Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lens quality and the 5D  (Read 6705 times)
johnvr
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« on: January 03, 2006, 05:03:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm planning to start shooting for stock later this year and am looking at my equipment needs. Most of my shooting will be landscape and travel photography in the Mediterranean.

I plan on buying a 5D and the new 24-105mm lens.

I plan to sell my 28-70/f2.8.

I plan to sell my Sigma 15-30 and get a Canon prime wide-angle lens (20 or 24mm) instead.

I plan on keeping my 70-200/f4.

I'll keep my 28mm, my 50/1.4, my 100-400 L IS and my 1.4 converter.

I'm considering the 70-300 DO, but it duplicates other lenses.

Am I missing something in terms of image quality if I act on these considerations as stated. Any advice is welcome.

Thanks.
Logged
Yakim Peled
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2006, 11:27:32 PM »
ReplyReply

>> I plan to sell my Sigma 15-30 and get a Canon prime wide-angle lens (20 or 24mm) instead.

1. Why do you plan to sell the 15-30?
2. 20mm and 24mm have VERY different FoV's. The two complement each other, not replace.
3. Which 24mm prime, 24/1.4 or 24/2.8?
4. You will have 24mm in your 24-105. Why consider another 24mm prime?
5. The 20/2.8, despite being a prime, does not have the same quality consensus as almost all other primes.
6. Have you considered the 17-40/4?

>> I plan on keeping my 70-200/f4.
>> I'll keep my 28mm, my 50/1.4, my 100-400 L IS and my 1.4 converter.

1. Why keep both 70-200/4 and 100-400 IS?
2. Why keep the 28/2.8 when you will have it in the 24-105?

>> I'm considering the 70-300 DO, but it duplicates other lenses.

I agree but it seems you will have other duplicates as well.

Some general questions:
1. What is your budget?
2. How much weight are you willing to carry?
3. Will the 5D be your only body?
4. Why not buy the 24-105, sell nothing, and only then see if and what you are not using any lens?
Logged

Happy shooting,
Yakim.
johnvr
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2006, 06:34:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
>> I plan to sell my Sigma 15-30 and get a Canon prime wide-angle lens (20 or 24mm) instead.

1. Why do you plan to sell the 15-30?

Largely because of its slow autofocus and bulkiness. I rather cover wide-angle with a smaller lens.
Quote
2. 20mm and 24mm have VERY different FoV's. The two complement each other, not replace.
3. Which 24mm prime, 24/1.4 or 24/2.8?
4. You will have 24mm in your 24-105. Why consider another 24mm prime?

Correct on all counts. Good points.
Quote
5. The 20/2.8, despite being a prime, does not have the same quality consensus as almost all other primes.

I'll check.
Quote
6. Have you considered the 17-40/4?

No, I haven't but I will. Thanks for the suggestion.
Quote
>> I plan on keeping my 70-200/f4.
>> I'll keep my 28mm, my 50/1.4, my 100-400 L IS and my 1.4 converter.

1. Why keep both 70-200/4 and 100-400 IS?

Because the 100-400 is very large and a lens I only take with me if I know for sure I'm going to use it. The 70-200 is much smaller and can always sit in my camerabag.
Quote
2. Why keep the 28/2.8 when you will have it in the 24-105?

Largely because it's small and because I'll also keep my 10d for personal stuff, on which the 28mm is close to a normal lens.
Quote
>> I'm considering the 70-300 DO, but it duplicates other lenses.

I agree but it seems you will have other duplicates as well.

Some general questions:
1. What is your budget?
2. How much weight are you willing to carry?
3. Will the 5D be your only body?
4. Why not buy the 24-105, sell nothing, and only then see if and what you are not using any lens?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55152\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

1. I'm flexible.
2. Much of the shooting will be done close to the car, while for trips weight becomes a problem, which is why the DO is so appealing.
3. I have a 10D, which I keep, but I'm not sure whether it produces a good enough image for stock. I have a 1D, which I was planning to sell.
4. Because I'm leaving the US in the summer and can buy lenses now at much lower prices than I can when I'm in Europe.

