h_._jm

Wow and Thanks for your dedicated reply Mark. I am very impressed with the 1.4x TC images you posted and I decided to do a shotgun approach and get the 2x teleconverter first. I've just ordered the kenko 2x one and I will see how I like it; If I don't like it I will get your exact same tele-converter as I am pretty happy with these results. Thanks for your input; much appreciated.

I am quite excited I pulled the trigger and decided to make some changes to my lens lineup and invest in a more versatile 2.8 lens. I couldn't justify choosing the Canon II over this beast of a lens at literally 45% of the cost. My Tamron should arrive tomorrow!!! I am tempted to do some bird and moon photography as an addition so I am thinking a TC is a nice small and relatively affordable addition to the lens. I have a 6D with its very basic AF. I do want to invest in a nice Teleconverter. My two questions would be; 1) 1.4X Vs 2X; read mixed reviews many said 2x on the tamron isn't good slow af; and quoted less than excellent performance of the tamron @ 200mm as a reason. Others said not an issue and they gave a rough rule of thumb that if the 1.4X lowers peripheral image sharpness by 10% then the 2x will only lower it by 20%. I am tempted to get the 2x obviously. I will probably borrow my sisters APS-C sized Canon for even extra reach. Add to that many said TC lowers quality so much so your better off using 1x lower F-Stop when using TC. It's all mixed comments I read on older forums hence I thought I would ask here hoping I may get real world fellow photographers experience on this forum. 2) Kenko Vs Tamron Vs others; does it matter? Thanks heaps

Dear photo enthusiasts and pros, I’m curious re DXO scores. esp comparing my current 6D to the 5DIV. Canon 5DIV VS 6D on dxo: Portrait improvement 24.8 vs 23.8 = 4% which is trivial. Overall DXO camera score 91% compared to 6D’s 82% so 9% improvement. Yet when I check most of my lenses on dxo between the 6D and 5DIV there is easily a 20-25% improvement in terms of lens image sharpness and overall score. By the way if I check these lens scores on the 5DS R There is even a further 20% improvement in each lens score compared to the 5DIV even though the overall score for the 5DS R is 86 vs 91 for 5DIV. Not very consistent?! So is it the more megapixels the camera houses the sharper the image and higher dxo score for the lens on that camera? or is it better AF means better sharpness?! I would thankful to get a rough real life estimate from anyone who may have both the 6D and 5DIV how much image quality improvement the 5D IV is on top of 6D?- my gut feeling is 10% at most; but if the dxo lens score improvement score of 25% is true then that is quite impressive. Cheers Peter

Thanks everyone for this discussion; it’s been helpful. I definitely agree with many that having a F2.8 standard zoom with me when travelling minimises my need for the nifty fifty when compared to carrying the 24-105L. Also I agree with most who said the 24-105L Is the more practical travel option. Thanks to all.

Or clearly the lighter and cheaper option would be to 3) keep my 24-105L IS and just pack a 50 1.8 with it ~ 800 grams total. I just found that overseas I mostly shoot indoors with snaps of families as we get together..and found out using 24-105L with flash; with ISO 1600 with F4 and was still getting dark underexposed photos; so wondering if that means I would benefit from F2.8; hence I was suggesting option 2 and thinking about it although I am puzzled as F2.8 will probably mean not everyone in the image will be sharp.

Hi fellow photographers; I have bought that lens the 24-105L at a decent price used from ebay a few years ago. I have noticed that I often substitute this lens on my photo trips in my country (Australia) with my 17-40L wide angle plus one of either 100 macro or 70-200 f4 is to get a bigger more practical range. Only when I am lazy or going overseas do I pack the 24-105L for guaranteed practical range. I am interested when packing overseas; wether I could spice up the collections practicality a bit... So wanted your advise if you would prefer this setup or this: 1) 24-105F4 IS + Sigma 50 art 1.4 (current setup) ~ 1485 grams combined 2) 24-70F2.8L II + Canon 50 1.8 II (suggested change) ~ 935 grams combined; but more $$$ Because before I bought the sigma 50 art...even actual owners from its flickr page told me for travel they would much prefer the lightweight canon 50 1.8 and don't think it's worth carrying around overseas on your back....which I now feel is true. So just to the floor what you think about option 2 as a travel option and thus would mean selling my 24-105L for the 24-70L and keeping my sigma for now but if I find the 50 1.8 II used more then eventually sell the sigma too. I read raving reviews of the 24-702.8L its basically the best standard zoom on DXO; and surpasses many canon primes. Also given 24-70 tamron VC is rated very highly and is $1000 cheaper than the amazing Canon 24-70F2.8 II; but the latter has better weather seal; better built; clearly top AF and very strong used market demand; I am interested if someone tried both and tells me about them. Regards Pete

