Lens Q?: 24-70L or Sigma 24-70 and Canon 100 Macro?

[Shima]

So here's a thought...

I've got my 24-105 "for sale / trade" on here in hopes of trading up roughly to a 24-70 f2.8L

What are your thoughts on the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX? Yes it's not weather sealed, the focus isn't as smooth as the canon and other things I've read... but from some reviews I read and photos I've seen the actual optics seem rather comparable.

My thought would be instead of getting the 24-70 f2.8/L... I could get the Sigma 24-70f2.8/L AND the Canon 100 f2.8 Macro (since I own no macro at present) all with the money I sell the 24-105 for eventually.

Is this wise? Would I miss selling my last L lens for the time being? (probably) I do intend to upgrade to the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS USM eventually... and likewise following that would probably the L version of the 24-70...

Would it be worth the trade for the time being while I pay off my new 40D body? I won't have extra money for lenses until after that is paid off....And this route would allow me to have a macro lens which just trading up to a 24-70L wouldn't allow monetarily.

So your thoughts would be greatly appreciated :)

[ziggy53]

I honestly think I would recommend the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm, f/2.8 XR Di LD over the Sigma 24-70mm, f2.8. Very nice lens overall.

In addition to the Canon EF 100mm, f/2.8 USM Macro, consider the Tamron SP 90mm, f/2.8 Di Macro.

I know I seem to be a Tamron salesman but these two are just really good values in lenses.

[Shima]

I honestly think I would recommend the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm, f/2.8 XR Di LD over the Sigma 24-70mm, f2.8. Very nice lens overall.

In addition to the Canon EF 100mm, f/2.8 USM Macro, consider the Tamron SP 90mm, f/2.8 Di Macro.

I know I seem to be a Tamron salesman but these two are just really good values in lenses.

If I don't go for the Canon 24-70 and go the non-Canon route, I'd really like to not lose any range, so that would be a big reason for still leaning towards a Sigma for me.

[Art Scott]

I do not shoot canon nor have I ever used any Tamron lenses....I do own the 24-70 EX DG and think it is an excellent lens....mine has been the wind, rain and dust of Kansas and I see no evidence of anything inside the lens....it also seems quite fast and quiet on the focusing side.....almost all of these images after the 1st 3 were taken with the 24-70 ex dg here is the link....Ks Dgrinner shoutout 3rd Installment (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=92909).......my only complaint is it is not wide enuff and I will start looking to purchase a 17-70 which is a variable f-stop 2.8-4......but feel it will be worth it for me.......If I were shooting a full frame cam then the 24-70 would be just fine for me.......

[PineapplePhoto]

Believe me, you will not miss those 4mm, I love my 28-75 f2.8 Tamron :D!

[Shima]

Believe me, you will not miss those 4mm, I love my 28-75 f2.8 Tamron :D!

Hmm... do you have some example photos taken with it to share?

Have you ever felt that you should have gone the Canon 24-70L route instead? Or was it no looking back once you got the Tamron?

[PineapplePhoto]

Hmm... do you have some example photos taken with it to share?

Have you ever felt that you should have gone the Canon 24-70L route instead? Or was it no looking back once you got the Tamron?

My smugmug is messed up right now... but I still long for the canon L... I will buy it one day, a few years down the road perhaps but for now, there is no regrets. I paid $350 i think for mine and it has served me very well (specially some close behind the hoops shots in BB) :thumb

[PineapplePhoto]

some samples from a trip I took recently, I used available light and the tamron at different apertures, but most of the time, wide open.

check my mac gallery here: http://gallery.mac.com/punkypunky#100008

[Scott_Quier]

Hmm... do you have some example photos taken with it to share?

Here's a selection that I've taken over the years:
1.
http://LoveNLaughter.smugmug.com/photos/56041245_T3xUi-M.jpg

2.
http://LoveNLaughter.smugmug.com/photos/55953395_dC8uG-L.jpg

3.
http://LoveNLaughter.smugmug.com/photos/55953424_ZxkAM-L.jpg

4.
http://LoveNLaughter.smugmug.com/photos/62862432_wgQrq-L.jpg

5. As a photo, I'm not real happy with this one - the background is way too busy.
http://LoveNLaughter.smugmug.com/photos/79137833_gZ5YF-L.jpg

Have you ever felt that you should have gone the Canon 24-70L route instead? Or was it no looking back once you got the Tamron?
The Tammy was the first lens I bought and it does very well everything for which I bought it. I have since then moved to shooting weddings and am very happy with the combination of EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Do I ever look back? Of course I do. I love new toys. Would I buy it over the Tammy if it were my first lens and if I weren't shooting weddings? Probably not. I would probably go with what I have now.

Now then, if they ever come out with an EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS - well, then all bets are off. That would be in my bag so fast it would make your head swim.

[jgoetz4]

I honestly think I would recommend the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm, f/2.8 XR Di LD over the Sigma 24-70mm, f2.8. Very nice lens overall.

In addition to the Canon EF 100mm, f/2.8 USM Macro, consider the Tamron SP 90mm, f/2.8 Di Macro.

I know I seem to be a Tamron salesman but these two are just really good values in lenses.

Good Morning,
Let's not fergit the Tamron 17-50 2.8 :thumb
Have a good day :D
Jim

ps: Ziggy, we missed you at the Tamron shareholders meeting last night :rofl

[GJMPhoto]

I haven't owned 3rd party lenses since my first camera (an FTBn MANY MANY years ago!), so I can't compare it to anything else...but my 24-70L 2.8 is a BEAUTIFUL piece of glass.

Sharp edge to edge throughout the range, quick quick, quick focusing - even in low light, quiet...feels great. Fully integrated with the body (5D) and flash...

It's the lens that stays on the camera by default...and I love it.

I won't try to tell you not to get the other brands...I've heard their quality is much improved since my FTBn days. But if I have the money to spend, I'd go for the fully integrated, top-shelf equipment.

I'm editing this to add a couple of thoughts on this: cameras today are not just glass, they're electronics. Unlike computers, where you can swap the monitor that comes with your desktop to another with no impact, cameras are in a relatively non-standardized environment. Canon has the inside track on canon electronics...and that integration may matter. I know some of their newer lenses have electronics that help the camera's flash system by communicating focusing information from the lens...I don't think the 24-70L is one of them...but the point is, only Canon knows what Canon's doing with their electronics...and how to maximize the integration between their components.
Maybe I'm buying into brand-hype...that's definitely possible...but I haven't been disappointed by their products yet.

Lastly, when someone tells me 'X is just as good as Y' - that defines 'Y' as the target of quality...I'll take 'Y' everytime.

- Gary.

[Richard]

I am also a big fan of the Tamron 28-75. It's a remarkably good value. Unless I suddenly became wealthy, I don't think I would consider replacing it with the 24-70L. On the other hand, I have thought from time to time about replacing it with the 24-105 f/4L IS, which has a better range for walk-around shooting. Which brings me to the question: why replace the 24-105? If it is just so that you can add a macro lens, I would suggest waiting till you can save up for one.

Regards,

[Shima]

I am also a big fan of the Tamron 28-75. It's a remarkably good value. Unless I suddenly became wealthy, I don't think I would consider replacing it with the 24-70L. On the other hand, I have thought from time to time about replacing it with the 24-105 f/4L IS, which has a better range for walk-around shooting. Which brings me to the question: why replace the 24-105? If it is just so that you can add a macro lens, I would suggest waiting till you can save up for one.

Regards,

I need the 2.8 for a variety of things I am shooting lately. IS works well if the subject isn't moving... but I need the speed for where people are moving around and I need to push it to be faster. I am ok waiting for the Canon macro lens if it is a better benefit to just go for the 24-70L for now... that's what I'm trying to ascertain.

[claudermilk]

It seemed that going with the 3rd party lenses was fine up until that last comment. So you are needing the f2.8 to catch moving targets in low light. That kind of demand is why I took the big plunge and got the 24-70L. While the other guys may have optics to compete with Canon's, I pretty much am always reading how they all lag behind the responsiveness of Canon's USM AF motors. That made up my mind. It's challenging enough with the top dog USM motor, I know I'd be quite frustrated with a slower-responding lens. Because of that, I've taken the long view & purchased the right lens for the job, even if it meant I could only buy the one lens and start the long saving-up process anew. I'm still not done yet, and the 20D is quite long in the tooth now.

[Shima]

It seemed that going with the 3rd party lenses was fine up until that last comment. So you are needing the f2.8 to catch moving targets in low light. That kind of demand is why I took the big plunge and got the 24-70L. While the other guys may have optics to compete with Canon's, I pretty much am always reading how they all lag behind the responsiveness of Canon's USM AF motors. That made up my mind. It's challenging enough with the top dog USM motor, I know I'd be quite frustrated with a slower-responding lens. Because of that, I've taken the long view & purchased the right lens for the job, even if it meant I could only buy the one lens and start the long saving-up process anew. I'm still not done yet, and the 20D is quite long in the tooth now.

Thank you for your feedback.

To clarify, I do primarily weddings, event coverage, and sports. The main area I've found my 24-105 lacking in is speed for close up sports-- such as martial arts. I had to use my 70-200 2.8 (sigma) for a recent event, but it was too zoomed in for the range I was standing, and therefore didn't really serve me very well.

Oh how I wish they made a 24-70L with IS. That would just be amazing. But alas, I am willing to give up my 24-105 IS ability for speed. So the question is will the Sigma (or Tamron) hold up with my need for speed? Or should I just get the 24-70L and not bother w/ it?

[cmason]

Shima, check out this set of reviews comparing the Sigma 24-70 and Canon 24-70, with photos: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2470exl

Also, here are others of interest on the same site:

17-XX: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2470exl
comparison with 24-105L: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/1os2is
Sigma 24-70 vs Tamron 24-75: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/exvdi

[ziggy53]

... The main area I've found my 24-105 lacking in is speed for close up sports-- such as martial arts. I had to use my 70-200 2.8 (sigma) for a recent event, but it was too zoomed in for the range I was standing, and therefore didn't really serve me very well.

Oh how I wish they made a 24-70L with IS. ...

I know it's pricey, but the Canon 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM would be just about perfect for an indoor close-proximity sporting event. The combination of f2.8 amd IS is just wonderful and the range of 17-55mm is also perfect for many events like weddings.

[Richard]

So the question is will the Sigma (or Tamron) hold up with my need for speed? Or should I just get the 24-70L and not bother w/ it?

OK, now I understand. The Tamron is fairly sharp wide open, but it does not focus as quickly as my L lenses, especially in low light. Sounds like you would be better off with the Canon.

[cmason]

OK, now I understand. The Tamron is fairly sharp wide open, but it does not focus as quickly as my L lenses, especially in low light. Sounds like you would be better off with the Canon.

Hmm, well I compared the Tamron and Canon 24-70 (28-75) offerings, and choose the Tamron. The Tamron was far lighter and more compact, and the sharpness was as good as the Canon. Speed (light) was equivalent, though focus speed on the Tamron is slower, it is not slow enough to make an impact. And at $300ish, you can keep the 24-105 and have a low light lens as well!

[Shima]

I know it's pricey, but the Canon 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM would be just about perfect for an indoor close-proximity sporting event. The combination of f2.8 amd IS is just wonderful and the range of 17-55mm is also perfect for many events like weddings.

I don't do *tons* of close proximity sports, just would like the ability for when I do. What is the loss here in that compared to the 24-70 it does not hold the "L" status?

I noticed on one review I read that they said for overlapping focal lengths and aperture the reviewer found the 17-55 to be sharper.

Anyhoo, your take on comparison? My main worry w/ the 17-55 is that I would then no longer have anything covering 56-69...

[Shima]

Hm, here's an interesting review of the 17-55 (review found on B&H)

"WOW! Thank Goodness. By photonut from NJ on 4/22/2008


I bought this and a 70-200 f/4 to replace my 24-105L. Everyone raves about the 24-70 and the 24-105 but I had both and the pictures just were not sharp enough for me. The 17-55 and 70-200 seemed like an excellent replacement combo so although hesitant I went for it. Boy am I glad I did...I can see right away that the images from both of these lenses surpass both the 24-70 and the 24-105. I am very glad I purchased this lens. For a 40D you get a greater wide angle view and can get pretty close for portraits.GREAT LENS!!!!!Its a little heavier than the 24-105 but a bit less than the 24-70 but not so heavy that its a problem."


Considering I own the 24-105 now... was looking at the 24-70, this is a very interesting review to me.

[Scott_Quier]

Anyhoo, your take on comparison? My main worry w/ the 17-55 is that I would then no longer have anything covering 56-69...
Ah, so you are looking for low-light applications - this was not clear to me. The Tammy does tend to hunt a bit in low-light (on the 20D and 30D - don't know about how it might perform on the 40D).

Most of the images I make are wedding related (either the wedding, the reception, engagement sessions, etc). My goto lens is the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. The EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a great compliment. Between the two, yep, there's a gap as you describe. Do I miss that coverage? Not at all.

If the "L" is too long, I pull out the other. If that's too wide, it's by much and I crop to make up the difference with out significant impact on image.

Here's a couple of recent (6 months ago) images using the 17-55: (click on the image for EXIF).

1.
http://LoveNLaughter.smugmug.com/photos/208209137_TWNKj-L.jpg (http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=208209137&ImageKey=TWNKj)

2. This was taken with a IR Moded Rebel XT, but look at how sharp the image is
http://LoveNLaughter.smugmug.com/photos/232511121_Hp8fi-XL-1.jpg (http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=232511121&ImageKey=Hp8fi)

3. Here's one taken at a reception. If you look closely, you can clearly see his eyelashes.
http://LoveNLaughter.smugmug.com/photos/206610141_nEaJR-L.jpg (http://lovenlaughter.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=206610141&ImageKey=nEaJR)

BTW - all of these were hand-held and the second one was at 23mm and 1/8sec. That's got to say something about the IS on that lens - No?

[Shima]

Ah, so you are looking for low-light applications - this was not clear to me. The Tammy does tend to hunt a bit in low-light (on the 20D and 30D - don't know about how it might perform on the 40D).

Most of the images I make are wedding related (either the wedding, the reception, engagement sessions, etc). My goto lens is the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. The EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a great compliment. Between the two, yep, there's a gap as you describe. Do I miss that coverage? Not at all.

If the "L" is too long, I pull out the other. If that's too wide, it's by much and I crop to make up the difference with out significant impact on image.

Here's a couple of recent (6 months ago) images using the 17-55: (click on the image for EXIF).

1.


2. This was taken with a IR Moded Rebel XT, but look at how sharp the image is

3. Here's one taken at a reception. If you look closely, you can clearly see his eyelashes.

BTW - both of these were hand-held and the second one was at 23mm and 1/8sec. That's got to say something about the IS on that lens - No?

That's good to hear that it serves you well for weddings as well and you don't miss the range in between.

My goal is once I can afford it to replace the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS... I have used both and do love the Canon, but for now simply put I cannot afford it.

The IS and proven images of the 17-55 are definite draws and I'm glad this was brought up as it wasn't a lens I had originally considered before. It is definitely in my contemplations now. hmmm

And WOW you can see his eyelashes!

[Manfr3d]

Another vote for the Tamron 28-75mm/2.8 and the Sigma 105mm/2.8 Macro :thumb

[jgoetz4]

Afternoon Folks,
There's one fer sale (Tamron 28-75 2.8) at "that other place" :rofl http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/643896
Have a good day :D
Jim...

[DrDavid]

Just remember though.... The 17-55mm is an EF-S mount; and as such will only work with the 10/20/30/40D cameras (and rebels). Plus, it doesn't even come with a hood (ok, minor irritation, but, still....). It also has dust issues and is a plastic body.

The 24-70mm L is built like a tank, will work on all bodies and comes with a hood. :lol3

BUT, no IS.

In the end the decision came down to this.. I want to get a 1D eventually. So, why buy EFS mounts?

David

[ziggy53]

The Canon 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is an EF-S lens and it does not have the build quality of an "L" lens. By any other measure it is "L" quality. The USM is fast and sure and focus accuracy is superb. The sharpness, color and contrast are right there with any other of Canon's best lenses.

The resale value is also very strong, so if I really need to sell it I won't have lost much at all. I intend to keep crop 1.6x bodies for a number of reasons, so I have a number of EF-S and crop lenses that serve me well.