Thanks for your reply.
Logged
Yakim Peled
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2006, 06:43:07 AM »
ReplyReply

The new 70-300 IS is 90g lighter than the 70-300 DO and is optically excellent. Unfortunately, build quality leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300is/review.html

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/ca...456is/index.htm
Logged

Happy shooting,
Yakim.
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2006, 07:18:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
6. Have you considered the 17-40/4?
Keep in mind that the 17-40 shows significant light fall-off in the corners on a 1Ds MkII, especially at the wide end, so it probably will on the 5D, too.

The 16-35 f/2.8L is not quite as bad.

Well, according to what I've seen, anyway.
Logged

Jan
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2006, 09:29:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Bear in mind also that the Sigma 15-30 does not show significant light fall-off in the corners. I used that 15mm focal length with my 5D quite often photographing temples recently around Angkor Wat. If you have a reasonably sharp copy of that zoom, I'd keep it.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2006, 03:04:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bear in mind also that the Sigma 15-30 does not show significant light fall-off in the corners. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very interesting, if it us true that the Sigma 15-30 does better in this regard than the Canon 17-40 or 16-35; is that your observation? If so, this could relate to the apparent tendency of Sigma lenses to have rather high exit pupils, while Canon is if anything at the low end. That is, Sigma's lenses might in general deliver light more square on to the sensor, reducing "microlens vignetting".
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2006, 08:32:38 PM »
ReplyReply

BJL,
When I compared the Sigma 15-30 with a Canon 16-35 in the shop before buying, I was using a D60 and therefore there was no notoceable fall-off with either lens. Since resolution was about the same for both lenses, I decided to get the Sigma but fully expected that I would need a new lens should I ever buy a full frame 35mm DSLR.

Since the prevailing view at the time was that FF 35mm would not drop significantly in price in the near future, I thought it unlikely I'd be buying one soon. It seemed a bit silly to buy a lens 2.5x the price because it might be more suitable with a future camera body 10 years down the track.

When I got my 5D, a major concern was likely vignetting with the Sigma 15-30, so I was pleasantly surprised to find there was no more vignetting than one would expect with any wide angle lens at full aperture and shortest focal length. Vignetting is noticeably less at 24mm and f4.5 that it is with the Canon 24-105 at 24mm and f4.5, for example. There is noticeable vignetting at 15mm wide open, but not noticeable at all at f8. Of far more concern is distortion at the edges at 15mm. Peoples faces tend to become elongated. This might well be worse than edge distortion with the 17-40 at 17mm. However, 15mm is quite noticeably wider than 17mm.
Logged
Yakim Peled
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2006, 12:45:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Everything I read suggest that the 15-30 is a very good lens and the only major problem it has is that it is very flare-prone. If it wasn't for that I think I might have bought it for myself (sp?).
« Last Edit: January 26, 2006, 12:56:48 AM by Yakim Peled » Logged

Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2006, 04:40:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Largely because of its slow autofocus and bulkiness. I rather cover wide-angle with a smaller lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55175\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Sigma is bulky, no doubt about it, but still not too big to fit in your pocket.

I've often thought I'd like to post an image to illustrate a point, so here's hoping the image appears as planned.

[attachment=116:attachment]


Well, I don't quite know what went wrong with the thumbnail. Anyway, I always knew I would find a use for that shot   .
« Last Edit: January 05, 2006, 04:51:47 AM by Ray » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2006, 08:13:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Everything I read suggest that the 15-30 is a very god lens and the only major problem it has is that it is very flare-prone. If it wasn't for that I think I might have bought it for myself (sp?).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55237\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yakim,
I can't say I've noticed excessive flare. I've stopped using filters in front of the lens, which I believe tend to increase flare. Maybe I'm not being creative enough shooting into the sun. My Canon 24-105 is supposed to have a flare problem (according to the batch/code number, whatever it is) but I haven't come across it yet.
Logged
Yakim Peled
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2006, 09:40:15 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.burren.cx/photo/ultrawide/1530v1740.html
Logged

Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8908


« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2006, 10:30:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually, what surprises me in that review, Yakim, is the small difference in FoV between the 15mm of the Sigma and the 17mm of the Canon. I assume that if the shots were of a distance mountain range and the camera held horizontally, the differences would be much more pronounced.