Guys sorry for the late response been a little sick lately. Paddler 4; thanks for your flash setup photo. Looks practical. I use this gary fong model flash bulb it's so bulky and a pain to carry around. so I will look up your suggestion. Robin thanks but it's funny how everyone else teamed up to tell me enough with lenses and I don't need to change anything! I know from your previous posts and suggestions that you're a F2.8 lens kind of person/photographer and that's heaps understandable. But to be honest for me I don't always get wowed by F2.8 whereas I always do get wowed by F1.4-1.8; hence my strategy has been to have a nice 2 portrait lenses or so and then compromise the F2.8 for a good F4 lens for less size; cost and more practicality. But Robin after your post and you being surprised with my commentary on the canon 100 macro I went back to my Canon 100 macro and took a photoshoot of my daughter indoors and OMG they were the best pics I've taken of her so far. I think I can't judge a lens by 1 photoshoot and also the F2.8 being restricted was a plus as I was forced to use F2.8 shutter speed about 1/125 and more light/ISO and all the photos had pleasant bokeh yet all of my daughter's face was in focus (or at least both her eyes) so I couldn't be happier. Also, being Macro too I would keep this lens now. Thanks guys for all your input; I was surprized how almost nobody seemed to care or recommend an 85mm for my needs given my current equipment. I love this site and appreciate the joy of asking top photographers for their opinion and advise at ease. Have a great day Peter

Guys; My photography interests have changed dramatically since I became a father 45 days ago! I have previously smashed your forums with questions on equipment and I do seem like that lens geek amateur and it's true. However; since my daughter came I have made an objective re-evaluation of the equipment I have and the use for them. I have decided I want to downsize my gear; and expand on portraiture. I am happy with my camera Canon 6D; I am very happy with my flash canon 430 exII. Now here are my lenses and current use: Canon 24-105 F4 ISL; good all rounder. I prefer it to F2.8 counterpart which I pre-owned and sold due to weight and usability in travel. Sigma 50 ART. OMG! Since I bought it 2 months ago I looked down on every other lens I've owned it's just outstanding; and since my daughter is 99% of my interest in photography and likely to be always the case I use this beast >80% of the time. Canon 100 Macro F2.8....I kept it thinking to use as portrait and awesome to have macro too. But I realized honestly nobody told me but on F2.8 is way too sharp for face/body/tone totally not flattering unlike say 50 sigma/canon 135L when I previously had etc...So I feel Macro doesn't double up as a portrait lens I do feel it's not designed for it. Canon 70-200 F4ISL; I honestly use this lens once a year for the last 2-3 years. I force myself to. I dunno maybe cause it's white? I loved it's zoom and back in the day when I was single I used to shoot wildlife and nature and kept it but now if I keep it it would be anticipating shooting candid photos of my little princess when she starts walking/running?! Lastly Canon 17-40L; my sister is making me keep this one it's handy when overseas gives a different perspective on architecture/famous destinations which is nice; but can't say very useful for my family photos when I'm home. So I feel I can easily make my gear more family/portrait focused by: Keeping standard zoom 24-105; keeping sigma 50 art offcourse Adding another lens for portraits and sell the rest. Or just keep the white lens and learn to use it/love it. I have sold 135L amazing but the focal length is not for me too zoomed in. What are your suggestions re a 85-100 mm 2nd portrait lens won't I get a nice addition to my 50? I have tried Canon 85 1.8 and bought it/sold it twice; I hate it's purple fringing but for cost and what I want and it's size I don't mind giving it another try. Another is Canon 100 F2 apparently rated well Other choice is Tamron 85 1.8 VC amazing rating and has image stabilization; weight ok 700 g roughly and cost about 800 USD. Last and as per all reviewers the best 85 for canon but maybe the least practical is the Sigma 85 1.4 Art; expensive as for a hobbyist $1300 USD; weighs a stupid 1200 grams. Or any suggestions? I am in no hurry to buy I will take my time selling the unused lenses first. I do feel I will get more use for canon 70-200 as my kid grows a little and starts to walk say next year...any parents with experience support this? in which case any prime will be difficult to use. If I listen to my wife she would prefer I sell without buying another lens! Regards Peter the lens dilemma man!

So people I thought I should update you all... thanks for all your advise I bought the sigma 50 1.4 art and I've only tested it indoors but is seems very special compared to any other lens I've ever owned... great colours blur and super sharp. I've figured my home and rooms are big enough I don't need to shoot from tight corners etc... 50 is less distortion and perfect for baby portrait and outdoors where lenses shine best anyway I can zoom out and include a few people in the frame... if I managed to fit a family shot in a 135L the. The 50 will be much easier! I am super happy with the choice; thanks for your advise all :) Have a great day

Thanks everyone for your input and to you Robin; I checked out so many Flickr photos from these two lenses over the last few nights surely the 50 perspective is more artistic and it focuses on the person rather than the environment and I am again torn between the two lenses! I guess I have a 24-105 for general purpose what will I gain in 35L indoor shot of family as opposed to 24-105 with flash? Maybe not much and wide photos are the one you need more people in focus anyway.... so then maybe 50 is the better use of my $ and the F1.4 aperture. Decisions!! Thanks to you all

Guys it's me again asking this boring old question... Please I just wanted to get a confirmation that someone agrees my thinking is logical between the two lenses for my purposes on a 6D. I've had previously 50mm's: 1.8 and 1.4 canon. I liked their small size and they were very nice for 1 person portraits; nice blur. Not stellar like the L primes i've seen; but I've never tried the 50 sigma art or the canon 1.2L to judge. My reservation on 50 is even on outdoors it can be too zoomed in in certain scenarios i.e. remember was in Praque old city with my wife and only shooting her in the image I had to walk back 4-5 steps in a crowded area and still got a slightly tight image. I've had the Canon 35L 1.4 it was amazing. Practical; my 'Night time' lens; indoor lens; and nice blur though obviously not as good blur as the 50. Mainly used it as a general purpose lens. Now all I care about is: Baby photos; 1 person portraits; 2 and 3 person portraits (of our little family) lots of indoor and outdoor. My lenses which would complement my choice of 35/50 would be 100 Macro f2.8 (amazing portraits and blur); 70-200 f4 IS and standard zoom 24-105 f4L. I am leaning towards 35 mm for practicality and compromising only on some blur and some distortion at closeups because I have other lenses for that closeup purposes. If I buy would be either the Sigma ART series or the Canon L version of the 35/50 primes. I noticed many newborn professional photographers use the 35 mm in fact more than 50 as most of their work is indoors. Any ideas or suggestions? Regards Peter

<p>Ed thanks for that. YES! since this post I took the 70-200F4IS; 135L and 100 macro and done a mixup shooting of family portraits and closeup (1 person) portraits as well as general nature photography (animals, plants...) on a family day out as these are my favorite subject matters.<br> Short story I found I definitely have a huge use for the macro in portraits and closeup and I will be keeping it. TBH the 135L is pretty redundant for me with the 100 Macro; so it's on sale now!<br> Thanks for your and everyone's advise and input.<br> Peter</p>

<p>Thanks for your advise and wishes fellow photographers!<br> I get the general gist is that definitely 1 standard zoom lens is what most think I would need instead of my current two; and most advise me or think the 24-105 will be more practical. <br> As for lighting I do have one of those dome shaped massive diffusers which I use.<br> What I also got from this and thanks to you guys; I will try to use the 70-200 I will probably get more use for it now; I hardly use it.<br> Best Regards everyone and have a happy great new year.<br> Peter</p>

