[M_Six]

I was bummed that the 50 1.4 jumped to $379 at B&H and figured it wouldn't take long before it went up elsewhere. Then this morning there was a Craigslist ad from a kid right here on campus with a barely used, two month-old 50 1.4. Came with a UV filter and lens hood. It's now sitting on my camera for $60 less.

The kid that sold it to me said he needed something wider for indoor shots, so he has 35mm prime on his T1i. May be my next purchase.

Now I need to send the rented one back.

[Grail05]

yeap all my L lenses have gone way up.

[Litos]

Originally Posted by M_Six

The kid that sold it to me said he needed something wider for indoor shots, so he has 35mm prime on his T1i.

Heeyooooo

That's why 95% of the time I would choose the 28 instead of the 50...

I would only take the 50 when I knew I was gonna be outdoors the whole time...

[Litos]

Originally Posted by Sean05

yeap all my L lenses have gone way up.

That would work to our advantage if we all just up and decided that we didn't want to be photogs anymore - that ain't likely hahaha !!!

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by Litos

Heeyooooo

That's why 95% of the time I would choose the 28 instead of the 50...

I would only take the 50 when I knew I was gonna be outdoors the whole time...

I do have the less-than-stellar kit lens if I really need a wide shot. I may pick up a 28mm one of these days, though.

[Litos]

Unfortunately mine will probably never see my camera anymore with the addition of the 24-70...

[The1]

Originally Posted by M_Six

I do have the less-than-stellar kit lens if I really need a wide shot. I may pick up a 28mm one of these days, though.

use the kit lens for trade in to get the 28mm. if you have a 28 and 50 prime, you're doing a million times better then that 18-55mm kit lens will ever do.... if i had known how bad the lens was when i originally got it, i would have purchased body only and picked up some other lens.

however, i didn't really know how much i was going to enjoy photography when i picked up my T1i, so the kit lens made sense at the time.

Originally Posted by Litos

Unfortunately mine will probably never see my camera anymore with the addition of the 24-70...

My 50mm doesn't see my 5D too often. If i know i'm going to be near family doing some indoor event, the 50mm might go on, but the 24-70 won't be too far out of reach.

however, now that i have my 16-35, I'm not sure much else will be on the camera indoors.

Hopefully soon after some more experience with it i will get around do doing a bit of a review comparing the 16-35 to the 17-40mm L series lenses. I just need to wait for the auto show in february so i can take some similar shots for comparison purposes.

For what it's worth, the 24-70 is incredible, but the 2.8 still isn't fast enough in some circumstances.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by The1

Hopefully soon after some more experience with it i will get around do doing a bit of a review comparing the 16-35 to the 17-40mm L series lenses. I just need to wait for the auto show in february so i can take some similar shots for comparison purposes.

Looking forward to the review.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Looking forward to the review.

LOL, me too.

So far i'm enjoying the new glass, but i'm finding it a bit difficult for the auto focus to grab things at a distance if there isn't sharp contrasts on the object.

I need to play around with it (lens) some more just to see if it was a fluke or not.

I've noticed that the widest point doesn't seem to stretch a person out as badly as the widest point on the 17-40mm so pictures are looking a bit more realistic at the very least.

[Chewy734]

What body? 5DmkII?

[The1]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

What body? 5DmkII?

Yes.

I haven't really had it on the 7D much to test it out, but the widest angle (16) feels like the widest angle on the 5D using the 24-70, so there is that familiarity to it.

I tryed out a friends sigma 10-20mm the other day on my 5DII it was interesting to see how circular the image becomes at ultra wide. but even at 20mm it still showed evidence of it being maxed out with massive vignetting in the corners. But i'm pretty sure that will be down to it being a slower lens. But it was neat to see, might be fun for some experimental photography. I know the lens was built for crop bodies, but it has an EF mount, and could be fun.



Sorry to the OP for the huge thread jacking.........

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by The1

Yes.

I haven't really had it on the 7D much to test it out, but the widest angle (16) feels like the widest angle on the 5D using the 24-70, so there is that familiarity to it.

I tryed out a friends sigma 10-20mm the other day on my 5DII it was interesting to see how circular the image becomes at ultra wide. but even at 20mm it still showed evidence of it being maxed out with massive vignetting in the corners. But i'm pretty sure that will be down to it being a slower lens. But it was neat to see, might be fun for some experimental photography. I know the lens was built for crop bodies, but it has an EF mount, and could be fun.



Sorry to the OP for the huge thread jacking.........

I'm the OP, and I couldn't care less!

Interesting... I was just looking at the MTF charts for both lenses, and the 16-35 mm should be noticeably better than the 17-40 mm on the fringes when wide open.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

I'm the OP, and I couldn't care less!

Interesting... I was just looking at the MTF charts for both lenses, and the 16-35 mm should be noticeably better than the 17-40 mm on the fringes when wide open.

lol, well then, no worries

yeah, so far i've found it less cartoonish in how exagerated the edges become... I'll see if i can grab some examples, I took a shot or two of my buddy at the auto show with the 17-40 to see how goofy i could get him to look

then yesterday shot one of him (didn't try as hard to replicate goofyness) just for a quick comparisons sake, but it didn't make me smirk after, it just looked like a very wide perspective.

I'll probably be back with the pictures side by side for comparison, but not a direct comparison.


gimme 2 min hopefully

[The1]

alright, here's 2 shots of the same person side by side, obviously different days and not a direct comparison

but as you can tell by the one on the right, there's a definite distortion closer to center then the one on the left.

again, i did work had to exaggerate the one on the left side, where the one on the right side was much easier to reproduce regularly with the lens

I really only got these effects by taking the pictures at weird angles. But it was so easy to do by accident or if i was taking a picture of something, and something in the peripheral just made it into the shot, it would be stretched looking.

So, feel free to guess which lens was which. Both were L series lenses.

I ended up returning the one for the other and so far am satisfied that the image quality is much improved well before i've had a chance to really test it out.

I had a lot of fun with the 17-40mm, but i think for the money, i would find it hard to use on a professional shoot and have people take me seriously with the results it returned.

to stretch the one, i had to put the subject as close to the edge as possible (and even slightly over)to actually get any stretch, and even then i feel it really isn't a stretch.

[The1]

if i play with the 16-35 a bit more, i might be able to get more stretching on it. but it will take considerable work to get it anything close to that of the 17-40.

I did get great shots with the 17-40, but when it comes to shooting a person, i'd much rather do it with something that i'm guaranteed won't be optically queer.

[Chewy734]

Here's a more quantitative description of the price increases:

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/price...february-2011/

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by The1

optically queer.

did someone says Chewy's name again?

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

did someone says Chewy's name again?

shouldn't you be getting humped by a badger somewhere?

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

shouldn't you be getting humped by a badger somewhere?

I am the badger... we do the humping and I will be with mrs lady udubbadger in about 30 min or so.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

I am the badger... we do the humping and I will be with mrs lady udubbadger in about 30 min or so.

Or so you think... that is, if she reads this post.

[UdubBadger]

i showed her and she says

"hahaha, no it's gonna fuckin happen..." in a very stern voice.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

i showed her and she says

"hahaha, no it's gonna fuckin happen..." in a very stern voice.

Lucky bastard.