If I'm shooting into the sun and I think flare might be a problem, I'll always try to place my hat or something between the sun and the lens, being careful the hat is not visible in the viewfinder of course.

Resolution tests amongst lenses of this calibre are often not reliable. There's too much variation between lenses of the same model. Nevertheless, if the Canon 17-40 had been available at the time I bought the Sigma, I would have tested that also and if it had been equal to the Sigma in resolution I would probably have bought it in preference to the Sigma because of its longer reach and smaller size. As it stands, I can think of no good reason to switch. I would rather trade the lens in for a good copy of the Sigma 12-24 which would compliment my 24-105 better.
Logged
Peter Jon White
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2006, 05:28:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Have you considered the 24mm TS-E? Your landscapes will look better in sharp focus rather than when you're depending on depth of field to get them sharp. There's no substitute for getting everything in the plane of focus, unless you're printing small.
Logged
Yakim Peled
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2006, 01:55:11 AM »
ReplyReply

>> Actually, what surprises me in that review, Yakim, is the small difference in FoV between the 15mm of the Sigma and the 17mm of the Canon. I assume that if the shots were of a distance mountain range and the camera held horizontally, the differences would be much more pronounced.

I guess it's the crop effect. 15/17 translates to 24/27.

>> Resolution tests amongst lenses of this calibre are often not reliable. There's too much variation between lenses of the same model.

This is a very sad truth. Then again, my impression is that Canon and Nikon has better QC (i.e. less complaints) than third party companies. That may explain part of the price difference.
Logged

Happy shooting,
Yakim.
sxty8goats
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2006, 08:39:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The new 70-300 IS is 90g lighter than the 70-300 DO and is optically excellent. Unfortunately, build quality leaves a lot to be desired.

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300is/review.html

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/ca...456is/index.htm
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Build Qual may not be up to L standards but at 1/3 the price of the DO it is a steal.JMHO.
Logged
Yakim Peled
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2006, 02:38:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Every lens makes you compromise in certain aspects. I am willing to compromise in many aspects but image quality is not one of them. I bought the 70-300 IS and each time I hold it, it gives me heartaches and yearning for the 200/2.8 and 300/4 IS which I had to sell.

Do not get me wrong, at 600$ I am not expecting it to have the build quality of the 200/2.8 and 300/4 IS. My 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are also all plastic lenses but have far better build quality than the 70-300 IS.
Logged

Happy shooting,
Yakim.
benInMA
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2006, 02:49:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey guys... (new here)

I just tried a Sigma 15-30 on my 5D a couple days ago, my friend wanted to try his lens on my camera to see what it was like on a FF body.

I thought the lens had excessive flare on the 5D @ 15mm, whereas it clearly doesn't on his 20D.   The 2-hood arrangement on the 15-30 does not appear to have the right setup for full frame.  Basically you can't use the round hood, because it very badly vignettes, but the permanently attached petal hood does not provide enough shading.

We were shooting a shot about 120 degrees away from the sun and still getting flare.   My Canon 17-40 didn't have any trouble in the same place with it's petal hood, which appears to be very differently shaped then the Sigma lens.

I could post some of the shots but they are otherwise not good photos, I was not trying real hard to take a great shot there.  But the flare spot was huge, it took up maybe 15% of the total area of the image.

I think this is just the hood, shading carefully with my hand I was able to get rid of the flare but that is obviously very hard if the sun is to your right side and you're not using a tripod.
Logged
lester_wareham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2006, 06:21:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Every lens makes you compromise in certain aspects. I am willing to compromise in many aspects but image quality is not one of them. I bought the 70-300 IS and each time I hold it, it gives me heartaches and yearning for the 200/2.8 and 300/4 IS which I had to sell.

Do not get me wrong, at 600$ I am not expecting it to have the build quality of the 200/2.8 and 300/4 IS. My 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are also all plastic lenses but have far better build quality than the 70-300 IS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What made you sell the two long primes and replace with a wide range zoom, there must be a big upside for you?
Logged
Yakim Peled
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2006, 06:47:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I sold them to finance the digital transition.
Logged

Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad