File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey fags.

I'm torn on my next camera/lens purchase. I'm used to shooting with a 35mm equivalent prime on medium format, and I was thinking of getting a new digital camera. Since I use digital mostly for party shots, flash metering, etc, I don't need the newest shit on the block.

Anyways, turns out canon has nothing but shit WA lenses. I own the 35/2. That's shit. The 28/1.8 sucks, the 24/2.8 is too slow, all the sigma 20/24/28/1.8 weigh half a kilo and are bigger than your cock. If anyone can vouch for any of these to not be complete ass, I'll rent it and consider it.

Also, the body. Since i'm torn between the 5D and the 40D, I'm also thinking about which combination gives me the most usable WA image. IE. least cro-mabs, distortion.

Pic. is my most likely choice for prime if I go with crop. For FF, who the hell knows. It's a crap shoot.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2005:01:20 20:50:57Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width350Image Height302
>> Anonymous
None of this makes sense.
>> Anonymous
D700 + 14-24mm f2.8
>> Anonymous
Those lenses only suck if you just look at MTF scores and do less photography. With opinions like that OP it's hard to take you seriously because it seems like you never got interested in photography. Go collect stamps or something, it's a better hobby for you :)
>> Anonymous
>>276545
Sorry bro, but I'm not jumping ship.
>> Anonymous
>>276547

why not? you're unhappy and complaining. this way you can get what you want.
>> Anonymous
>>276546
I'm guessing it's easy for you to say if you've never had to put up with a shitty Sigma all afternoon. If you want to ignore the craft side of photography go ahead. Doesn't make me feel any worse.

Can you honestly say that the 35/2 and the 28/1.8 are any useful bellow f/4?
>> Anonymous
Get the 16-35 2.8 mark II
>> Anonymous
OP, if you're used to shooting 35mm equivalent just get the 35 and the 5D, or one of the 24s and the 40D, depending on which body you like and to what degree you're willing to tolerate the slightly tighter view on the 24/48 combination. Also, you're coming from medium format and you're calling f/2.8 too slow?

There's also plenty of other wides that'll go onto EF mount with an adapter. If you can shell out for it, I've heard good things about the entire Leica R line and there's a 35 Summilux and Summicron for you to choose from there.

>>276543
No, it makes sense, but I suspect he's making these lenses out to be worse than they really are. AC's posted some shots with the 35/2 and they've looked fine, and I've seen some other shots with the 28/1.8 (Canon) and they looked fine aside from the globby bokeh.

Also, cro mabs can be edited away, and he's unlikely to see them shooting indoors.
>> Anonymous
Buy a medium format camera.

Problem solved.
>> Anonymous
I would have told you to get the 10-22 even though it is a zoom, but you will probably say "too slow".
>> Anonymous
>>276549
http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-09-22.shtml

Also, anything anyone says about their performance here is going to be a subjective comment from someone whose other preferences you know nothing about, and whose tastes may be counter your own.
>> Anonymous
What digital system are you using already?

You don't need the newest, but you're buying expensive gear (for party shots that don't even sound important at that...)?

You are coming from medium format but 2.8 is to slow?

wat?
>> Anonymous
Buy a Nikon camera and lens. It will mean you'll have to give up your hobby of whining pointlessly about camera gear, but in return you'll get everything you've asked for here.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>276549
Ive owned both. They're both plenty usable at full apertures. They only lack a tad of contrast. Seems like a gray curtain has been pulled in front of the picture. That does fuck the ISO chart tests up alot. They're a lot better lenses in reality. 28/1.8 used to be my favourite one on a crop body (Canon EOS 20D at the time).

I own a couple of EX sigmas and i hate them both. The 24-70 simply sucks donkeyballs and the 30/1.4 which every fag at /p/ tends to praise is a load of shit. There are some good lenses though that sigma make and 24/28/1.8 are both just fine. 20/1.8 is crap though, i must admit.

If you want high aperture lenses then you'll get some extra weight. Live with it.

Btw, if i were ignoring the craft side of photography i wouldnt own my 85L II in the first place. ;)
>> Anonymous
sure is dpreview in here
>> Anonymous
I'm not particularly fond of the 50mm length, and I was looking for opinions on the Voigtlander 40/1.4. That way I would have (for FF) 40/(28 or 24)/20 trio in my bag.

