Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 25, 2011, 2:31 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

Quote:
I am wondering will I get a nice DOF shot out of the 24-105 on a crop camera
The 24-70 will give a better DOF and background compared to 24-105 on the cropped. For one the first lens is shot at F2.8 and the difference in DOF will be visible

A sample DOF at F2.8 @ 200mm on a 1.3x crop.



Last edited by nymphetamine; Feb 25, 2011 at 2:39 AM.
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 2:42 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nymphetamine View Post
The 24-70 will give a better DOF and background compared to 24-105 on the cropped. For one the first lens is shot at F2.8 and the difference in DOF will be visible

A sample DOF at F2.8 @ 200mm on a 1.3x crop.


I cant see a photo if you posted one
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 4:26 AM   #23
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Hang on a second.

1. To get the background OOF you want the subject to be as CLOSE to you as possible.
2. If you have room to adjust your position the DOF [email protected] is almost identical to [email protected] Check out the DOF calculators to verify.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 5:49 AM   #24
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
Hang on a second.

1. To get the background OOF you want the subject to be as CLOSE to you as possible.
2. If you have room to adjust your position the DOF [email protected] is almost identical to [email protected] Check out the DOF calculators to verify.
I agree...
You'll get even a better DOF(actually the best DOF) with an 85mm f/1.4 or 1.8

IMHO one should stay away from the 24-70L as this lens is pretty long in the tooth and due for a replacement anytime (i.e. version II). It's probably the worst out of the lot in this category as compared to Nikon or Sony. Even the 17-55 f/2.8 non L on a crop camera will surpass it...

If you're really into portrait then this is the lens to get:
http://www.lenstip.com/277.5-Lens_re...berration.html
-> This lens will exceed anything from Nikon, Canon to even Zeiss (just check all the tabulated data)!

"The situation remains the most interesting for the owners of Canon reflex cameras because they have the biggest choice now. For an amount of money of 350 $ they can either buy a well-known and popular EF 85 mm f/1.8 USM model or a manual Samyang 1.4/85. If you have a bigger budget at your disposal and you want to own something better you should get interested in the Sigma for sure. If the f/1.2 aperture is a necessary feature for you and you want to have a wider manual focus range you can always opt for the most expensive device of all, the Canon EF 85 mm f/1.2L II USM. Of course it may be disputable whether it is worth spending two times more money just to upgrade from f/1.4 to f/1.2, especially in a situation when there are many testing categories in which the Sigma still fares better than the expensive L-series Canon lens. Such a discussion, though, fits a thread on a forum better than the summary of our test"

Last edited by NHL; Feb 25, 2011 at 6:05 AM.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2011, 9:55 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

well now I have the 5D I'm thinking maybe the 24-105L may be a good one to own. The camera produces really nice shallow DOF even with my 70-200 F4, with this in mind I'm wondering if I really need the 24-70L now. I already have a 100 F2.8 and a 50 F1.4
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2011, 2:52 PM   #26
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Or something wider?

If you genuinely had a 24-70 in mind, what about a 16-35 or 17-40 instead? The gap between 35 and 70 isn't terribly significant, and you have a 50 to fill it if you need to.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2011, 5:47 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
Or something wider?

If you genuinely had a 24-70 in mind, what about a 16-35 or 17-40 instead? The gap between 35 and 70 isn't terribly significant, and you have a 50 to fill it if you need to.
well I already have the 17-40L, was thinking of a walk around lens for those times when I just want one lens that will do a reasonable range and not be too cumbersome.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2011, 10:40 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Belize & UK
Posts: 463
Default

aLady - can you list the gear you now have?

FWIW I went through a similar decision process recently and what I now have (see my signature) suits my needs very well. I have both FF and cropped bodies, and although all bar one of my lenses will fit either body I tend to reach for different lenses depending on the body I'm using.

Without a doubt I find the 24-105L the PERFECT walkaround lens for my 5D, much better than the 24-70L. In practice for a GP lens there isn't much difference between f4.0 and f2.8 and the f4.0 makes so much more sense.

IMO the 24-105L doesn't work on the 7D. It's just too narrow at its widest end.

The ideal walkaround lens for my 7D is the EF-S 15-85 (which is why I recently bought it, after trying several options). It's also a remarkably high quality lens - I was told by a Canon engineer at a show recently that if Canon were to designate any EF-S lenses as "L" that lens would probably be the first to receive it. My only small gripe with it is that it isn't constant aperture.

But I also wanted a mid-range f2.8 lens for a wedding I'll be shooting next month. After a lot of research I chose the Tamron 28-75 over the Canon 24-70L, and I had three reasons. Price obviously, although I had the funds to buy either. Weight - the 24-70L is very heavy, much more so than the Tamron. And quality - the Canon at its best is barely better than the Tamron across the range and inferior in parts, but more significantly I have heard of many "bad copies" of the Canon. A friend here had one - it just wouldn't focus properly on her 5D2. My Tamron works perfectly on either of my bodies. Focussing is a bit noisy but rapid and accurate.

