How many DSLR users here?

[jhm]

Since we're asking questions tonight:

Will a fisheye lens do things which Photoshop can't do ? For example:

http://www.creativepro.com/article/p...sense-of-sight

If they're comparable, phaleesy can save the cash for the fisheye and let me spend it instead.

[N_Architect]

It's rectilinear lens, not rectangular (if I'm not mistaken).
Rectilinear practically (and I say this without opening any of my books, which I have at home) means it will be wide (or even ultra-wide) but not with the usual 'fisheye' effect.

For example, the Canon EF14/2.8L II is a rectilinear lens, whereas the EF15/2.8 is a fisheye.

I have the Sigma 15mm fisheye and am happy with it. For samples you have to give me some time.

Tripods I use Manfrotto, I have two, one very heavy one and one carbon fibre. I heard Manfrotto and Gitzo have a 'travel' version, that should be expensive but very good and can be carried onboard. For the tripod I'd suggest you go with either of these brands, and I know Gitzo is usually double the price of Manfrotto, depending on model. Get a good head, like the RC322 (Manfrotto).

[phaleesy]

I have the Sigma 15mm fisheye and am happy with it. For samples you have to give me some time.

Tripods I use Manfrotto, I have two, one very heavy one and one carbon fibre. I heard Manfrotto and Gitzo have a 'travel' version, that should be expensive but very good and can be carried onboard. For the tripod I'd suggest you go with either of these brands, and I know Gitzo is usually double the price of Manfrotto, depending on model. Get a good head, like the RC322 (Manfrotto).

N_Architect, what made you choose the Sigma lens over the Canon one?

Why is Gitzo double the price of Manfrotto? Is it the Prada version of a tripod? I just want something light and durable. I've been searching around on the B&H website and I don't know which is the 'travel' version.

[jhm]

Why is Gitzo double the price of Manfrotto?

Better quality, sturdier, more durable. They're actually made in the same factory:

http://www.photographyblog.com/artic...ctory_tour.php

[N_Architect]

Gitzo has these famous connections between legs, where you screw/unscrew to release or contract each tripod leg; Manfrotto has 'clips', which are fine to me.

I remember when I was in Yodobashi Fukuoka a couple of years ago, and bought my second Manfrotto, the same type of model in Gitzo was 800 usd, and the Manfrotto was around 400 usd.

I read about the new travel version of Manfrotto (or was it Gitzo?) in the PhotoLife magazine (Canadian) to which I am a subscriber (print version). But can't remember the model. You have to go to the Manfrotto & Gitzo websites and search, then identify it by the dimensions. Length, when folded/contracted should be about 35-42cm max w/o the head, if I am not mistaken.

The Sigma 15 fisheye was quite cheaper and form the reviews at fredmiranda.com it appeared there is no considerable difference in quality, generally speaking anyway. So I got it.

Sigma: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=38&page=1

Canon: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...7&cat=2&page=1

[phaleesy]

So my new tripod would have been lovingly touched and assembled by a handsome Italian!

[phaleesy]

Thanks for your advice, N_Architect. You have convinced me that the Sigma lens is better than the Canon.

[jhm]

I was reading about GPS data loggers - small cheap units which run off batteries and log continuously the location of the unit. Later on, you connect it to your PC and there are prorgams which will match up when your photos were taken to where the data logger was at that time and add the location information to your pictures. You can then use Google Maps (or whatever) to see exactly where you was when you took that photo which sounds nifty! Does anyone use one of these gadgets (and I believe some cameras have GPS built-in) ? I can see it may be very useful for a road trip (for example).

I just ordered an Amod AGL3080 - it runs off 3 AAA batteries (some other units charge over USB) lasting for about 15 hours; unfortunately it's not waterproof; it records position and altitude every second; enough storage to keep days of data; it weighs only 50g; and - importantly for me - the data appears to the computer as standard format NMEA text files on a USB flash drive (so no problem with locating drivers for a Mac etc).

It should be useful for identifying in which Singapore hawker centre a food picture was taken (or, more seriously, for an upcoming trip to South Africa).

[phaleesy]

Canon 16-35 mm

Have got the old 16-35 mm lens but there's some obvious vignetting. Thinking of getting the mark II 16-35 mm lens now. Unfortunately it would use a 82 mm filter.

At present, all my canon lenses are 77 mm, so one filter fits all lenses. If I do get the Mark II, I would have to deal with another set of 82 mm filters just for this lens!

Anyone has experience with both the old 16-35 mm lens and the mark II lens, and could offer some advice if it's worth the switch? Thanks!

[N_Architect]

EF 16-35/2.8L Mk I vs Mk II vs 17-40/4L

I have the 16-35 mk I. It's a fine piece of glass, but not a lens that will 'blow you away' (in the way the 35/1.4L prime does, for example).

