The "New Gear/Willy Waving" thread

Rojin · 8 Feb 2013 at 16:17

I've been looking at selling a load of stuff so I just end up with a 5D3, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.4 (all Sigma) and a 70-200 f2.8.... but I'm way short of funds! I also considered the D800 again, if I was to sell why not go the whole hog?! I like my 70-200 too much though

An Exception · 8 Feb 2013 at 16:23

King Damager said:
Mahoosive thing though, (width wise) makes the D800 look tiny

kd

It might just be the perspective, it's not any bigger than my other primes.

Raymond Lin said:
p.s. is that a CPL?

No, it'a a 10 stop filter, got a CPL for it to.

Raymond Lin said:
Wow, this is one instant where the Canon version is varstly cheaper.

Prices on *******

Nikon - £1,338.00
Canon - £988.00

EDIT - LOL at OCUK filters. I wonder if it blocks B&H, Adorama, Digitalrev, Clifton, Robert White...

Yes I was a little peeved at the price.
For some reason OCUK have it in for P as they suspect they don't declare duty. Yet despite invoices shown on this very forum showing Digitalrev not declaring VAT, they are not blocked.

Raymond Lin · 8 Feb 2013 at 16:31

At a glance the Canon 24/35 are very similar in size.

85mm however.......different story lol, no perspective can make that lens look small. It is about 50% heavier too.

King Damager · 8 Feb 2013 at 16:33

Rojin said:
I've been looking at selling a load of stuff so I just end up with a 5D3, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.4 (all Sigma) and a 70-200 f2.8.... but I'm way short of funds! I also considered the D800 again, if I was to sell why not go the whole hog?! I like my 70-200 too much though

You know Nikon make a 70-200 as well right? xD

An Exception said:
It might just be the perspective, it's not any bigger than my other primes.

No, it'a a 10 stop filter, got a CPL for it to.

Yes I was a little peeved at the price.
For some reason OCUK have it in for P as they suspect they don't declare duty. Yet despite invoices shown on this very forum showing Digitalrev not declaring VAT, they are not blocked.

Huh, fair enough, Are you a non-50 owner as well? Can't really remember, but seems a lot of people don't both with the 50 and just have 35/85.

Raymond Lin said:
At a glance the Canon 24/35 are very similar in size.

85mm however.......different story lol, no perspective can make that lens look small. It is about 50% heavier too.

Called a keg for a reason.

kd

Raymond Lin · 8 Feb 2013 at 16:36

Btw, putting down your lens rear caps off like that? !

Wouldn't dream of it for the 85.

An Exception · 8 Feb 2013 at 16:46

Raymond Lin said:
Btw, putting down your lens rear caps off like that? !

Wouldn't dream of it for the 85.

In the field I don't use any lens caps as they slow me down, luckily the rear elements are not really that close to the bottom, and if your putting them down on a flat surface it's not an issue. I wouldn't do it with the 85L either tbh.

An Exception · 8 Feb 2013 at 17:03

Just had a look at the rear element on the 24 and it's allot closer than my 85 due to being con-caved, but unlike the 85, it has a thing that sticks out the bottom that looks to stop the rear element touching a surface (at least a flat one).

85 rear

24 rear

Rojin · 8 Feb 2013 at 17:07

King Damager said:
You know Nikon make a 70-200 as well right? xD
kd

For me personally the canon is a better option. The VR1 has soft edges\corners issues on FF and the VR2 is only 135mm at close to MFD. I could have course go all Sigma and have a look at their new 70-200 OS...

I really cba to sell up though, so will be keeping what I have. It's just gear lust, I don't actually need to upgrade

An Exception · 8 Feb 2013 at 17:17

^^^
Personally I'm keeping an eye on the next Sigma 120-300 2.8.

King Damager · 8 Feb 2013 at 17:27

Think I'll be looking at the 70-200 f4L non-IS first.

Depending on how much I like the focal range, and how often it is used, I may look at upgrading it long term xD But for now, the cheapest L will do me nicely based on sharpness.

kd

Ksanti · 8 Feb 2013 at 17:35

As cool as the 120-300 2.8 is, even with awesome optics I still reckon it'll just be that bit too big for most people. The 70-200s are already pretty chunky and awkward to store/put in bags and the 120-300 only adds to that.

buzzlightweight · 8 Feb 2013 at 17:43

ManCuBuS said:
Ouch, that's hurting my wallet just looking at it. Lovely bit of kit though.

Here's my newest edition.

do you mind me asking where and how much?

many thanks buzz

42zx · 8 Feb 2013 at 18:03

Which parts of weddings are you going to use the 24mm with, An Exception?

An Exception · 8 Feb 2013 at 18:04

Ksanti said:
As cool as the 120-300 2.8 is, even with awesome optics I still reckon it'll just be that bit too big for most people. The 70-200s are already pretty chunky and awkward to store/put in bags and the 120-300 only adds to that.

It will be, but it's a much more practical solution than a 300 prime for example.
And also allot of people find 200mm not long enough, they stick on teleconverters at the expense of speed/IQ. They use high pixel density crop camera to eek out as much as the lenses res as possible.

I understand some photographers use 70-200's etc. for portraiture, but that's not my thing. I'd actually use the lens for nature etc.

Ksanti · 8 Feb 2013 at 18:12

Ah okay in that scenario, yes, the 120-300, if they can get the optics right, will be a damn fine lens.

Rojin · 8 Feb 2013 at 18:13

I love the 70-200 on FF, it's probably my most used lens (even ignoring sports use). I will be getting a 120-300 OS, it's just a long way off! I had the non OS and wish I had never sold it tbh.

londonbairn · 8 Feb 2013 at 18:15

With a gripped body it's actually not too bad, I don't find the 70-200mm f2.8 is ii taxing at all to carry around or shoot with. It's my second fave lens after the 400.

Rojin · 8 Feb 2013 at 18:17

londonbairn said:
With a gripped body it's actually not too bad, I don't find the 70-200mm f2.8 is ii taxing at all to carry around or shoot with.

Likewise, I used to carry the 120-300 around all day on a 1D3 and now the 70-200 f2.8L on a 1Ds2. I'll never be accused of being slim though, so perhaps I don't notice the weight

An Exception · 8 Feb 2013 at 18:24

42zx said:
Which parts of weddings are you going to use the 24mm with, An Exception?

I only carry 3 lenses at a time, and the 24 will be taking the place of my 14-24 for context shot's. But I will also be using it allot more indoors than I did the 14-24. The 14-24 wasn't fast enough for me as I missed the 2 stops of aperture. Often 14mm wasn't needed, but I found myself using 14mm when 90% of the time the picture would have looked better if I backed up and zoomed to 24mm, rather than just zooming out to get everything in just because it was easier.

Also I might use a 24-50 combo for smaller receptions where the 35-85 combo is a little too long.

D.P. · 8 Feb 2013 at 18:41

Rojin said:
For me personally the canon is a better option. The VR1 has soft edges\corners issues on FF and the VR2 is only 135mm at close to MFD. I could have course go all Sigma and have a look at their new 70-200 OS...

I really cba to sell up though, so will be keeping what I have. It's just gear lust, I don't actually need to upgrade

Not to start an argument or anything but the soft corners of the VR1 is more of an internet myth than reality. They are softer than the center like any lens but they aren't strongly soft until you get to the extreme corners. The biggest thing about the VR1 is it not as sharp as the VR 2 at 200mm with TCs on, when naked it is about the same.

And with the VRII version, all lenses have focus breathing including the canon 70-200mm. The Nikon VR2 does indeed breath more than the VR1 and the canon MKII, but the difference is not really that huge. At 2m The Nikon VRII ends up around 150mm, the canon something like 160mm AKAIK.
When you get to the MFD the differences become bigger, but the being 1m away from the subject (MFD is from the camera sensor plane, so the flange distance + lens length + hood will leave about a 1m gap) with a 70-200 is not a likely scenario for most instances.

It is a difference but I think it is a perfectly fair tradeoff. You also have to remember that the focal lengths of lenses are rounded. E.g., the old Nikon VR 1 was really only a 185mm or 192mm lens anyway, and the same applies to the new version, probably a 75-185mm lens that with focus breathing goes doing to 150mm at 2m and 138mm at 1.4m. So the effect of breathing is even less.

And one of the reasons the new lens breathes more is that the MFD has been reduced.