| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/30/2008 05:47:34 PM · #1 |
| i have been throwing around this topic for the past 2 weeks between the 40d and the 5d and now the mark II joins the ring only because i do a ton of surf/bodyboarding/sports activities outside the weddings. im gonna head for the 70-200 2.8 as a starting lens and maybe head tward the 10-22 or something equivalent in the up n coming months. anything as wide as the 10-22 but w/a faster f/stop? id really rather fork out the cash for a 2.8 if thats an option. thanx |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 06:09:40 PM · #2 |
The 1DII doesn't take EF-S lenses. But the near equivalent of 10-22mm is the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L. It's really equivalent on a full frame 1DsII, on the 1DII you'll lose a little bit due to the 1.3x crop. On the other hand ... it *is* an f/2.8 lens! :)
|
|
|
|
09/30/2008 06:10:55 PM · #3 |
| If you go full frame the 16-35 F/2.8 is <-wiiiiiiiiiiiiiddddddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeee-> |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 06:16:30 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by alans_world:
If you go full frame the 16-35 F/2.8 is <-wiiiiiiiiiiiiiddddddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeee-> |
I just sold my 16-35 due to the fact I went full frame. I couldnt shoot anywhere below 24mm without major distortion. My 24-70 is wide enough on the 5D. I picked up a 180L macro in its place.
Matt
And I shoot weddings with a 5D and a 1DMKIII not a II.
|
|
|
|
09/30/2008 06:20:46 PM · #5 |
I have a Tamron 17-35mm lens (one of the few I've "cheaped out on" because I couldn't justify the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L at the time). It, too, looks pretty distorted when shooting wide angles. But I basically use it only for effect ... similar to how I use my fisheye. I don't use it alot. Only when I'm going for a particular look.
I've been thinking of upgrading to the Canon lens hoping to gain some sharpness in the image. How do you feel about the sharpness?
|
|
|
|
09/30/2008 06:28:49 PM · #6 |
| oh yea i totaly forgot bout the ef-s's not working well, thats fine, yeah im thinking of just going for that cause 8 fps would be dope for sports compared to the 5fps for 6 frame bursts. HA!!!! total joke. how does the iso preform at under 1000? cause basically, i wont be going over 800 during a wedding. but iso 3200 will be helpfull during night seshions a the beach and morning surf seshs. any other helpfull hints? thanx |
|
|
|
09/30/2008 07:52:31 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
I have a Tamron 17-35mm lens (one of the few I've "cheaped out on" because I couldn't justify the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L at the time). It, too, looks pretty distorted when shooting wide angles. But I basically use it only for effect ... similar to how I use my fisheye. I don't use it alot. Only when I'm going for a particular look.
I've been thinking of upgrading to the Canon lens hoping to gain some sharpness in the image. How do you feel about the sharpness? |
If this question is for me regarding the 16-35. Its a lens I swore I would never sell because its so sharp and so fast. However I had never used it on FF. I can get plenty of distortion at 24mm on my 5D with the 24-70. I hear version II of the 16-35 has better color, contrast, and sharper corners as well. But for what I shoot I'd never need a true 16mm on the 5D. To give you an idea its the same as using the canon 10mm on a 1.6 body. Its that obnoxiously wide.
Matt
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 07:13:29 AM EDT.