I am also one who does not miss the little bit of coverage and I found that I do not use the range of 56-69mm very much at all. I have two lenses to cover, but they are just never used on the crop bodies. (Canon EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM and Canon EF 24-85mm, f/3.5-4.5 USM)

[DrDavid]

The Canon 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is an EF-S lens and it does not have the build quality of an "L" lens. By any other measure it is "L" quality.
The IQ is fantastic on the 17-55mm... It's just really too bad, for the price, that it didn't get the L and L's build quality. But, still... Since I want to go at some point to the 1.3x or FF cameras, for me the decision was made a bit easier..

I totally don't miss the IS, and the IQ I get is great. So, I'm thrilled!

If the 17-55mm was cheaper, or the build quality better, I might have bought it instead of the 24-70mm L.

David

[Moogle Pepper]

If it weren't for the fact that I want to move up to a 5D, predecesser, etc., I would have went for the 17-55 as it is slightly cheaper than the 24-70. Weight is not an issue, but as it stands I only have one EF-S lens, my ultra wide Tokina, but all others are EF.

Which ever you pick, Shima, you are bound to get great pictures.

[Shima]

The IQ is fantastic on the 17-55mm... It's just really too bad, for the price, that it didn't get the L and L's build quality. But, still... Since I want to go at some point to the 1.3x or FF cameras, for me the decision was made a bit easier..

I totally don't miss the IS, and the IQ I get is great. So, I'm thrilled!

If the 17-55mm was cheaper, or the build quality better, I might have bought it instead of the 24-70mm L.

David

I have someone interested possibly in trading me my 24-105 for their 17-55... we will see where this discussion goes....

[Shima]

It also has dust issues and is a plastic body.

Ziggy - what's your experience with dust on this lens?

[Scott_Quier]

Ziggy - what's your experience with dust on this lens?
I've had mine for bit more than 1.5 years. I have just a couple of small dust specks inside the lens - nothing to write home about - and they definitely don't have any effect on the images.

[Shima]

I've had mine for bit more than 1.5 years. I have just a couple of small dust specks inside the lens - nothing to write home about - and they definitely don't have any effect on the images.

Haha that's funny, I was just reading your comments about the 17-55 on here: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=84545

[Scott_Quier]

Haha that's funny, I was just reading your comments about the 17-55 on here: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=84545
At least I'm consistent in my stories:D

[jgoetz4]

I've had mine for bit more than 1.5 years. I have just a couple of small dust specks inside the lens - nothing to write home about - and they definitely don't have any effect on the images.
Evening Folks,
If I remember correctly, dust inside the first element has no effect on IQ, since that area is used to gather the light. The last element is what is used for final focusing, and if any dust or debris is visible in that area, then that's where the specs would show up on an image.
Have a good evening :D
Jim...

[ziggy53]

Ziggy - what's your experience with dust on this lens?

Nothing so far, but I haven't had the lens that long and mostly indoor stuff.

I am not at all worried about it.

The initial cost was my only concern, but the utility of the lens has met my needs and then some. I have no regrets and it is the right tool for my needs.

[Shima]

Some follow up:

Pindy here on the forums has offered to trade me his 17-55 2.8 IS USM for my 24-105 f4/L IS USM.

Super excited :) We are proceeding with the trade. Will update when it gets here.

[rpcrowe]

I honestly think I would recommend the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm, f/2.8 XR Di LD over the Sigma 24-70mm, f2.8. Very nice lens overall.

In addition to the Canon EF 100mm, f/2.8 USM Macro, consider the Tamron SP 90mm, f/2.8 Di Macro.

I know I seem to be a Tamron salesman but these two are just really good values in lenses.

I absolutely love my Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Macro lens. You might notice that I left out the designator "Di" from the Tamron alphabet soup title of my lens.

Mine is the macro lens distributed by Tamron prior to the introduction of the "Di" model. The term "Di" designates this lens a being optimized for digital. Perhaps it is "optimized" but, I really cannot imagine any better image quality than I get with my "non-optimized" Tamron macro.

The image quality this lens produces is right up there with my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and with my several "L" class lenses including the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 70-200mm f/4L IS.

I am sure that lens testing procedures might show an increase in quality between the non-Di and the Di designated lens but in real life shooting (as in the case of the 70-200mm f/4L IS and non-IS lenses) I cannot see any difference.

You can sometimes get very good bargains on the non-Di Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro lens. I got mine in mint condition from eBay for less than $125; including shipping.

[JohnBiggs]

I had the Sigma 24-70 and I switched it for the Tammy 28-75 f2.8 I don't miss the 4mm, and I am very happy I made the switch.

Trust me, if you are deciding between these, the Tammy is the one to get. ALSO think about weight and size. The Tammy is incredibly small compared to the other two.

I have also shot the 24-70L and I didn't see any differences so I'm glad I didn't waist the money.

[claudermilk]

Ah, but how quickly did the AF lock on? IMHO the cost of the L lens is not a waste if you need the performance, particularly in low light. That seemsot be the universl caveat of the Canon vs third-party lenses; Canon's USM motor is always commented upon as outperforming the competition.

[LKN Dave]

Too many choices, I still can't decide what I want after all this.

[Moogle Pepper]

The life of a photographer. :dunno

:lol3


If you can't decide, LKN Dave, just rent them and try them all out!

[ziggy53]

Too many choices, I still can't decide what I want after all this.

Try not to choose what you want, rather choose what you need. If you don't know what you need, you need to define your goals which will dictate your needs.

What are your goals?

[Shima]

The life of a photographer. :dunno

:lol3


If you can't decide, LKN Dave, just rent them and try them all out!

Or trade after you get something so you don't have to spend more money. My trade from Pindy should be getting here tomorrow according to UPS!!! :)

[Scott_Quier]

Or trade after you get something so you don't have to spend more money. My trade from Pindy should be getting here tomorrow according to UPS!!! :)
Not quite clear on the concept here - are you, maybe, a little excited about getting the 17-55?:dunno:wink

[Shima]

Not quite clear on the concept here - are you, maybe, a little excited about getting the 17-55?:dunno:wink

:barb:ivar:clap

just a little, lol

well that and if you can't rent, you can always trade, was my point


This is driving me bonkers while I wait lol:
TRI-CITY,
IN, US 05/14/2008 5:06 A.M. OUT FOR DELIVERY

[Moogle Pepper]

haha it will at your place by 5 pm!!

[DrDavid]

:barb:ivar:clap

just a little, lol

well that and if you can't rent, you can always trade, was my point


This is driving me bonkers while I wait lol:
TRI-CITY,
IN, US 05/14/2008 5:06 A.M. OUT FOR DELIVERY
So, question... How did you guys keep each other honest? What would have stopped him/you from not shipping, etc..? Just curious how your trading worked..

David

[Shima]

So, question... How did you guys keep each other honest? What would have stopped him/you from not shipping, etc..? Just curious how your trading worked..

David

I'm the one who has to stay honest, he OFFERED to ship to me first and then after I get it let me ship to him. So my 24-105 is still here, and will be getting shipped promptly tomorrow...because...

the 17-55 came while I was on lunch and is in my hands now!!! :lust

But yeah, I am honored to be trusted that he felt ok sending me his lens first. This is the first trade I've ever done.

[Moogle Pepper]

Isn't the wait the worst part of buying a new lens online?? :rofl

But now that you got it... time to go on a shooting spree!!

[Shima]

Isn't the wait the worst part of buying a new lens online?? :rofl

But now that you got it... time to go on a shooting spree!!

Yeah if only I wasn't stuck in my office, lol. So far my hand, really lame self portraits, and various things on my desk have been my test subjects. I can't wait to to go home tonight, throw my flash on it (I have the flash with me at the office, but it might attract attention if I light the whole room up when I'm supposed to be doing networking stuff....) and test it on my husband and our pets. I'm sooooo excited it's finally here.

[DrDavid]

I'm the one who has to stay honest, he OFFERED to ship to me first and then after I get it let me ship to him. So my 24-105 is still here, and will be getting shipped promptly tomorrow...because...

the 17-55 came while I was on lunch and is in my hands now!!! :lust

But yeah, I am honored to be trusted that he felt ok sending me his lens first. This is the first trade I've ever done.
Wow.. I'm impressed. So, now when you ship the 24-105mm, there's been a slight change to the shipping address.... Did you get the memo about that? He's now asked that you ship it care of him at my address. I'll PM you the details... :wink

David

[Shima]

Wow.. I'm impressed. So, now when you ship the 24-105mm, there's been a slight change to the shipping address.... Did you get the memo about that? He's now asked that you ship it care of him at my address. I'll PM you the details... :wink

David

lol, didn't you just get a 24-70 2.8/L?

[Moogle Pepper]

Nah DrDavid's address has been rerouted to my address. kthnxbai!

[DrDavid]

lol, didn't you just get a 24-70 2.8/L?
You can never have too many lenses.. LOL

I hear phonebooks weigh about the same as lenses.. :lol3

Hey, Moogle... You ever get that 24-70mm 2.8L you offered to "check" for me to make sure it was sharp enough?

David

[Moogle Pepper]

Actually yes...

Here is a pic that came from that test:

http://tednghiem.smugmug.com/photos/294158205_iDDJN-M.jpg

As you can tell, it's a pretty sharp copy. But I am not gonna send it back to you, tough luck!:rofl

[ulrikft]

Lightrules at pbase has a quite extensive test:

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/2470exl

He also compares 24-70 with the tamron

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/exvdi


(he also has quite a bit of nice testing of gear other than this, recommended! )

(am I a bit late? :dunno ) :P

[DrDavid]

Actually yes...

Here is a pic that came from that test:
I SO want to link this photo.... http://gallery.photo.net/photo/1192879-lg.jpg

[Moogle Pepper]

I SO want to link this photo.... http://gallery.photo.net/photo/1192879-lg.jpg

Are you trying to imply something? :wink :rofl

[jgoetz4]

I SO want to link this photo.... http://gallery.photo.net/photo/1192879-lg.jpg
You know that picture would look a lot better in b & w, or w & b :rofl
Have a good evening :D
Jim...

[Shima]

Alright, here's my first human photo with the 17-55 f2.8 IS USM. (yes I used my 580EXII)

Introducing my husband, Joel:
http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/295488520_oxJZn-M.jpg

And here's an artsy no flash photo I took outside of some junk:
http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/295489186_q8fF6-M.jpg

Then to test out the speed I got a shot of my dogs playing (note the little one is in the air):
http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/295490875_wCdno-M.jpg

Testing out some macro and bokeh:
http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/295491943_AcAA9-M.jpg

:clap:clap:clap Pindy is my hero.

[DrDavid]

:scratch Dunno... Not sure it's sharp enough. Send it over to me, and I'll check it out vs. the 24-70mm 2.8L .. I'll let you know if it's good enough. Also, send the 24-105mm over here too and I'll check both of them for you against my 24-70mm!

David

[DrDavid]

Alright, here's my first human photo with the 17-55 f2.8 IS USM. (yes I used my 580EXII)
And on the subject of the 580EXII... You need a Lightsphere (well, the cheap-o chinese ebay knockoffs of them (They're just a blob of plastic :rolleyes). It makes a HUGE difference!

David

[Shima]

And on the subject of the 580EXII... You need a Lightsphere (well, the cheap-o chinese ebay knockoffs of them (They're just a blob of plastic :rolleyes). It makes a HUGE difference!

David

Oh? Link and some more info on this would be appreciated.

[Shima]

:scratch Dunno... Not sure it's sharp enough. Send it over to me, and I'll check it out vs. the 24-70mm 2.8L .. I'll let you know if it's good enough. Also, send the 24-105mm over here too and I'll check both of them for you against my 24-70mm!

David

I let my husband take a shot of me with the camera:
http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/295510557_rDYaX-M.jpg

and a crop from that:
http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/295510012_ka4r7-M-2.jpg

[DrDavid]

I let my husband take a shot of me with the cameraYeah, I think I really have to have the lens in-hand to tell for sure.. :lol3

Looks good :thumb

Oh, cheap-o lightsphere... they're all over ebay.. Check out this link: http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?sofocus=bs&sbrftog=1&dfsp=32&catref=C6&from=R40&satitle=Lambency+580ex&sacat=-1%26catref%3DC6&sargn=-1%26saslc%3D2&sadis=200&fpos=ZIP%2FPostal&sabfmts=1&saobfmts=insif&ftrt=1&ftrv=1&saprclo=&saprchi=&fsop=32%26fsoo%3D2&fgtp=

They call them Lambency 580ex flash diffusers. They're knock-off lightspheres. I paid $12.95 for mine; including shipping to the USA. Got it in about 5 days.

David

[Shima]

Yeah, I think I really have to have the lens in-hand to tell for sure.. :lol3

Looks good :thumb

Haha good luck getting it out of my hands!

EDIT: another "sharpness" photo-
http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/295558085_dCjnv-M.jpg

and the crop:
http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/295558164_M8bPT-M.jpg

[Scott_Quier]

Yeah, I think I really have to have the lens in-hand to tell for sure.. :lol3

Looks good :thumb

Oh, cheap-o lightsphere... they're all over ebay.. Check out this link: http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?sofocus=bs&sbrftog=1&dfsp=32&catref=C6&from=R40&satitle=Lambency+580ex&sacat=-1%26catref%3DC6&sargn=-1%26saslc%3D2&sadis=200&fpos=ZIP%2FPostal&sabfmts=1&saobfmts=insif&ftrt=1&ftrv=1&saprclo=&saprchi=&fsop=32%26fsoo%3D2&fgtp=

They call them Lambency 580ex flash diffusers. They're knock-off lightspheres. I paid $12.95 for mine; including shipping to the USA. Got it in about 5 days.

David
Those look pretty cool - the inclusion of the colored lids really adds to the value. No, I'm not trying to be funny. You get to gel your flash without having to slow down and actually pull out a thin piece of plastic - just slap one of these lids in place and off you go.

The next question is, "What kind of color are you actually getting off these colored lids, and OBTW, how good is the clear part for not imparting a color cast?"

[Scott_Quier]

I let my husband take a shot of me with the camera:


and a crop from that:
http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/295510012_ka4r7-S-2.jpg
It looks like we have another convert!!:clap:barb :ivar

Now to see how she likes it on a job. Will the focal range be enough to keep her happy? Tune in next week for ....

Seriously, I'm happy you seem to like the lens. Really looking forward to seeing what you do with your new toy .... err umm .... tool!

[Shima]

It looks like we have another convert!!:clap:barb :ivar

Now to see how she likes it on a job. Will the focal range be enough to keep her happy? Tune in next week for ....

Seriously, I'm happy you seem to like the lens. Really looking forward to seeing what you do with your new toy .... err umm .... tool!

Since my next wedding isn't until May 24th, I think that the testing my martial arts school is holding on this Saturday will be the first "big test" for this lens. Thankfully, being a black belt, I'm not promoting so I can take pictures :) Plus martial arts was one of the "non wedding" reasons I also wanted a faster close range lens... last time I had to use the 70-200 to get the shots I wanted but that was wayyyyyyyy to close.

[Moogle Pepper]

Hopefully I will have something interesting to shoot this weekend so you can later decide to go with the 24-70 L later! :D

I really like the results you are getting with that 17-55... :wow

[ziggy53]

Shima,

On the subject of the LightShere, while it can be useful in some instances, I greatly prefer the following two devices which are easy constructed and work really well:

http://www.fototime.com/inv/908195739C4C0D3

http://abetterbouncecard.com/

Joe Demb also makes an interesting device for sale (reasonable):

http://www.dembflashproducts.com/flipit/

I own a FlipIt product and it works well and is very well made.

[jbakerphoto]

That is one sharp lens.....I might have to get me one of them......:wink

They also have the cheapo whale tails on there as well with gels and what not. I ordered one we will see if they are any good and if we get wierd colors ....It was only like 22 bucks shipped.....The "name brand" sells for 80 I think.....

if you search on universal flash diffuser you will see them.....

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=universal+flash+diffuser+for+canon+580+ex&category0=

[Shima]

Shima,

On the subject of the LightShere, while it can be useful in some instances, I greatly prefer the following two devices which are easy constructed and work really well:

http://www.fototime.com/inv/908195739C4C0D3

http://abetterbouncecard.com/

Joe Demb also makes an interesting device for sale (reasonable):

http://www.dembflashproducts.com/flipit/

I own a FlipIt product and it works well and is very well made.

Hmm, much to consider. I'm going to sit on these and think it over. They seem to produce very nice results...

PS- smugmugger's get 12% off Gary Fong products such as lightsphere.

Does anyone have experience w/ the cheaper Lambency?

[DrDavid]

Hmm, much to consider. I'm going to sit on these and think it over. They seem to produce very nice results...

PS- smugmugger's get 12% off Gary Fong products such as lightsphere.

Does anyone have experience w/ the cheaper Lambency?
Lambency works great. Most of my photos here: http://www.wolfsnap.com/weddings were done with it. It works great! No complaints at all.

David

[cmason]

I can recommend the Fong Lightsphere, works quite well.

[Shima]

I can recommend the Fong Lightsphere, works quite well.

Cloud or clear one?

[Shima]

Almost forgot! We had our IT Staff Picnic today, so I had my coworkers pose for some portraits w/ the 17-55

http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/295863571_XCoQT-M.jpg . http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/295863762_aEP8X-M.jpg

http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/295862431_6z9UT-M.jpg . http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/295863110_v3X3r-M.jpg

More here: http://photos.cathoffman.com/gallery/4944634_k9Eth

[Pezpix]

My biggest complaint with my 24-70L glass is the external zooming which can introduce dust into the glass. However it is a pretty handy piece of equipment. If I had a wishlist though, I'd also add in IS. (Rumor mill has it we could see a 24-70 f2.8L IS sometime soon fwiw)

Honestly though in terms of IQ, I've found myself using my 16-35 glass in wide apps far more than the 24-70. Of course that range between 35-70 is a tough gap to miss, but I also stick with the 35mm and 50mm prime.

[cmason]

Cloud or clear one?

I have the clear one. it comes with a 'cloudy' dome, that works well as a diffuser in a pinch. Shot with clear lightsphere (and done in a pinch, not posed)

http://digitalmason.smugmug.com/photos/139357727_wPhQL-M.jpg


Not bad, IMHO, for a single, on-camera flash

[Scott_Quier]

Cloud or clear one?
From what I've read, it really doesn't matter. I have the clear one and it worked as designed (when I used it). I've since moved on to the BBC as a more efficient light modifier. The LS works well/best in small rooms and I don't often have the chance to work with it that way.

[ziggy53]

From what I've read, it really doesn't matter. I have the clear one and it worked as designed (when I used it). I've since moved on to the BBC as a more efficient light modifier. The LS works well/best in small rooms and I don't often have the chance to work with it that way.

:agree I don't have a LightSphere. This was a single flash with the equivalent to a large bounce card:

http://www.dgrin.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11180&stc=1&d=1142095982

These are all single flash with a homemade scoop:

http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/photos/143666541-L.jpg

http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/photos/116991247-D.jpg

http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/photos/233444706-L.jpg

http://ziggy53.smugmug.com/photos/296108639_ZQmc2-L.jpg

The LightSphere would not have been as good a choice in each of these instances because of the room and/or ceilings.

[cmason]

The LightSphere would not have been as good a choice in each of these instances because of the room and/or ceilings.

I see this often, and I don't think that entirely true. I have found using the included 'dome' provides simple bounce, and if you leave the dome on with the flash facing your subject, it works very nicely as a modifier. I think sometimes that ceiling bounce gives "racoon eyes" that the Lightsphere helps eliminate.

That being said, it is hard to beat a simple piece of white "Foamies" to bounce light well.

[Moogle Pepper]

I use a foamie for my bounce. A good $15. purchase! :D

[jbakerphoto]

I am not getting as good of results with my bbc....I decided it was time to try something else.

out of the camera using a bbc. Do I need to make a bigger one?

http://www.dotphoto.com/SAN1/C1/A6/B1/iC1A6B192-FD79-46CA-AEF8-EFDA06B5EB25.jpg

http://www.dotphoto.com/SAN1/9B/A6/88/i9BA68854-4C0C-4352-9B43-35902450664E.jpg

[ziggy53]

I see this often, and I don't think that entirely true. I have found using the included 'dome' provides simple bounce, and if you leave the dome on with the flash facing your subject, it works very nicely as a modifier. I think sometimes that ceiling bounce gives "racoon eyes" that the Lightsphere helps eliminate.

That being said, it is hard to beat a simple piece of white "Foamies" to bounce light well.

Allow me to elaborate:

In this shot:

http://www.dgrin.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11180&stc=1&d=1142095982

The ceiling was slanted with respect to the camera high-left to low-right. As such I had to swivel and tilt the flash to the right to get the correct angle for bounce. The improvised "bounce card" I used (for fill) is so light that it did not affect the ability of the flash head to maintain the head angle. A problem with the LightSphere (LS) is its weight and the flash head would not have held position without my assistance. Other than that, the LS would have worked fine as far as the type of fill it provides.

In the remainder of the above shots (using the "scoop" reflector), the ceiling would not have provided the best light for either a "bounce card" or a LS.

In those cases the scoop both lifts and diffuses the light over a relatively large area. The bulk of the light emits from a distance of almost 24" above the center of the lens. (Canon 1D MKII, Stroboframe Pro-T flash bracket). If I used the LS with the diffusion dome in place the light would emit around 13" above the center of the lens with the flash pointed forward or around 17 1/2" with the flash pointed up.

The LS pointed forward would be around 11" less above the lens than the scoop, and when the flash is pointed up it is wasting considerable power in that it emits in all directions when only a broad forward light is needed.

I am not trying to say that the LS does not work, it does and under the right circumstances it is extremely nice light.

I do believe that the scoop modifier works better and more efficiently for most of the shooting that I do.

[ziggy53]

I am not getting as good of results with my bbc....I decided it was time to try something else.

out of the camera using a bbc. Do I need to make a bigger one?



A "bounce card" is simply a fill light device that works in conjunction with ceiling bounce. If you are not using the ceiling, the bounce card becomes a primary light, but not a very good one IMO. Using a larger card will provide a larger surface and more forward light, but it doesn't necessarily solve all your problems.

In a "studio" situation, where the subject is positioned in front of a background and the shot is planned, I greatly prefer to use carefully placed off-camera lights.

If you are limited to a single light source, a lighting setup like Scott describes here works pretty darned well, and yes you can use a dark background but I think the light background works better:

http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=818132&postcount=1

[ziggy53]

BTW, a little PS work (I think) improves the image. I used "Shadow-Highlight" and then "Levels" along with some USM. I will remove if you wish.
Before:
http://www.dotphoto.com/SAN1/C1/A6/B1/iC1A6B192-FD79-46CA-AEF8-EFDA06B5EB25.jpg

After:

[jbakerphoto]

BTW, a little PS work (I think) improves the image. I used "Shadow-Highlight" and then "Levels" along with some USM. I will remove if you wish.
Before:
http://www.dotphoto.com/SAN1/C1/A6/B1/iC1A6B192-FD79-46CA-AEF8-EFDA06B5EB25.jpg

After:

I guess my point was exactly that. That yes the post processing will fix them but that takes time. If I can get it closer by spending 20 buck on a cheapo whaletail or lightsphere on ebay and it gets it to where it is suppose to be the first time. all the better and less work. if i dont like the results I can always sell it on craigslist ....

I think the other reason I decided to get a whaletail was because my wife found my paypal stash and started buying baby stuff...Had to act quickly...LOL

Maybe I need to make a bbc with the scoop as well. bbc works good but sometimes I get sorta dark results as seen above and the scoop would throw more light forward and also my current bbc doesnt seem to have any range.

[ziggy53]

...

Maybe I need to make a bbc with the scoop as well. bbc works good but sometimes I get sorta dark results as seen above and the scoop would throw more light forward and also my current bbc doesnt seem to have any range.

Understand that the "scoop" modifier I use is not a bounce card. It actually works by lifting and spreading the light, similar to what you could do with a much taller flash bracket and perhaps a very small softbox. The scoop is so lightweight that it has little effect on the handling of the flash. Rather than fill, a scoop is the primary light source.

You still need to apply good judgement regarding FEC and basic exposure settings as well as proper placement of the light, but that is also true for any flash modifier. The camera alone doesn't always work best in default settings.

I tend to think of image processing software and post-processing as just part of the process of making good images.

[jbakerphoto]

A "bounce card" is simply a fill light device that works in conjunction with ceiling bounce. If you are not using the ceiling, the bounce card becomes a primary light, but not a very good one IMO. Using a larger card will provide a larger surface and more forward light, but it doesn't necessarily solve all your problems.

In a "studio" situation, where the subject is positioned in front of a background and the shot is planned, I greatly prefer to use carefully placed off-camera lights.

If you are limited to a single light source, a lighting setup like Scott describes here works pretty darned well, and yes you can use a dark background but I think the light background works better:

http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=818132&postcount=1

Didnt see this one....Yea I am working on trying to get my 580 ex off camera. I bought a vivitar 283 for cheap 2 weeks ago (as the strobist says light is light) so that makes 2 and I am decideing if I should go the ebay trigger way or try to scrape together for some skyports .....Cant afford pocketwizards at this time ..Think i do want wireless though...Also would like to maybe get some umbrellas (at least one--lol). Is the strobist set up good at mpex or should I go a different route?

[jbakerphoto]

Understand that the "scoop" modifier I use is not a bounce card. It actually works by lifting and spreading the light, similar to what you could do with a much taller flash bracket and perhaps a very small softbox. The scoop is so lightweight that it has little effect on the handling of the flash. Rather than fill, a scoop is the primary light source.

You still need to apply good judgement regarding FEC and basic exposure settings as well as proper placement of the light, but that is also true for any flash modifier. The camera alone doesn't always work best in default settings.

I tend to think of image processing software and post-processing as just part of the process of making good images.



I guess I will get this figured out sooner or later.

[ziggy53]

Didnt see this one....Yea I am working on trying to get my 580 ex off camera. I bought a vivitar 283 for cheap 2 weeks ago (as the strobist says light is light) so that makes 2 and I am decideing if I should go the ebay trigger way or try to scrape together for some skyports .....Cant afford pocketwizards at this time ..Think i do want wireless though...Also would like to maybe get some umbrellas (at least one--lol). Is the strobist set up good at mpex or should I go a different route?

Many Vivitar 283 flashes are "Not" safe to use on modern digital cameras. The problem is high trigger voltage on many of them, just so you are aware.

I am not familiar with the "mpix setup" but it's not hard to make your own setup, depending on what else you might have.

Shay has the basic details here:

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1166287

[jbakerphoto]

Many Vivitar 283 flashes are "Not" safe to use on modern digital cameras. The problem is high trigger voltage on many of them, just so you are aware.

I am not familiar with the "mpix setup" but it's not hard to make your own setup, depending on what else you might have.

Shay has the basic details here:

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1166287

Nope I am not planning on useing the 283 on camera.....just off camera with some sort of trigger. I have a 580 ex for on camera....

MPEX setup/strobist setup.....

http://www.mpex.com/page.htm?PG=Strobist%20Kits

[ziggy53]

Nope I am not planning on useing the 283 on camera.....just off camera with some sort of trigger. I have a 580 ex for on camera....

MPEX setup/strobist setup.....

http://www.mpex.com/page.htm?PG=Strobist%20Kits

While the contents of the kit look pretty good, I have no idea if it is a true value. Since the contents are listed it would probably be a good idea to look it all up and check the prices.

I do suggest a 10-12 foot light stand, preferably with air-cushioned control. The extra height is handy if you ever need to work in a place where the subject(s) is (are) higher than you are, like a church chancel area. The higher stands also tend to have a more stable stance.