Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You bring up another point that I have in the back of my mind, which is that she may outgrow the camera soon, and I don't want to say the same about her lenses. I'd rather buy a well built lens now that may be overkill for her current setup but could be grown into with a body upgrade later down the line. I thought a lot about going with the IS 70-300 and we may still go down that road later if we decide to return the 70-200, but I think she'll be happy with either. Currently her only two lenses is the 135mm kit lens that came with the camera and a 90 dollar 50mm prime. I could have gone with a 2000+ dollar lens but this one is on the cheap side of nicer glass, I feel like it fits our current needs (on paper, at least).
I think the 135mm produces ok shots at it's lowest f3.5 but the higher it goes the more point-and-shoot it looks. I think the constant f4 throughout the length of the zoom will be beneficial. The 50mm is awesome and she loves playing with it but she says she feels like it's a little too touchy as far as focus is concerned and it's much easier with that lens to screw up an otherwise good shot with the 50 than the 135. She is practicing all the time with it because she knows ultimately it's up to her to be able to figure out the settings quickly and efficiently and get the shot before it's too late. She's trying to go full manual but sometimes relies on some of the auto features.
Overall I think the 70-200mm will be a good on-the-move replacement to the 50mm (which will still probably get plenty of use in more static applications) for when the nieces are running around in the yard or riding horses. I think it'll pretty much replace the 135mm for everything else. I'm not sure yet though.
More evidence that this is NOT an equipment issue...
Quote:
Originally Posted by adyn
You bring up another point that I have in the back of my mind, which is that she may outgrow the camera soon, and I don't want to say the same about her lenses. I'd rather buy a well built lens now that may be overkill for her current setup but could be grown into with a body upgrade later down the line. I thought a lot about going with the IS 70-300 and we may still go down that road later if we decide to return the 70-200, but I think she'll be happy with either. Currently her only two lenses is the 135mm kit lens that came with the camera and a 90 dollar 50mm prime. I could have gone with a 2000+ dollar lens but this one is on the cheap side of nicer glass, I feel like it fits our current needs (on paper, at least).
I think the 135mm produces ok shots at it's lowest f3.5 but the higher it goes the more point-and-shoot it looks. I think the constant f4 throughout the length of the zoom will be beneficial. The 50mm is awesome and she loves playing with it but she says she feels like it's a little too touchy as far as focus is concerned and it's much easier with that lens to screw up an otherwise good shot with the 50 than the 135. She is practicing all the time with it because she knows ultimately it's up to her to be able to figure out the settings quickly and efficiently and get the shot before it's too late. She's trying to go full manual but sometimes relies on some of the auto features.
Overall I think the 70-200mm will be a good on-the-move replacement to the 50mm (which will still probably get plenty of use in more static applications) for when the nieces are running around in the yard or riding horses. I think it'll pretty much replace the 135mm for everything else. I'm not sure yet though.
We'll see next week
Zooming is really only a way to "reframe" the shot without physically moving -- for decades (centuries ?) "prime" {non-zoom} lenses were the only way for a photographer to accomplish this, many accomplished photographers still create outstanding images without any zooms in their kit.
As far as impressions of the existing lenses being "more point and shoot like" there is is serious misunderstanding at work implicit in the statement. Basically every lens will get SHARPER as it is is "stopped down" becuase the physics of light is such that passing through a narrower iris the resultant image has more colleated rays.
Similarly the reason 50mm lenses can be both exceedingly sharp and remarkably affordable is becuase of the simplicity of "fitting" that image size (which is a "natural perspective") results in the most direct path through the sub-elements and on to the sensor.
Further, in a general sense the WIDER ANGLE (shorter size / focal length) the LESS SENSISTIVE it is to focus.
My guess is that the OP's spouse would probably benefit greatly from working not in the "AE" mode (where camera sets all parameters...) nor "full manual" which needlessly requires matching ISO/shutter speed/aperture but in EITHER "shutter priority" which would allow the user to decide if it will an "action stopping" shutter speed or something that leaves the shutter open longer OR "aperture priority" where the user decides on "greatest depth of field" (which by definition has the greatest tolerance for object in foreground / background being sharply focused) or "most distinct range of focus" (which will literally have objects beyond the plane of focus utterly obscured)...
I further would speculate that doing that little exercise will have a more pronounced impact on the image quality of the photos taken than ANY expenditure on lens or camera. There are many many outstanding / award winning images captured by the T5i and even the most affordable lens.
Look at the outstanding shots that the 18-135 is capable of in experienced hands -- Canon 18-135mm STM Review
Quote:
Recommendations
This is my favorite all-around zoom for 1.6x Canon cameras. It covers all the focal lengths I need, and it zooms and focuses like a dream.
With manual-focus override and smooth zooming, it handles better than most Canon lenses.
