1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A change of heart

Discussion in 'Photography Forums' started by seany, May 2, 2005.

  1. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Ok well after a good think and a good testing. I decided to return my 16-35 today. It was just too soft wide open and that's why i paid the extra over the 17-40...

    After using my two new primes i have to say i'm almost ready to go down the all prime route...


    So i've now got some thinking to do. I will be replacing it but i might get a prime and maybe buy a 70-200 IS


    Alls i can say is, and i keep saying it:laugh: I'm soooo glad i bought it from a shop where you could simply return it
     
  2. aliflack

    aliflack
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    238
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    out of interest which primes did you try?

    I was mulling over the pics I took this weekend, and the 50mm f1.8 is soo much better than my other lenses that I'm tempted to go down the prime route unless the 17-40 L is sharp enough...
     
  3. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    I bought the 50mm 1.4 and the 85 1.8 and i'm really really pleased. Apart form my 50 was faulty, jessops have had to order me a new one which will arrive on tue
     
  4. Radiohead

    Radiohead
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    4,337
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Amazingstoke
    Ratings:
    +431
    I thought you loved it Seany?

    I'm a fan of primes myself, and use my Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and Tamron 90mm Macro a lot. Other than that I have the kit 18-70mm and a Sigma 70-300mm APO Super II. A pretty decent coverage there. It seems that the Canon 50mm's, like the Nikkor .14 and 1.8'sm are razor-sharp.
     
  5. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    I had the 16-35 for a week before the two primes arrived, but once they did i realised i'd be using them more for available light shots which is why i bought the 16-35 over the 17-40 and once i realised i'd feel more assured with the primes there was only one choice i could make.

    Apart from the 50 developing a fault i just love the lens and cant wait until the new one arrives and the 85 1.8 just blows my socks off.

    It wasn't a question of money as i'm already thinking about where the grand should go so i have some more thinking to do which is no bad thing.
     
  6. mr jones

    mr jones
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,041
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Location:
    (S)cumbria, UK
    Ratings:
    +21

    bunch of flowers for the wife, holiday in the maldeves...



    aare you thinking what shes thinking..... :p
     
  7. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Nice one jamie:laugh:


    I can't say she tried to talk me out of sending it back:laugh:
     
  8. mr jones

    mr jones
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,041
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Location:
    (S)cumbria, UK
    Ratings:
    +21
    did you spend the loft conversion kitty on it?
     
  9. SnowCat

    SnowCat
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Messages:
    39
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Ratings:
    +1
    Seany, have you really sacrificed the ability of camera's accurate hi-speed focusing which is available on appertures 2.8 and less? Is 16-35 softer at f4 than 17-40?
     
  10. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Fast yes but soft at 2.8 more so at the 16mm end.

    No point comparing it to the 17-40 as F4 is not what i wanted so i dont know if it's sharper nor would i really think there would be much of a difference at F4 but then that's not what i bought it for


    My primes are faster and much sharper then the 16-35 thats to be expected with primes of course and it is hard to get a wide angle to be that sharp with that aperture maybe i was expecting to much


    I think it's more to do with how much my primes are just so much sharper/faster
     
  11. aliflack

    aliflack
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    238
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    soooo...what ya gonna do about wide angle? I noticed that the 20mm prime is included in the canon rebate offer ;)

    I'd be interested to see some pics from the 85mm too as its the next prime on my list!
     
  12. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Well after i've watched desperate houswifes:blush:
     
  13. tomson

    tomson
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    1,918
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Berk'amsted
    Ratings:
    +186
    on the subject of wide(ish) lenses... I've just bought a Sigma 20-40 f2.8. After careful consideration I figured I rarely use anything wider than 20mm so it should hopefully, if the reviews are correct, be a useful addition to my kit. And only 150quid :thumbsup:

    It even gets a 'superb' rating in one of the photozone ratings (Performance WIDE - stopped down) something neither of the Canons get. Downsides are the mahooosive filter size and slow AF.

    http://www.vividlight.com/articles/2614.htm
    http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=117
    http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/0402sb_sigma/
     
  14. dood

    dood
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2000
    Messages:
    943
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Hobart
    Ratings:
    +38
    Seany, as you know I'm torn between the 50mm (1.8) and 85mm 1.8. I know your 50mm is the 1.4 but even so which do you think is the better lens, mainly for use in available light and for shots of the kids. I've read that the 50mm is a bit soft wide open. If you have used the 50 1.8 then I would also be keen to know how it compares with the 50 1.4 which I could also consider.
     
  15. homerdog

    homerdog
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Messages:
    212
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Sussex
    Ratings:
    +36
    Seany - if you want a sharp wide-angle prime, how about the Sigma 15mm f2.8 EX Fisheye. Check out the reviews of it on Fred Miranda, most seem to think it's sharper than the Canon EF 15mm f2.8 Fisheye.

    Don't worry too much about the fisheye bit, on a 1.6 crop 20D, you don't really get a fisheye effect :)
     
  16. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Homer i was actually looking at that last night funny enough, i was thinking of pairing it with the 35mm F.4L as the shots i've seen with that lens are stunning.


    If you had to have just one then it would have to be the 50, not becuse it takes better photos but because you have children and you're just going to get more in, I'll give an example of the diffirence in range with the next two shots taken from the same place (across a table)
     

    Attached Files:

  17. dolph

    dolph
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,191
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +26
    The one taken with the 50mm is stunning....

    (Re-checks bank account for 350D + too many lenses to think about....)
     
  18. dolph

    dolph
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,191
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +26
    Oh, but tell the missus to cheer up - she still hung over or something!? ;)
     
  19. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    :rolleyes:
     

    Attached Files:

  20. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Some with the 85
     

    Attached Files:

  21. dolph

    dolph
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,191
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +26
    Is that you she's smiling at or the beer...?!?
     
  22. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Oh that girls like father jack if she sees beer mate
     
  23. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    You do get great colour and contrast with the 50 the more you look at it..

    I've not actually shot that much in colour with the 85 actually.
     

    Attached Files:

  24. dood

    dood
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2000
    Messages:
    943
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Hobart
    Ratings:
    +38
    Thanks Seany. Initial impressions are that the 50 is sharper, although this may be the difference between colour and B&W. What aperture did you use for the portraits? I take it there were no adjustments with PS. You are definitely swaying me towards the 50 now. The big question is going to be 1.4 or 1.8, particularly for low light and bokeh.
     
  25. Bristol Pete

    Bristol Pete
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    5,577
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Bristol.
    Ratings:
    +309
    Not camera related Sean, but I have to say, your lady is gorgeous!

    Oh and the quality of that first pic is simply wow :eek: its like looking through a window...wish my canon could do that!

    Does she have a twin :D

    Pete.
     
  26. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Well thanks Pete;)

    She's got a brother:laugh:

    Dood:

    What i'll do is take some shots of the same subject in colour at same aperture. I've yet to do that yet, not been able to as i've only just got the replacment 50 today.

    The one where Diane is leaning to one side was 1.8 so wide open and it was in a dark living room with just the ligh from a lamp that was to the side of me. I've not sharpend it ect so i'm well pleased with it (not the compostion just the light/sharpness) wide open. The other two were 3.2 but i think the one where she's outside i missed foucus

    The really sharp one in the bar was F 3.2


    But i'll test them now i have them togather again
     
  27. Johndm

    Johndm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,819
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Bedford UK
    Ratings:
    +66
    Just a little Photoshop work added......

    Better or worse??
     

    Attached Files:

  28. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    It's deff sharper john, but i dont think it's as kind to her skin. Hair looks great
     
  29. Mark Grant

    Mark Grant
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2000
    Messages:
    1,357
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    East Yorkshire, England
    Ratings:
    +171
    Hello Seany,

    Nice shots :)

    Do you have anywhere such as pbase.com to put some bigger photos?

    Hard to judge the quality from a less than 100k mini forum photo !


    When I had an 85mm f1.8 I always found if eyes in focus, nose out of focus, so little depth of field when wide open.
    A bit annoying at times unless very careful with focussing.

    Great to isolate people from distracting backgrounds though.

    Nearly always used it at f2.8 or more, great lens though !

    Mark.
     
  30. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Mark i dont i'm sorry and i really need to sort it out...


    Here's a small test anyway between the two lenes. Both shot at F1.8 flash sync's to 250 sec, as i'm not messing about with colour balance for this one:laugh:


    I'll do some more indepth tests over the weekend

    Bit iffy really i was further away of course with the 85 which is the only reason it looks darker (further away from the flash)
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page

Loading...