MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 2 weeks, 2 new lenses! :)  (Read 4116 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 13, 2008, 12:36 »
0
Last week I bought Canon EF 100mm f2.8 MACRO USM lens (with Hoya Super HMC UV 58mm filter), and it so great, I simply love it! In first week made over 100 new macro images for stock.

In few days I am expceting another lens to come - Canon EF 70-200 f4L IS (with Hoya Super HMC UV 67mm filter). Cant wait! :) It sure will fit great on my also new EOS 50D :D

Got Lowepro Micro Trekker 200 backpack to put all that equipment :D

Just to share excitement.... :)
« Last Edit: November 13, 2008, 12:40 by Peter »


« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2008, 12:38 »
0
I have them both.  Great lenses.  Super sharp, although I'd rather get the 2.8 on the 70-200 now.

Can't be greedy though.

« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2008, 12:44 »
0
The only thing I need to find some replacement for my Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM II.

It has low vinjeting, and very low CAs. But it is not very sharp at the side of the image.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview

I considered 24-105 f4L, it is sharp OK, no vinjeting, but produces a lot more CAs (which is not acceptable).

Then I considered EF-S 17-55, it is sharp OK, but do a lot vinjeting, and a bit CAs.

Also 17-40L, not sharp enouh (more like my 28-105), and do a lot of CAs also.

do you have any suggestion for "walkabout" lens to shoot landscapes and portraits at the same time.

Something in range 17-80mm. (it can be 17-50 or 30-80, never mind), that is sharp and do as less CAs as possible?

« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2008, 12:53 »
0
congratulations on your new lenses. I have a 70 200 f4 IS too and I love it.
as for walk around lens,what about a 24-70 f2.8 L  it is a bit pricey though but  it 'd match your 70- 200 perfectly well .however  you might not find it wide enough on your 50d.

« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2008, 13:00 »
0
hi peter...

congrats for your new staff ;-)

i have the 100 macro is super it was my first ugrade

and the second one witch i sugest you

is 24-70/2.8 canon it's 2 X SUPER

« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2008, 13:24 »
0
Tnx all. I will consider 24-70. It is wide enouh allright. 28-105 was OK, so 24mm would be even better. :)

« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2008, 13:30 »
0
i have the 17-40 and its razor sharp and spectacular

« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2008, 13:58 »
0

is 24-70/2.8 canon it's 2 X SUPER

oh sorry ,yes I meant to say Canon EF 24-70 f 2.8 L  I know there are other brand 27-70's as well.

Xalanx

« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2008, 14:50 »
0
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS

They both beat 17-40 in sharpness by far.

I would choose tamron, for f/2.8. Also, lower distortions. You can get portraits okay with it.

Xalanx

« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2008, 14:53 »
0
also, 18-55 IS is insanely sharp, check out here (zoom at max for detail)  http://www.fotolia.com/id/10185723

« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2008, 15:32 »
0
Wow. You guys are finding the 18-55 IS good? I removed mine because it was not sharp. Maybe I should send it for a service?

Peter, how is the 50D?

Xalanx

« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2008, 15:39 »
0
check that photo, Litifeta. Also check the other recent wide angle photos in my port. Most of them are with this 18-55 IS, some of them are with the Tamron. Very few with 17-40 (not pleased). Yea, it's darn sharp. Change it, don't service it, or buy 2-3 copies, they're cheap LOL. Build quality is crap but optical quality is top.

« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2008, 15:49 »
0
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS

They both beat 17-40 in sharpness by far..

would you mind telling us  if your statement based on first hand experience or just based on reviews I use canon 17 40 L and I just love it it's tack sharp and produces beautiful colors.

eta:and those who aren't fortunate enough to get a good copy would complain,which is understandable.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2008, 15:53 by stokfoto »

« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2008, 15:51 »
0
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS

They both beat 17-40 in sharpness by far..

would you mind telling us  if your statement based on first hand experience or just based on reviews I use canon 17 40 L and I just love it it's tack sharp and produces beautiful colors.

I concur.  And all the landscape pros I know use it too.  Very well liked piece of glass.  Plus the build is amazing.  Absolutely love it.  Would love 2.8, but i'm just being greedy...  and who wants an EF-S lens?  You go to full frame or 1.3x crop and the stupid thing is useless


Xalanx

« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2008, 15:56 »
0
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS

They both beat 17-40 in sharpness by far..

would you mind telling us  if your statement based on first hand experience or just based on reviews I use canon 17 40 L and I just love it it's tack sharp and produces beautiful colors.

I don't quote reviews, you can find them on your own. I have photos with 17-40, 17-50 and 18-55 in my portfolio. I used 2 copies of 17-40, both equally sharp (okayish...). However, on FF you will get better results than on APS-C. And I can shoot anytime with 17-40, I just choose not to. Because even though it has beautiful colors, it's not as sharp as I like and it's a slow lens. It's good money-wise if you have FF, but if you really want something good then get the 16-35 ;)

« Reply #15 on: November 14, 2008, 01:51 »
0
tnx all.

@litifeta :  50D is OK. I got used to it. Shoot over 2500 images with it now. Overall happy with it, but when 60D comes out (possible with lower noise LOL!) I wont wait a minute, and buy a new camera. On the other hand, I dont have plans to go for FF.

« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2008, 09:14 »
0
arrived today! Sweet!




« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2008, 09:18 »
0
Uneven lighting, vignetting.  Please upload better quality images.  ;)

Congratulations on your new toys!

Regards,
Adelaide

Xalanx

« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2008, 09:24 »
0
Congratulations! 70-200 f/4 IS is one of the sharpest lenses in canon's lineup.

Be careful not to smash it on anything. It happened to me and I accidentaly and unpleasantly discovered that "L" lenses are not rock solid. Mine doesn't focus closer than 2 m now. I have to set the limiter to 3 m all the time.

Congrats again, there's a whole new world for you now. When I got my 70-200 I just wanted to re-shoot everything I shot with other lenses :D

« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2008, 10:07 »
0
tnx all, I will use with care, not to damage it :D

anyway, those images were taken with my Nokia mobile phone :p hehe

« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2008, 10:41 »
0
tnx all.

@litifeta :  50D is OK. I got used to it. Shoot over 2500 images with it now. Overall happy with it, but when 60D comes out (possible with lower noise LOL!) I wont wait a minute, and buy a new camera. On the other hand, I dont have plans to go for FF.

no plan for full frame???  how come?

congrats on the new toys.

« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2008, 12:06 »
0
tnx

naah, I like 1.6x crop factor, more zoom :D

also all my lenses would start vigneting if I turn to FF. And I dont want that. At least for now. :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
968 Views
Last post February 16, 2012, 12:10
by aeonf
3 Replies
976 Views
Last post September 05, 2012, 11:25
by stockastic
5 Replies
837 Views
Last post September 23, 2012, 20:54
by stockastic
15 Replies
1021 Views
Last post August 27, 2013, 10:50
by Yure
61 Replies
1856 Views
Last post April 04, 2014, 05:35
by Pauws99

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors