h_._jm

<p>yep, tru that!</p>

<p>But as Jan said; 550D is such an awesome all rounder camera. 18MP, larger screen than 5DII, HD video, and all the EF lenses become 1.6x which is such a nice different perspective/use for all the lenses one has; and what for the price it's sooo cheap compared to a 5DII. </p>

<p>and I do believe if one puts the 550D shots I made with the 17-55 back in the days; and with the 5D or even 5DII with similar lenses like my 24-105 or even 70-200's no one will be able to tell which is which.<br>

But I'm gonna look at the HD video camera as everyone suggested; just wanting to say how great a package and price is the 550D. It Rulz!</p>

<p>Guys, I agree! I remember how annoying was the manual focus with DSLR for Video. Thanks for the enlightenment guys; and also letting me know how the 5D/5DII is clearly better for stills; If I was to upgrade I would go 5DII. thanks to all</p>

<p>Hi everyone; <br>

My grandma is hopefully coming next weekend from Holland; here in Australia; and we are planning to have an awesome time with her taking her out as much as we can (fingers crossed). She only comes like once every 5-10 years. I figured out that I would like HD video for these memories.<br>

I have 5D; 24-105; 70-200 F4 IS; 35L;135L; 100 Macro. <br>

I just checked ebay out and found that if I buy a 5D II; and sell my 5D on ebay; I would need to shell out at least $1.5K, whilst buying the 550D and keeping the 5D costs me about $800 USD.<br>

Except I don't have a general purpose lens for the 550D if I choose to go that way; but for HD video I believe the kit lens is ok? or I can live with the limitations of the 35L or the 24-105 on an aps-c?<br>

So if you guys where in my shoes would you get a 2nd aps-c or upgrade to the 5DII.<br>

What made me also scared of upgrading; is the fact that at this time everyone is waiting for the 5D III; and I believe if it comes out the 5DII and 5D prices will go down.<br>

I already know how the 100 macro will become so much better zoom on an aps-c; and the 70-200 will be boosted nicely too; but which choice is better?</p>

 

<p>I am pleased to tell everyone I did finally settle and buy the Non-L 100 Macro.<br>

Thanks to everyone who helped me in this choosing journey!</p>

<p>I like David's suggestion of posting a flick Link to what type of photos I'm wanting, here it is:<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/eljamali/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/eljamali/</a></p>

<p>I'm a newbie to Flickr so I didn't organize it at all; but uploading these photos made like the Canon 100 Macro non IS once more! It's price is also reasonable; and for my type of shooting and lenses; I believe I have better lenses to use for general use/telephoto/portraits and so don't need IS that much.</p>

<p>I'm just deciding between the Canon 100 Macro and the Tamron 90; I can get them for $550 and $340 respectively new though the Canon comes with 1 yr international warranty (tamron won't as I'm buying from Hong Kong); I'm leaning towards the Canon; simply because of resale value; even though I looked at ebay and resale value of the IS; is currently best; like $10-20 loss only! compared to $50 for the non IS; and on $70-80 on average for the Tamron. The tamron's weight is one big thing for me only 400 grams; compared to 600g for the non-IS and even more I think around 800grams for IS version. I am leaning to get a dedicated Macro lens and not tubes for now; though thanks to all who suggested the tubes.<br>

Anyone who has tried both the tamron and the Canon non-IS can tell what they think? If the difference is so small like the Canon 17-55 and the Tamron 17-50 (I owned both and loved the Tamron heaps!) then I will go Tamron for weight and cost. Otherwise if the canon is clearly more consistent I will definitely go Canon; I love it's build. I heard the Canon has better colours though and AF.<br>

Check out my FLickr photos I just uploaded. Thanks peeps</p>

<p>To Scott: Are you serious? I mean the Canon 100 L is rated heaps up (9.8/10) check out Bobatkins toprated canon lenses page, even on photozone and all other review sites. But it's not just that. I read on kenko tubes, and it works best on 50 mm primes, where one 25mm tube will get me 0.67 magnification so that is one cheap option to get that lens; or the Tamron 90. However, on all my lenses apparently, tubes don't add much magnification at all; like the whole set might get me 0.5 macro or something?! any takers on that?!</p>

 

<p>Hello fellow Pro's and enthusiasts,<br>

I have a canon 5D. I have the following lenses and I want to start posting photos on my Flickr page, and so I'm very tempted to start Macro all over. I see none but the great Canon 100 L IS as my next lens purchase.</p>

<p>However, I'm a no pro; and I'm not making any living of photography and thus I have for cost, space and peace of mind reasons decided to NOT add anymore lenses; I can buy if I can sell!</p>

<p>I have the following lenses: Canon 24-105 L IS<br>

Canon 35L 1.4 L<br>

Canon 70-200 F4 IS L<br>

Canon 135 F2 L<br>

I can't say how much each of these have their awesome features that sets them apart; the 24-105 the all in one usefulness, and so for the 35L with either one I can take them to an event and be satisfied. The 70-200 I love the prime quality (in my opinion) in a zoom, so sharp and has best colours outdoors esp; and the 135 is the least useful in practicality BUT is easily the BEST in absolute terms when used correctly!</p>

<p>Having tough times deciding wat to do! I thought of keeping them if I can get a cheaper Macro alternative, and though of Tamron 90 Macro; because I can buy cheap for about $250 used and it's only 400 grams. Another thing I thought is to buy the 24-70 and see if I like the copy; and then keep it and sell the 24-105 & the 35L :( Though part of me is telling me that the combination of the latter 2 is FAR more useful; since as I said I'm happy to cover most events with either one.<br>

A large part of my mind is telling me to keep things as they are and wait and hold on to the macro. Any idea would be appreciated.<br>

ohh and one reason I want to sell 1 lens to buy another; is to maintain a practical kit so if I travel I do take it all with me; and hence that expensive kit becomes 'useful' if you know what I mean.<br>

Cheers everyone!</p>

<p>Nice stuff!<br>

Thanks guys :)</p>

<p>Hey everyone, <br>

I have a Canon 5D which I bought used from KEH. I believe it does have some focus issues. It focuses good, BUT compared to previous cameras (which I bought new) like my 1000d and 550d; it lacks in sharpness (relatively only). <br>

It's not under warranty, so I thought I would ask is there a quick test/way to know it's the camera's fault at focusing before I take it to canon? and also does anyone who had their camera calibrated for focus know how much roughly that thing costs?<br>

regards to all</p>

<p>Once again thanks to everyone who did respond and help me in my lens purchase!<br>

I did buy the 24-105 F4L IS and I hope it will be great :) thanks to All</p>

<p>Thanks to Paulie, Mathjis and everyone who contributed...I decided I will purchase the 24-105 L IS and try it out. Paulie don't worry about me just listening based on this forum, I will have more than a month to try it out and reassess before I pack! My final set will be 24-105, 35L, 70-200 f4 IS and if weight permits most likely add a light rebel series camera e.g. 550D, and offcourse the 430 ex II flash. Thanks everyone :)</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for this!<br>

The majority voice seems for getting the 24-105 IS L for that 2/3 lens setup. Also almost everyone suggested a prime e.g. 35L and some suggested the 70-200. I will stick to that hopefully, and consider getting a 2nd body too (APS-C) lightest one possible, as in my last trip my camera body did play up during the trip and only fixed it upon returning to Australia after the trip under Canon warranty.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for this, I was quite surprized to be honest, that almost EVERYONE who suggested a standard zoom chose the 24-105 L and didn't mention the 24-70. I guess I will go with wat everyone has said!<br>

O, btw William, yes I will use my 430 exII and yes most of my photos by far will be flash.</p>

 

<p>Mathjis, I must say your UWA and Macro combo idea is something I never thought of and seems nice. I was thinking about you're 3 lens combo as I will write below:<br>

Mark, the need for versatility in such a trip makes me willing to not save money :) I know I need a standard zoom for such a trip and the 24-105 L seems ideal, esp. how everyone so far is mentioning it. The other thing don't worry about 50 mm primes they are too tight for me even on FF indoors, the 35L is pretty light, I already have it and like it.<br>

what's going in my head is these 2 setups:<br>

1) 17-40, 35, 70-200 as matthjis suggested (except 35L rather than a 50)<br>

2) 24-105, 35, 70-200<br>

3) ? watever other people suggest in here<br>

Option 1 gives me UWA But, option 2 gives me versatility in the most used range i.e. standard zooms.<br>

Also, not to confuse anyone with too much options here, but in the most likely event I will buy an APS-C too, the 17-40 will have a dual purpose of UWA on my FF, and a standard zoom on an aps-c.<br>

DeCiSiOnS!</p>

 

<p>Nice suggestions, as I feel somehow covered,<br>

I just wasn't sure of the quality of the 17-40 hence I was aiming at buying a standard zoom which is what I feel am mostly missing really.<br>

Larry, My lenses are 17-40, 35L, 135L and 70-200 f4 is. and yes Im looking to make 1 purchase based on what ppl suggest these IDEAL 2/3 lens setup would be. I like the wide angle 17-24 mm range BUT its not essential, in other words if the 24-105 OR the 24-70 are superior in quality i would swap them around for the 17-40<br>

Just for record, this oversease trip I had before in 2009, and I had the canon 1000d, Tamron 17-50, Canon 55-250, and Canon 50 1.8 and I thought it was a remarkable and lightweight setup, I only slightly missed Macro on a few occassions :) not that I shoot macro usually, but just to show my relatives how cool macro was :) hehe</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So here is the question, On full frame and I am Travelling Overseas and I don't mind Weight (relatively) but I do want to minimize the Lenses I carry, prefer 2 ONLY and Bear In Mind my trip Even though is overseas will be mainly i.e. 90% of shots in our relatives and friends and neighbours houses both indoor and outdoor, day and night, and much of it is groupshots, portraits, many candids and many poses.<br>

I know the 1 lens travel solution is hopeless in quality, i.e. tamron 18-270 in aps-c or canon 18-200, OR the canon 28-300 L in FF. I don't want a one lens solution.<br>

Basically the overseas trip is not to see the country and places like a tourist, but to catchup with the 'loads' of relatives and loved ones in there if you can imagine this trip :)<br>

Guys feel free to suggest 3 lens setup too provided the total weight of lenses isn't that HUGE, and also if you want to say general things e.g. 1 standard zoom and 1 telephoto is best etc... also welcome.<br>

I was thinking if 2 lenses suffice awesomely, I might add a macro or a prime general purpose for a 3rd lens.</p>

<p>I must say, I found Telephoto in my last trip Essential. and back then I had the Canon 55-250 on a 1000D and it did me well esp for Candids, and for people who are SHY! , this time I have the 70-200 F4 IS for it, as I don't think the F2.8's weight is handy in overseas travel, esp im not extremely fussy about bokeh being in all my shots, I can always get a light prime.<br>

So the question refined is which 2 or 3 lens setup? bear in mind I might travel with 1 FF, and 1 APS-c, but let's talk about FF in here.</p>

<p>Thanks to all!</p>

<p>So far 4 say 24-105 vs 1 saying 24-70!<br>

I haven't added the fact that I probably cannot ever sell my 35L and do like it even if I sell the other 3 lenses I have. I agree with everyone said that a 24-105 seems a nicer combination with the 35L. The reality is that even at night shots when I have these primes I do really long for shots without the blur and that will show everything i.e. shoot F4-5.6 and I know how IS will be very handy there.<br>

My fear is with the performance of 24-105 with flash indoors, is it in any way inferior in quality compared to 24-70 lets say in F4-F8 range or not at all?</p>

<p>Thanks heaps</p>

<p>Hi ,<br>

I don't want to repeat one of those boring 24-70 VS 24-105 posts that everyone of us has read. However, it is one of those I am considering and here is my arsenal first of all, Im making it more focused question and any help is appreciated:</p>

<p>Camera: Canon 5D, might get a 550D later on...<br>

Lenses I have: 35L, 135L, 70-200 F4 IS L, 17-40L<br>

It seems at this stage I don't want to sell any, and my most practicable lens is the 17-40 even outside when shooting ppl at night! (2nd most used is 35L) hence I realized I need a more practicable general purpose lens.</p>

<p>I definitely want a zoom lens.</p>

<p>Other things I wanna say, I want the lens to be MOST practicable with people shooting and events, parties, a day in the city or a night in the city, road, restaurant, etc.... I can live with F4.</p>

<p>I must say back in the days when i had APS-C I was BLOWN AWAY by tamron 17-50, and it was used in an engagement party where it's range more than sufficed, though I can see how more range would've even made it nicer. However, in that engagement party 85-90% of the keepers were shot with F4 and were very sharp and awesome, though I saw how the rest at F2.8, in that party made me shoot in darker places outdoors in the frontyard at night, and some closeup smooth 'bokehs' maybe 5% of shots without the annoying switch of lenses.</p>

<p>My bad experience with F4 before is not so much liking the 70-200 F4 IS L on APS-C camera Indoors in FLASH, i found it lacking in character, colour etc.. compared to my 17-55 then but ONLY INDOORS.<br>

The last point, is considering I keep and do like a wide angle zoom the 17-40, the 24-70 isn't much of a range on top of it.</p>

<p>However, with all this blabbing, can you guys deduce which of these is more right for me? I mean having the two primes 35&135, makes me say ok F4 with them is awesome and when I need I reach for primes. BUT this is the 'Standard Zoom' lens choice we are talking about where I don't wanna compromise at all, I do want the best Like I don't wanna say i have this for reach and then wen i need quality I get my primes, I don't like this philosophy :)<br>

The last thing, Is that I found on forums how the 24-105's sharpness Is more than the 24-70 even at F4 and also at F5.6 and according to some MTF charts which I didn't look into. is it true It seems surprising if the difference was large and quite a big point against the 24-70 unless the difference is so tiny?</p>

<p>Overall, I would say I will probably use that WANTED lens more indoors , Most by far will be Flash shots none of natural light etc... in a zoom!; and some at day and some at night. but I am not particularly looking at BOKEH I am looking at versatility, IQ and sharpness, colors etc...</p>

<p>Does all this Blabbing makes me more of a 24-70 Guy or a 24-105? I have a feeling not, hence it's a boring repeated question everyone makes!<br>

Also, pls does the fact many copies of the 24-70 not being sharp make online shopping dangerous, or is that unsharp copies talk an old thing that's fixed?<br>

By the way I am leaning towards 24-70, though its still close to 50:50</p>

<p>Thanks everyone.</p>

 

<p>Guys, I want to say first that I do like Photozone's reviews but I wanna know that as far as optical performance of these lenses go on full frame (according to photozone reviews), is it fair they gave that many stars to these lenses:<br>

17-40 L: 3/5<br>

24-70 L: 3/5<br>

24-105L: 3/5<br>

35L: 3/5<br>

100 L macro got 3.5/5<br>

Whereas 135L, 70-200 F4 IS both got 4/5<br>

70-200 F2.8 IS II got 4.5/5<br>

Do people really take these numbers into perspective when deciding and choosing lenses? Why i chose photozone is because I thought they were a bit rough/harsh on the lenses they gave 3/5, especially all those lenses are firstly used heaps by the pro's out there e.g. canon 24-70 in wedding photographers arsenal, and secondly all these other review sites e.g. the-digital-picture, luminous-landscape where giving a much more consistently positive reviews to all the lenses I listed.<br>

Ideas? Opinions? Thanks in Advance!</p>

<p>Thanks you all<br>

I put up the question to see If I was doing something way too wrong compared to having the MK II, and seems both choices are very much equal in their pros and cons, especially for what I stated I want, most ppl seemed to agree my 2 lens setup is a nice cover.<br>

Whilst I still havent gotten the 135 I do expect it to be better than the 85 1.8 hopefully<br>

Having said that the 135 on FF, and 85 on 1.6 aps-c is a tricky focal length hardly conveneint for unexpected shooting? or sometimes even outdoors, but there is something magical about the bokeh in that range, as I remember the 85 1.8 I once had did very well on aps-c.<br>

In fact, when I had 85 1.8 it was definitely better bokeh, black and smaller than the F4 white lens, and that made me wrongly sell my 70-200 f4 IS at the time, lol but I soon regreted it and bought another<br>

I hope to vote for Randall Farhy's comment as an understatement too :) but I still haven't got it yet!<br>

thanks to everyone, for this. Great info and help</p>

<p>Hi guys, <br>

I am an enthusiast, and my drive for the hobby is mainly events, family and friends type of photography. I enjoy candids/natural portraits and for this I need a telephoto reach with high quality preferably zoom lens.</p>

<p>As of Now I have these telephoto lenses:<br>

Canon 70-200 F4 IS I am loving it so far I can see it excelling more outdoor but could be because of it's focal range rather than the F stop?</p>

<p>Canon 135 F2...on it's way but Expect it to be great.</p>

<p>Now my question is adding them two, in terms of price and weight would get you:<br>

Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS II !</p>

<p>So I want to ask you pro's and enthusiast's out there on your opinions, on which would you prefer (the two I have, or trade for the MK II) and why? I know one thing for sure Im not shooting low light weddings etc..., but do shoot indoors and like to have a convenient high quality lens for that and F4 is a bit of a compromise compared to F2.8, though I don't mind using flash for indoor. At the same time I believe bokeh of 135 is best of the three lenses and on flickr's it kicks the MK II bokeh in my opinion by far. Main priority is Portraits and Candid portraits for this telephoto range really. Every other consideration is secondary.</p>

<p>Thanks Everyone!</p>