<p>Dear Photographers; every once in a while I repeat similar questions.<br> Just excuse my excitement and wanting to get everything just right!<br> I will hopefully be a father in 3 months! I want to fine tune my arsenal to suite baby photography best.<br> I have a feeling that mastering and investing in better lighting may help me better than lenses as mine are already good. But here we go.<br> Here is my arsenal<br />6D<br />24-105L f4 IS<br />24-70 f2.8 mk1<br />17-40L f4<br />70-200 f4 is<br> 135L<br />50 1.8 II<br />100 Macro non L<br />430ex II<br /><br />I definitely want to downsize my lenses and see no great advantage in having both the 24-105 and the 24-70. I prefer the 24-105 since when we shoot family photos anywhere we stay still and IS helps much more in darker areas. Plus it's lighter and perfect for overseas; I can add an UWA for same weight!<br /><br />At the same time I sold my 35L 1.4; 2 years ago and I feel that would be the best indoor baby photography lens hands down. <br /><br />So my plan was initially to do this:<br />Sell the 24-70 AND the 50 1.8II and invest in top glass prime i.e. Sigma 35/50 ART 1.4 OR 35 1.4 L OR 50 1.2 L<br />And use that lens plus the 24-105L as my main baby photography lens<br />+/_ Buy another flash one that triggers my 430 exII +/- strobes/umbrella etc....<br /><br />But If you professional photographers don't see much advantage of the 24-105 + Top end prime VS my current 24-70L and the 50 1.8 II...then why waste my money and time changing?!<br /><br /><br> I will look forward to your inputs; if anyone has suggestions for lighting setups; ideally small setup and practical for a non professional would be great.<br> Merry Christmas and Happy new year!<br> Peter</p>

<p>Dear Photo.net members;<br> I know I have been asking lots of questions recently; but that's the last one in my mind!<br> I got my first Europe trip for me and my wife planned soon. We will be going to Vienna, Prague, Budapest and Sweden (if knowing the context helps).<br> I have a 6D. My plan is to take minimal gear. Initially I wanted 24-105L ONLY. Lately my sister who is into arts and history convinced me to take my UWA too as she things there will be a LOT of use for that 17-24 mm range.<br> My question is given I am interested in photos of me and my wife and Europe landmarks mainly; would there be any benefit of taking a nifty fifty?! I don't imagine needing to blur things out much but at same time I can see it being a creative light weight lens.<br> I'm asking mainly cause I don't have the lens and I have to buy otherwise I probably wouldve taken it given the weight.<br> Second part of question do you agree to taking the UWA to those who've been there before?<br> Regards<br> Peter</p>

<p>Thanks for everyones input<br> I am following Robin's advise; I never knew that table top tripods ever existed and I think that's what I wanted.<br> I am looking at these two and not sure if they fit together; any advise?<br> Manfrotto 494 mini ball head + Feisol carbon fiber tabletop tripod<br> as it seemed that this combination can take 8 Pounds plus no problem hence likely very sturdy.</p>

<p>Dear pros and hobbyists;<br> I am a Canon shooter; I am a hobbyist.<br> I don't have a proper tripod. I am planning a trip to Europe soon that is short: only 2 weeks. <br> I will be taking my Canon 6D camera; 24-105L lens and very likely my wide angle 17-40L. I want minimum weight. I know a tripod will be very handy esp for night photos and photos of me and wife together.<br> I have a budget that is small $100; +/- 50<br> I want a recommendation for a good tripod. I can borrow my brother in laws tripod its very average like a $10 tripod from ebay; but I love how it's light and only 400 grams.<br> If I can get a recommendation for a light tripod similar to that would be awesome.</p> <p>Best Regards<br> Peter</p>

<p>Thanks guys for the suggestions;<br> Yes it's all on a full frame camera and yes the baby photography is not serious like studio or business; it would be for my family and friends but I desire top quality :)<br> These are all my lenses now: 17-40L; 24-105L; 24-70L; 135L; 100 macro; 70-200 F4IS L<br> Since my subject matter changed in the last few years and I don't shoot nature or sports anymore and it's about people photography/street/portraits/family photos...<br> I think out of my lenses the most suited now to Baby photos from all your suggestions seems the 24-70 F2.8L and the 135L +/- some suggested 70-200 others didn't<br> It does make sense that if I consider getting a new lens or sell and buy; to get either a 35 1.4 or 50 1.4; although I note some of you mentioned I may not really need it on top of the 24-70L.<br> As for the choice between 35 and 50 for baby photography; looks like the suggestions are 50:50 between them two <br> I was hoping there would be an obvious focal length that's clearly better for FF for that purpose</p>