So I'll probably have the Tamron 28-75 mounted on my 5D as my principal camera for the wedding, with my 50mm f1.8 mounted on the 7D as backup for candids at the reception. Although in theory the range 24-28 is one that I'd rather not be missing, in practice on FF anything wider than 28mm is starting to show significant distortion and for a wedding I wouldn't use it even if I had it. It's not for nothing that the standard wide angle prime on 35mm film cameras was 28mm, not 24mm.

I'll never buy the Canon 24-70L, but I'm not through buying Canon lenses. I want the 100mm f2.8 macro (not sure whether to go for the IS or non-IS version). Maybe also the 135mm f2.0 L - I don't need that focal length, but it's such a superb lens..... And I may yet get the 70-200 f2.8 L II, although my 100-400L serves me very well.
__________________
Canon 5D & 7D (both gripped), 24-105L, 100-400L, EF-S 15-85, 50 f1.8, Tamron 28-75, Sigma 12-24, G10, A1+10 FD lenses, tripods, lights etc
peterbj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2011, 10:52 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peterbj7 View Post
aLady - can you list the gear you now have?

FWIW I went through a similar decision process recently and what I now have (see my signature) suits my needs very well. I have both FF and cropped bodies, and although all bar one of my lenses will fit either body I tend to reach for different lenses depending on the body I'm using.

Without a doubt I find the 24-105L the PERFECT walkaround lens for my 5D, much better than the 24-70L. In practice for a GP lens there isn't much difference between f4.0 and f2.8 and the f4.0 makes so much more sense.

IMO the 24-105L doesn't work on the 7D. It's just too narrow at its widest end.

The ideal walkaround lens for my 7D is the EF-S 15-85 (which is why I recently bought it, after trying several options). It's also a remarkably high quality lens - I was told by a Canon engineer at a show recently that if Canon were to designate any EF-S lenses as "L" that lens would probably be the first to receive it. My only small gripe with it is that it isn't constant aperture.

But I also wanted a mid-range f2.8 lens for a wedding I'll be shooting next month. After a lot of research I chose the Tamron 28-75 over the Canon 24-70L, and I had three reasons. Price obviously, although I had the funds to buy either. Weight - the 24-70L is very heavy, much more so than the Tamron. And quality - the Canon at its best is barely better than the Tamron across the range and inferior in parts, but more significantly I have heard of many "bad copies" of the Canon. A friend here had one - it just wouldn't focus properly on her 5D2. My Tamron works perfectly on either of my bodies. Focussing is a bit noisy but rapid and accurate.

So I'll probably have the Tamron 28-75 mounted on my 5D as my principal camera for the wedding, with my 50mm f1.8 mounted on the 7D as backup for candids at the reception. Although in theory the range 24-28 is one that I'd rather not be missing, in practice on FF anything wider than 28mm is starting to show significant distortion and for a wedding I wouldn't use it even if I had it. It's not for nothing that the standard wide angle prime on 35mm film cameras was 28mm, not 24mm.

I'll never buy the Canon 24-70L, but I'm not through buying Canon lenses. I want the 100mm f2.8 macro (not sure whether to go for the IS or non-IS version). Maybe also the 135mm f2.0 L - I don't need that focal length, but it's such a superb lens..... And I may yet get the 70-200 f2.8 L II, although my 100-400L serves me very well.

I have a canon 5D and 50D, both griped. 430ex speedlite flash. 100-400L 100 F2.8 L macro, 50 F1.4 70-200 F4 Lis 17-40L
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2011, 11:05 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
jdnan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ft. Worth, TX
Posts: 336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aladyforty View Post
Thanks for the replies, Im kinda swayed toward the 2470L

by this
http://www.flickriver.com/search/50D...L/interesting/
I really like Canon, but I chose to go with the Sigma 24-70, f2.8 HSM over the Canon. The reviews are very similar, with the Sigma coming out slightly ahead, especially considering bang for the buck. I've really enjoyed the lens, but I know some don't like to use 3rd party lenses. I shoot with a 1D MKIII, with is not quite full frame (1.3). I also use micro adjustment to match the len's focusing characteristics. I do this for all my lenses now & seem to get more consistently sharp pics. I don't know if you can do that on your crop body or not, but if you can, I highly recommend it. If you can't, Canon can do it for you, but you have to send the camera and lens into their service folks. The Sigma is a big lens, but I don't find that a problem at all.
__________________
Jerry
jdnan is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:31 PM.