|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 10th, 2009, 11:02 AM | #31 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 295
|
Thanks for all the posts.
I have 3 weeks to think about what to start with. I will be adding to the collection of lenses as I figure out what I'm doing. |
September 10th, 2009, 11:02 AM | #32 |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Beijing
Posts: 665
|
Jon,
I'm not sure I agree with you about the usefulness of the 100mm f2.8 macro on a 7D. Don't forget it ends up being about a 160mm f2.8 lens. In my experience I find a 180mm or 200mm equivalent and a 85 or 100mm equivalent to be more usable focal lengths, these were the old photographic standards for good reason. Reading down this thread it seems a lot of people are recommending lenses for the 7D based on how they work on the 5DmkII. With the crop factor the whole equation changes and so do my recommendations. Dan |
September 10th, 2009, 11:53 AM | #33 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
|
Good point, Dan. Still, a macro would be useful. And the 100mm would give a longer lens, even if it is a tweener, between the typical lengths. Shorter macros are worth considering. I would avoid the 180mm macro though. That would be too big a jump.
__________________
Jon Fairhurst |
September 10th, 2009, 11:58 AM | #34 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brasil
Posts: 304
|
And what about Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di II LD?
The users reviews are excelent and it`s compatible with APS-c. Ron |
September 10th, 2009, 01:32 PM | #35 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 706
|
Quote:
You probably saw this: FM Reviews - AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] I would suggest testing if its adequately sharp wide open through the focal length range. It sounds good. |
|
September 10th, 2009, 01:41 PM | #36 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 706
|
Quote:
But it is a pretty specialized lens. On a 1.6 crop the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 might be a better longish fast prime to start. Half the price and a bit faster. |
|
September 10th, 2009, 06:03 PM | #37 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Beijing
Posts: 665
|
Quote:
Lenses for video use have other criteria than what you see in the average lens review, worth bearing in mind when searching for them. Manual focus ability and excessive lens breathing are the most obvious factors, flare handling is also more important for video than stills. Dan |
|
September 10th, 2009, 06:52 PM | #38 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
|
Quote:
On photos, I want flare minimized, so that it doesn't lower the contrast of the shot. Because it's stationary, I can't necessarily tell what is flare and what isn't. On video, if I move the camera, the flare comes and goes. That lets me distinguish the flare from the image. I think for video, we want pretty flare - nice circles with each reflection in a nice line. For photos, we want flare minimized. Anyway, that's my theory. As to how the above lenses handle flare, I have no idea!
__________________
Jon Fairhurst |
|
September 10th, 2009, 07:15 PM | #39 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brasil
Posts: 304
|
Thank for your advice, Dan.
Unfortunately I probably won`t be able to test the zoom lens. I can`t find better option (17-50 / 2.8) for the same price to use with my future 7D. The main use will be narrative / fiction. Best wishes Ron |
September 10th, 2009, 10:32 PM | #40 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
|
Quote:
You wouldn't want to run every f/2.8 lens wide open, but from the reviews I've read, falloff and soft corners aren't too bad with this lens. On paper, the EF-S 17-50mm f/2.8 IS looks like a great lens for narrative use on the 7D. Let us know how you like it.
__________________
Jon Fairhurst |
|
| ||||||
|
|