The sky was lovely this morning, so I brought my camera to work. I was hoping it would last the day so I could capture the sunset, but unfortunately the grey clouds revisited in the afternoon. Throw in some rain, and it wasn't a particularly pleasant latter part of the day. I didn't have much time this evening, so I grabbed a few shots of an old globe I bought from a trip to Tenerife when I was a teenager.
I took this deliberately using the wrong white balance so the tones are warm and soft. I focused on the UK and the rest of Europe, or 'Europa' as it's displayed here, because the globe has an antiquated style from when this part of the World ruled the waves!
I really want a new camera. I spent some time today researching the Canon 7D and it seems like the best choice for me. I'm not sure I particularly need it, but it is really tempting me with its range of features and more 'masculine' size. Thing is, if I buy it I think I would need to buy a better mid-range lens than my Canon 28-135mm lens. The Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 lens seems like the best option, but the package become expensive when paired with the 7D - almost £2,000!
Semi-professional photographer based in Nottingham, England, I shoot mainly events and weddings. I'll be posting my work using my Fujis - X100S and X-Pro1.
Photostream:
Blog:...
Nice shot, at first I thought that holder in the top right was someone sitting on the globe! I must admit my transition from the canon 400D to the 60D has been amazing. I love the top display, the quick buttons to change settings, as well as the giant screen.
Yeah, I think about upgrading even though I can't afford it. I want the Canon 5D Mark II but then like you said, I'll need more lenses and gadgets too. ~sigh~
Good one! I love playing with WB settings! One thing that looks great is using video light for a portrait just at the end of sunset, and setting WB for the video light - makes the sky just pop!
I haven't tried the 17-55, but I can say that the 24-70 is a more useful focal length having used that and the 18-55 cheap lens. You might get a 24-70 cheap soon too, now that Canon have patented a 24-70 mk II.
@jinximages Good point, slightly more range there and I have the wide angle covered with my 10-22mm. However I'm looking at an extra £300 on top of the £700 it'd cost for the 17-55mm...
I made a decision to only buy L glass. That said, some of the third-party brands have tempted me. A couple of them have tested better than the Canon versions. It is a bit hit and miss though - certain lenses are great, and others not so much. You need to read as many reviews as you can find, and then try them out. I just like the consistency of the L lenses, and I know what I'm getting with them.
@jinximages Jinx, Thanks for the tips. Bearing in mind my current and next body is a crop sensor, isn't the 17-55mm f/2.8 effectively the crop sensor's 28-70mm equivalent? When you suggest the 28-70mm being a more useful focal range, do you mean on a full frame body?
@vikdaddy Funny you should ask that. When I bought my 24-70 I was shooting a crop-frame, and it was ideal for weddings for such. Now, it is a bit too wide at times - the 24-105 would be a better fit, but it isn't fast enough and the bokeh kinda sucks (imo). I actually liked, for most shoots, the 24-70 better with the crop frame.
One thing to remember is that compression and DOF do not change based on sensor size. People say they do, but they don't - it is simple optical physics. The difference is that FOV appears to change because the sensor "crops" the image the lens is capable of displaying, so you step back further with a crop frame, which in turn gives you more DOF (the further you are from your subject, the more "acceptable" your focus is both in front and behind your point of focus, as you are probably very aware from your landscape work). So, if you are framing a tight portrait with a full-frame camera (same lens), you'll be standing closer than with a crop-frame camera (due to the cropping effect), and thus you will have shallower DOF with the same aperture. So, stick an f/4 lens on a crop-frame camera, and you won't get the adequate DOF control because you'll be standing further away or will be using a wider focal length (which also increases DOF).
My apologies if none of that is new to you - it's more my reasoning of why the 24-70 is a good choice. But that's my choice, and for what I shoot, and I wouldn't wonder at all if someone else piped up and said something totally opposite.
@jinximages Really appreciate your advice Jinx, was somewhat aware about DOF and FOV on a crop body but you explain it well nonetheless.
I am re-evaluating my next lens and have decided that I want to stick with the faster glass (f/2.8 instead of f/4), but now it's a decision between the 17-55mm f/2.8 or the 24-70mm f/2.8. The latter is more expensive, but it is 'L' quality and would match the weather-proof body of a 7D (on a side note, why build a more rugged body for a crop sensor camera but continue to produce EF-S lenses without the same build quality? Sometimes Canon irritates me!) And of course you get more out of an EF lens because any vignetting and softness at corners is 'hidden' on a crop body. Decisions, decisions...
Well, the 10-22 makes the 24-70 a nice fit, whereas the 17-55 overlaps. Might not be much of a consideration, but it is something. And I doubt you often need f/2.8 at the wide end of the scale anyway. But then, if you just want a walk-around lens that can also do moderate landscapes on a crop-frame, the 17-55 will suit your purposes better, because 24 isn't quite wide enough on a crop-frame. If you ever plan to go FF though...
I think the 24-70 is one of the sharpest zooms Canon has made. I can't compare to the 17-55 because I haven't used that version of it. For me, having the 10-22, the 24-70 fit well for my purposes when I bought it, and now I'm used to the limitations of the zoom range on FF, I'm really happy once again. In fact, I did an entire shoot with it today (a rarity, since I love my 85 and 70-200 so much).
Perhaps look at it this way:
The 17-55 gives you a bit wider angle for landscapes and such when you don't have your 10-22 with you.
The 24-70 gives that bit of extra reach when you're photographing people.
November 11th, 2010
Leave a Comment
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Yeah, I think about upgrading even though I can't afford it. I want the Canon 5D Mark II but then like you said, I'll need more lenses and gadgets too. ~sigh~
I haven't tried the 17-55, but I can say that the 24-70 is a more useful focal length having used that and the 18-55 cheap lens. You might get a 24-70 cheap soon too, now that Canon have patented a 24-70 mk II.
One thing to remember is that compression and DOF do not change based on sensor size. People say they do, but they don't - it is simple optical physics. The difference is that FOV appears to change because the sensor "crops" the image the lens is capable of displaying, so you step back further with a crop frame, which in turn gives you more DOF (the further you are from your subject, the more "acceptable" your focus is both in front and behind your point of focus, as you are probably very aware from your landscape work). So, if you are framing a tight portrait with a full-frame camera (same lens), you'll be standing closer than with a crop-frame camera (due to the cropping effect), and thus you will have shallower DOF with the same aperture. So, stick an f/4 lens on a crop-frame camera, and you won't get the adequate DOF control because you'll be standing further away or will be using a wider focal length (which also increases DOF).
My apologies if none of that is new to you - it's more my reasoning of why the 24-70 is a good choice. But that's my choice, and for what I shoot, and I wouldn't wonder at all if someone else piped up and said something totally opposite.
I am re-evaluating my next lens and have decided that I want to stick with the faster glass (f/2.8 instead of f/4), but now it's a decision between the 17-55mm f/2.8 or the 24-70mm f/2.8. The latter is more expensive, but it is 'L' quality and would match the weather-proof body of a 7D (on a side note, why build a more rugged body for a crop sensor camera but continue to produce EF-S lenses without the same build quality? Sometimes Canon irritates me!) And of course you get more out of an EF lens because any vignetting and softness at corners is 'hidden' on a crop body. Decisions, decisions...
I think the 24-70 is one of the sharpest zooms Canon has made. I can't compare to the 17-55 because I haven't used that version of it. For me, having the 10-22, the 24-70 fit well for my purposes when I bought it, and now I'm used to the limitations of the zoom range on FF, I'm really happy once again. In fact, I did an entire shoot with it today (a rarity, since I love my 85 and 70-200 so much).
Perhaps look at it this way:
The 17-55 gives you a bit wider angle for landscapes and such when you don't have your 10-22 with you.
The 24-70 gives that bit of extra reach when you're photographing people.