From an extensive (web) reading I've done over the years, the 17-40/4L always seemed to be a much better value for money lens, with the optical quality 'almost' being on par with the 16-35 Mk I. Given the difference in price between the two, I am not sure if paying the extra premium justifies the one additional aperture stop (unless one works for Magnum or AP).

The 16-35 Mk II is supposed to be better, but again, the price is high. To be honest, if I was in your shoes (which in a way I am, apart from the fact I do not have a 5D Mk I/II), I wouldn't go for it. If you manage to sell the 16-35 Mk I for a good price, then, ok, may be. But, still, the 17-40 should be one of your main options. Looking at it financially, you can get the 17-40 and another one or two lenses (depending on their quality & price), instead of the 16-35 Mk II. Having the 17-40 means effectively same focal length reach, plus the versatility of one or two more pieces of glass in your arsenal. Not bad.

If on the other hand you do use the 16-35 so much every day, then perhaps the Mk II purchase could be justified. And yes, the filter size of 82mm is not so convenient now. But again, the filter cost in comparison to the 16-35 Mk II cost is not so significant.

I've seen pics (many pics) of people that shoot with the 17-40 and 5D, and I was amazed. So I personally don't think it's worth going the extra stretch for the 16-35 Mk II.

Now, if you were talking about the 35/1.4L or the 85/1.2L, that would be a totally different ball game...

[SQflyergirl]

Just thinking of getting an L lens - to take SQTalk TR type pics (you all know the sort), low-ish light, try not to get intrusive with the cabin,

was thinking between the 24-70 L F2.8 USM

or the 24-105 L F4 IS USM.....

thoughts?

[N_Architect]

You have the 500 or 40D/50D if I remember correctly, right? I am asking because it makes a hell of a difference if you DSLR body is FF or x1.6 crop (for Canon) [or x1.5 crop if you had Nikon, Pentax, etc.]

The 24-70 is very good, though heavy and bulky, and the range is a bit short; you may wanna go to a store and try it out if you can (if you haven't done so already). The 24-105/4 is also good (though a stop slower), it's cheaper, but both start at 24mm. This effectively means if you have a 5D I/II you're fine at the wide end (and of course at the tele end as well), but if you don't, then taking wide shots inside aircraft cabins will be harder.

I have the same problem actually and have thought about using the 70-200/2.8L but, you know, who wants to carry such a beast onboard? (perhaps SQ333 only , giving us nice shots in his TRs). This time (in my upcoming trip a few weeks down the line) I'll try to use my 135/2L prime, an optically excellent lens that is actually not very heavy, and see how it goes.

All in all, it always comes down to personal choice, but I think having a FF body helps a lot in using our lenses more efficiently (or if you prefer, in a more practical way).

[SQflyergirl]

not going to go into 1.0 FOVCF body... i don't have strength like phaleesy has

I was at my friend's wedding and her cameramen all had big arms from carrying around those 1DS MkIII's and all their kit.

As for the 24-70 vs the 24-105, does the IS (which the 24-70 doesn't have) in the 24-105 make up for being a stop slower?

[phaleesy]

SQfg, the 5D is not that heavy you know! It is a reasonable size and weight.

I use the 24-70mm on my 450D (1.6x). I do not use this combi for cabin shots because the view is too restrictive. I can't use this setup for plane food pics either. This combi is okay for taking window shots but the range is not long enough for closeups of other planes or of the landscape below. In other words, I DO NOT use this combi at all on the plane because the range is too restrictive.

I use the 16-35 mm F2.8 on the 5D (1x) for most cabin shots and food pics. I've recently started using a 50mm macro for food pics. But seriously, the compact cameras give pretty decent food pics anyway.

I've used the 70-200mm on the plane. I do not usually use it but there were a few occasions when I saw something I wanted to capture (Mt Fuji, FAs and paxs some distance away ) and I happened to have the lens in my bag.

N_Architect, actually I find having a crop body rather useful. The tele function increases and it helps when I have it mounted on the 450D, since I'd be covered for a 38 to 112 mm range. Pretty decent for most situations. Unfortunately still not good enough sometimes and the 70-200 mm beast is still necessary.

I met someone in B&H who told me about a Tamron lens which could cover the 18mm (or therabouts) to 200mm range. I think someone has also mentioned it here on this thread. Don't know about the aperture though. Might be a good all round lens in good lighting situations.

[N_Architect]

As for the 24-70 vs the 24-105, does the IS (which the 24-70 doesn't have) in the 24-105 make up for being a stop slower?

Well, that's the idea, anyway. When I had the EF 28-135 IS mounted on my film EOS 50, I remember going down easily to 1/15 and sometimes to 1/8 (that's speed, 1/8th of a second). But generally, the optical quality of the 24-70/2.8L is superior to that of 24-105/4L.

There were rumors last year in the forums about Canon replacing the 24-70/2.8L with a newer version, but last month at the PMA show Canon announced a couple of lens upgrades, however the 24-70/2.8L was not one of them.

If I were you I'd wait on this lens, as they may indeed release a newer version in the next couple of years.