<p>Dear photographers; I have been recently asking many questions but I have one important one in my mind!<br> I am trying to get into baby photography. <br> I am open to suggestions but I am considering the Sigma 35 1.4 ART or the Sigma 50 1.4 ART.<br> In the past I had the Canon 35L and I loved it. It was a very practical focal range for a prime lens; however being a prime you had to really intend to use the lens to actually use it; because otherwise zooms will always be stuck to the camera given versatility. So I only used it when I needed the Bokeh/portrait focus. <br> To me 35 was a more usable focal length than 50. But I never tried the 50 that much; but I found 35 also usable indoors.</p> <p>But the lens repairer I was speaking to said the standard portrait focal length on full frame sensors is 50-85 mm; also the Sigma 50 1.4 ART seems to have slightly better Bokeh which is kind of expected?! and it's slightly cheaper. </p> <p>By the way other lenses I have which would be good for Baby photos are: 24-70L; 70-200F4ISL; 135L and 100 Macro; but I do feel than one of the above 2 Sigma's would surely be the No.1 Baby photography Lens.<br> The subject matter I want is a mix of baby photos; mother and baby; father and baby; both parents and baby.<br> Any Thoughts? Suggestions?</p> <p>Regards<br> Pete</p>

<p>Thanks guys; </p> <p>The points Dave raised; made me think twice about this whole thing...<br> I mean my 6D does the job; but I wasn't impressed by Other brand cameras having better dynamic range than Canon's latest 5DIII/6D and so was waiting for the next camera they release to decide on an upgrade...<br> So if Tamron glass today may not work smoothly with future Canon cameras that pretty much solves it for me.<br> I will choose one of the two Canon lenses I have and that's it; but I may still rent the Tamron and check it out.<br> Thanks!</p>

<p>Thank you Robin! your words are encouraging me then.<br> Correction for typo the 24-70 2.8 L II is rated 35/50 not 335</p>

<p>Dear Photographers and hobbyists;<br> I have 7 pro lenses of Canon; some lenses are used only once a year! For a hobbyist that is such a waste of money and space.<br> I am planning a long term redevelopment programs to my lens line up! :) aiming to improve quality and reduce number of lenses<br> of the many review sites I trust photozone and Dxo most;<br> So I have these two lenses which serve identical or at least similar purpose:<br> 24-105 F4 L IS<br> 24-70 2.8 L<br> I am thinking of selling both and upgrade to the Tamron 24-70 VC<br> Now before you all attack me for my rudeness suggesting it's an upgrade; DXo supports me and so is photozone...<br> DXO gave these ratings to these lenses:<br> 24-70 2.8 L 27/50<br> Tamron 24-70 VC 32/50<br> 24-70 2.8 L II 335/50 (having said that Sharpness here is LEAGUES ahead of the other two lenses)<br> Plus getting an IS in a 2.8 everyday use lens is awesome!<br> So given price point of $1000 for my current 2.8L and the Tamron; it seems like a no brainer; plus it's 150 grams lighter than my current "Brick"<br> Any thoughts very welcome;</p> <p>Regards<br> Peter</p>

<p>Dear Photographers and hobbyists;</p> <p>Today we were trying my canon 24-70 on my sisters Canon APS-C body and I didn't have a body cap to cover my own Canon 6D.<br> So naturally, my sister put her 18-55 EF-S and screwed it in place into my Canon 6D!<br> And boy, I was really upset when I tried to use my Canon 6D later and realized the viewfinder was stuffed up.<br> Basically the mirror has come off.<br> I read on forums including on photo.net; and found many mirror coming off issues with Canon 5D I; less so in 5D II.<br> This camera is now 2-3 years old; and even if it was within warranty; I definitely caused the damage.<br> I just wanted your advise on repairing it @ Canon VS a trusted honest repairer who fixes my lenses at half price.<br> So on the websites/forums which discussed this topic Canon USA charges $500 USD roughly to fix this; and they change the mirror and the whole thing it attaches to. I believe that Canon Australia will charge more than this and that equates to maybe $700 Australian dollar which is 50% of price to buy a new 6D.<br> On the other hand, I think the 3rd party technicians will just glue it in?! not really sure. but definitely much cheaper; and he is a shop with 1 year warranty.<br> I will go to him tomorrow to get a quote; but if anyone could shed some light/preferences thought would much appreciate it....<br> I was going the technicians way but my brother in law was warning me saying this is super sensitive issue (the mirror) and he would much rather pay more and get it fixed perfectly with Canon.</p> <p>Your advise Much appreciated!<br> Peter</p>