Because I've never spent any significant amount of time at 28 or 24, can someone vouch for how they feel about those focal lengths? Sounds retarded, but I just need to know about which is a more significant "stop" between "normal" and 20mm.

Funny how shooting with 1 lens gives you tunnel vision.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Here's a shot with the 28/1.8. Just for you OP ~
It's not tack sharp, but its very usable.

Get it.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 20DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerMicko CastrénMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image Width2040Image Height2640Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUnknownPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:04:21 18:35:20Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length28.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2040Image Height2640RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>276560

Beg borrow or steal one of that focal length from someone and look through it. Sheesh. It's not rocket science.

If you want examples then fucking Google it.
>> Anonymous
>>276561
>>276558
Thanks for vouching for the 28/1.8. Makes it sound like a good normal on crop.

>>276562
I'm not an idiot, but the flickr hivemind has been more useful than google. I've been comparing them both for a while online, but seeing people's images doesn't give you a "feel" of what it's like actually own those primes yourself, and being restricted at either 28 or 24.

Also after MF, I'd like a little more speed than 2.8.
>> Anonymous
Not op, but, doesn't the EF 28/1.8 have toooons of cro-mabs at all apertures?
>> Anonymous
24mm 1.4L
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
I've always liked my Sigma 24mm f1.8, Flares a lot with direct light from the sun though. And it is a big motherfucker.

Its quite sharp at all apertures IMO, sharper than the sigma 30mm f1.4 at all shared apertures, still gives a bit of the "wide angle" feel when you are close to your subject (it can focus incredibly close aswell)

CA = not an issue with the lens IMO, the 30mm f1.4 is worse for that.
>> Anonymous
>>turns out canon has nothing but shit WA lenses
*smacks you with his 10-22*
*borrows a 24L and 35L and smacks you with them too*
>> OP
God dammit, I think I have to get a 17-40 because I just realized that I never shoot digital in low light anyways.

So my decision is a 17-40, and a 28/1.8(not sigma). Now I sound like a sell out, since everyone here likes to shit on the 17-40.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>277498
>>277498
the 17-40 is a good lens.... on a 5d :D
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>277498
also look for an older 17-35mm 2.8 L on ebay. They go for around 700
>> Anonymous
What wrong with the 17-40 on crop? I'm still torn between buying a 50D next summer and getting a 5D now.
>> Anonymous
the 17-40 sucks shit at the edges even stopped down

>>277517

because there are better lenses to be had for less money
>> Anonymous
Really now....f/2.8 is too pedestrian for you?
>> Anonymous
>>277536
You better tell me what those better lenses are, for someone who doesn't shoot ultrawide.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>277561

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2006:03:23 17:17:21Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width805Image Height604
>> Anonymous
I'm sure that when you're rocking a 50D, you can micro adjust any of those shitty sigma's focusing problems away, so just wait.
>> Anonymous
>>277564
I hope you're not just a tamron fanboy trolling for points. I though you meant a well built lens that can withstand abuse. I don't know if I made this clear, but I'm not interested in crop-only lenses. I'd like to play ball with my EOS 5.
>> Anonymous
>>277567

i'm replying to>>277517What wrong with the 17-40 on crop?

who clearly said crop, if that is you, then make up your fucking mind. if it's not you, then why reply to me
>> Anonymous
>>277571
I'm not confused about anything, but I'm not interested in crop lenses. I need FF lenses on crop format. It's not that complicated. There's enough 17- whatevers on the market, but crop only.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>277576I need FF lenses on crop format.
>> Anonymous
>>277580
>reading comprehension
>> Anonymous
>>277580

He's saying he wants the FF lenses to use on the crop format camera so that he can also use them with FF cameras. A crop only lens won't work with his film bodies while the FF lens will work on both.
>> Anonymous
>>277592
It sure is stupid in here today.
>> Anonymous
lol @ people buying crop lenses

enjoy your $1000 paper weights when everyone will be rocking full frame next year
>> Anonymous
Now that the wank fast is done, back to lenses.

Is there evidence of the 17-40 sucking, excluding fanboyism?

Beside the ubiquitous 16-35Ls, are there any wide zooms that are not shit? I already picked out my normal prime, so I'm not terribly interested in speed anymore.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>277600Is there evidence of the 17-40 sucking, excluding fanboyism?
>> Anonymous
>>277600

If you use it in the field rather than shoot test charts the 17-40 works well. The only downside really is that it is f/4 and that isn't enough for some people. It's a well made lens at a good price.

If you are getting the 16-35 then make sure it is the mark II.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>277606 15mm f/2.8L
>> Anonymous
If you can afford it, spring for the 5d Mark II, or even just the original 5D. As far as an amazing wide lens, go for the 14mm f/2.8L. Pricey, but worth it. If you really want to stick it to Canon, grab one of their EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5s and mod it to fit the EF mount. Not recommended, but as it is already near L quality, there is minimal vignetting/distortion. You could also just compromise and grab an EF 17-40mm f/4L zoom.

I'm not sure if you're a professional or not, considering that you're posting this on 4chan and you started your inquiry with "Hey fags.", but I would definitely recommend going straight to full-frame. The 40D and upcoming 50D are very nice, but once you see the images from an L lens and one of Canon's FF cameras, you won't want to go back.

Sample shots: http://www.motleypixel.com/reviews/index.htm

Modded 10-22: http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157604422834954/page2/
>> Anonymous
Fuck, whatever, I'll spring for the 5D. I don't even know what my money is worth anymore.
>> Anonymous
5D II is a lot better than the old 5D

who the fuck buys a 3 year old camera
>> Anonymous
>>277640
You're a little faggot aren't you? Who the fuck uses film anymore? Shit, why is ilford even still in business?

http://flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos_5d/
The 5d usage is only going to increase.
>> Anonymous
HD video mode, ISO 25600, 21 megapixels

can your 5D do that? oh wait, you don't even have one
>> Anonymous
>>277646

Because all of those things are crucial to every single photographer. Get real and stop the shitty trolling.
>> Anonymous
it's just a simple fact..

the 5D II is better than the 5D, if you can't see that, you're just stupid
>> Anonymous
>>277656
So because a new camera came out, the previous ones automatically suck? Hey hear that AC? Toss your 40D, it's going to be a piss of shit once everyone has a 50D.
I'm surprised people even still use 30Ds, I mean, what are they thinking!?

You're the best type of gear head; deep pockets along with a mad trolling tactics. Make sure you get the new 24/1.4 when it comes out. I heard the old one is ass.
>> Anonymous
>>277656

The 5D II's not going to make you a better photographer. Photography's not about how many pickles you have up your arse for most of us non gear nerds like you. Go blow some more money updating your 1 month out of date camera so you can take more photos of you in a mirror with lots of pickles.
>> Anonymous
>>277662
>>277658

idiots who can't get over a new camera being better than the old one
>> Anonymous
>>277675

I have a Nikon D50 and I'd bet you my photography is better than yours.
>> Anonymous
>>277656
Oh wow.
Learn one thing, newer camera will make easier (usable ISO/FPS/more reliable AF) making photos, upgrading from 5D to mkII won`t make you take better photos.

As far as I see the 5D sensors gives THE BEST image quality. When it comes to high iso 5DmkII gets shit beaten out of it by D700/D3.

21 megapickles oh wow, great now you can spend moar tiem on watching 500% crops. mPix are nice if you are doing studio or making extra cash from stock other than that 12 are fine.

Protip: Most important part of camera is 5 inches behind viewfinder.
>> Anonymous
Before this all goes to hell again; is there someone here who used to shoot crop and now owns a 5D who would like to put up their 2 pence?

I'd like if it's changed the way you shoot (shallower dof, etc), especially the guys who shoot moderately wide.

Also, what's that software that goes through all your pictures and generates your exif data, so you know what your most common settings are? I know we talked about this like 8 months ago.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>277611
>grab one of their EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5s and mod it to fit the EF mount
I don't really see why you would do this, the 17-40 is cheaper and you get a more usable range. (with the 10-22 on ff, i heard you can't go wider than 13)

>>277640
>5D II is a lot better than the old 5D
>who the fuck buys a 3 year old camera

People who can't afford the new one.

>>277714
I used to have a 30d, just bought a 5d this summer. I don't know if it's drastically changed the way I shoot, but i sure as hell love it.

flickr.com/mikeyvaldes
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>277872People who can't afford the new one.

or $$$$$$$$$$$$1999$$$$$$$$$$ who lold at the 5d "rumors"