a brilliant lens. The 85mm 1.8 is also superb, my favourite for sharpness, compact size and quick focus (and cheap price).
I find the 24-105 is not as sharp as the two primes mentioned towards the outer longer edges, (though possibly just as sharp at the centre) no matter at what aperture. For instance, take a vertical shoulder-length portrait, look at the sharpness of the top of the head (hair) and you will notice that the primes are just better, the hair area defines better (and so they should).
Edward
-
I agree with the above post. The 24-105 is an excellent lens, and it saves you a bit well actually a lot when bought as the kit.
Otherwise for both beauty and still lifes I use the 100 mm 2.8 macro which is one of Canon's sharpest.
I really like the Tokina 100mm Macro, great bokeh
Marc
-
as usual, the choice depends on your subjects, style, and end use of the images.
the 24-105 is my most used lens for travel and all-round - if there are lines that should be straight, i use PT Lens
i agree with others that the 70-200 f4 IS is the sharpest Canon zoom - i've tested it but don't own it, because 200mm is not long enough for me and it's not happy with the 1.4 extender
although the 100-400 is a loved and trashed lens, mine (which i believe to be a good copy) has significantly better resolution on the 5D2 than my 5D - good for prints to 17x25 (maybe more depending on subject) - and a reach that opens up possibilities not available from shorter focal length (and at 100mm it's very sharp). Coverage from 24-400 mm with 2 lenses is not bad although both are large and weighty
if your goal is large prints, then you really need primes as the zooms are not all that sharp toward the left and right edges.
the 50 f1.4 is very good at f2 and excellent at f4 plus (with wider apertures available if necessary at compromised resolution) at a reasonable price
i haven't had experience with the 85, but expect it to be as good as reported
the 100 macro is as good as reported from 2.8 to f16 (where diffraction begins, but f22 is useable) with flat field and virtually no distortion
the 135 f2 may be Canon's highest resolution lens, but i can't confirm this
the 200 f2.8 is pretty nearly as good as the 100 macro and holds up pretty well with telextenders (although the 5D2 resolution seems to suffer more than other bodies with extenders) - this is Canon's longest high quality black lens
the 300 f4 has very good resolution, but with a 1.4 telextender it's no better than the 1.4, so for me very limited in usefulness
i can't speak from experience on the wide-ange side, but hope that Canon will improve their game to offer me something worthy of the 5D2 in the 20mm range
in short, get the 5D2 and the 24-105, and if you have a question about your use, wait a bit before buying another lens.
-
I am about to get one of the above mentioned cameras, and the guy in the shop told me not to buy the twin lens kit but to by my lens' separate. What do you guys recommend?
I went for the combo 5dMkII + 24-105L with no regrets. Then, after a lot of research, bought the 400mm f5.6 prime for birds. Amazingly sharp. Superb. Anyway the 24-105 is the one I most use for general landscape.
Manuel
-
i agree with others that the 70-200 f4 IS is the sharpest Canon zoom - i've tested it but don't own it, because 200mm is not long enough for me and it's not happy with the 1.4 extender
I own a 5D, 40D, and tonight bought a 5D Mark II from a company via eBay. I also have a 24-105mm L and a 70-200mm 2.8L IS and was considering buying an extender.
Can you tell me what you mean when you say your 7-200 IS is not happy with the 1.4 extender?
-
I have the 70-200 f/4 IS and I almost never take the 1.4x off. I really haven't seen any kind of quality loss that would justify not using it. The autofocus and tracking is just fine too. Might not make it the fastest lens...but its still quite usable wide-open.
-
the loss of IQ using the 1.4x extender seems to be relatively greater than with lower resolution bodies than the 5D2. The center resolution of the 70-200 at 200 is around 25% better with the 5D2 than 5D, but with the 1.4x extender it's only 10% better. With the 1.4x extender, edge resolution is the same with both cameras - terrible. A crop from 200 to the 1.4x equivalent is not as good in the center as with the extender, but better on the edges. My conclusion is that the 1.4x extender is marginally useful with the 5D2 and 70-200 - it's better than the 70-300DO but not as much as i had hoped.
For comparison, the 200 2.8 with extender is better in the center and much better at the edges than the 70-200. Both the 100-400 and 300 f4 are better in the center and at least 70% better at the edges.