I'd buy one of these in an instant if I was shooting a 1.6x Canon camera, like the 7D or T4i or whatever.
Sharpness is the most overrated aspect of lens performance.
Lens sharpness seems like it ought to be related to making sharp photos, but it isn't.
Sales and marketing departments fuel this misconception because it scares people into buying new lenses. Sharpness is easy to test and analyze, so magazines oblige less experienced photographers with reams of colorful charts and graphs. People would make far better pictures if they spent time learning how to make great photos with what they already own instead of worrying about their tools.
Photographic lenses, used properly, have always been sharp, even at the dawn of photography in the 1840s. Optical design is a much older science than photography. The reasons some photos aren't sharp rarely have anything to do with the lens.
Your choice of aperture is far more important than your choice of lens!
Lens performance varies wildly from one f/stop to the next.
It's easy to make mistakes when comparing lenses. If you compare at different f/stops you're not comparing lenses. Many laypeople make the mistake of comparing two lenses at different times of day, or different f/stops. Any time you change anything in your test, you're no longer comparing two lenses.
Most lenses are their sharpest from two stops below maximum to about f/8. Avoid apertures smaller than f/8 because diffraction softens them.
f/1.4 lenses are very sharp from f/2.8 onwards, while slower zooms may have a much smaller range of optimum apertures. Luckily good zooms are quite sharp wide open, unlike most f/1.4 lenses.
Zooming is really only a way to "reframe" the shot without physically moving -- for decades (centuries ?) "prime" {non-zoom} lenses were the only way for a photographer to accomplish this, many accomplished photographers still create outstanding images without any zooms in their kit.
There are several misconceptions right in this thread!
Just because it's very good glass and L series doesn't mean it will look good in your camera.
Usually yes, L lenses are very sharp but when mounted in appropriate cameras, in this case full-frame cameras!
This is a lens that gives out a sharpness on a 1Dx Canon (top of the line full frame) of 15 MPix.
On your camera on the other hand! This super expensive lens will only give you out 7 P-MPix.
You're actually better off, in terms of sharpness with the kit lens that this one, since the KIT lens will give you out 9 P-MPix !
Now, if you pretend to upgrade down the line to a better camera such as a full frame, then yes it might make sense to buy this one now, instead of buying glass that you will end up not being able to use in a full frame camera...
EDIT:
Regarding the 50mm lens, I assume it's the nifty fifty one. This will actually give almost DOUBLE the sharpness of your new expensive lens in your T4i camera... the 50 mm gives out 12 MPix vs 7MPix of the 70-200.
Also you can't really compare images on flickr, since most likely the pictures you've seen taken with the 70-200 were taken on full frame so the 4f will actually make a differnece, while on an APS-C it will behave more like a f 8.XX
Last edited by Lusitano_; 12-11-2014 at 10:05 PM..
There are several misconceptions right in this thread!
Just because it's very good glass and L series doesn't mean it will look good in your camera.
Usually yes, L lenses are very sharp but when mounted in appropriate cameras, in this case full-frame cameras!
This is a lens that gives out a sharpness on a 1Dx Canon (top of the line full frame) of 15 MPix.
On your camera on the other hand! This super expensive lens will only give you out 7 P-MPix.
You're actually better off, in terms of sharpness with the kit lens that this one, since the KIT lens will give you out 9 P-MPix !
Now, if you pretend to upgrade down the line to a better camera such as a full frame, then yes it might make sense to buy this one now, instead of buying glass that you will end up not being able to use in a full frame camera...
EDIT:
Regarding the 50mm lens, I assume it's the nifty fifty one. This will actually give almost DOUBLE the sharpness of your new expensive lens in your T4i camera... the 50 mm gives out 12 MPix vs 7MPix of the 70-200.
Also you can't really compare images on flickr, since most likely the pictures you've seen taken with the 70-200 were taken on full frame so the 4f will actually make a differnece, while on an APS-C it will behave more like a f 8.XX
You will have to forgive me, but I disagree with you about L lenses on cropped-sensor Canon cameras. I use both types of Canon cameras (APS-C and FF canon cameras) and don't have any EF-S lenses. All are EF L, except for the 100mm Macro (plus a couple of Tokina lenses), and the lenses, including the 70-200mm f/4 are nothing but outstanding on both types of cameras.
---------
That said, $600.00 for a 70-200 is dirt cheap. Try a 300mm f/2.8 L IS; it will cost you a little over $6K, but its super fast, sharp, and it will save you a lot of bucks with the use of teleconverters instead of more lenses.
i didnt say it looked like crap i said he'd be better off with the kit lenses in regards to sharpness!
and numbers dont lie it's just a matter of reading the specs! a 70-200 in a canon 700D only gives out 7 MPix of sharpness while the kit lens gives 9 MPix
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More evidence that this is NOT an equipment issue...
