Nobody is going to be able to do a credible test in those conditions without one. Plus, when you finally see the images that he's raving about they're so obviously heavily post processed.
EDIT - I'll save you the scrubbing
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever been scammed?
In-body image stabilisation
- Thread starter Swa
- Start date
EDIT - I'll save you the scrubbing
Harmonic
Executive Member
That image with the blown out horizon/sky makes me sad
I know that part. But I think being professional he should know how to work around that and also judge the output. No doubt he's also had to shoot under the same conditions with other lenses so can compare. If you watch the start you see there's a reason he only took the minimum, but let's not shoot the messenger here, there are some good new lenses if you don't limit yourself to one type.
Harmonic
Executive Member
I can imagine - he seems to concentrate mainly on Sony gear from the looks of it...
Harmonic
Executive Member
Dammit. My previous reply that I erased before saying anything was:
I'm just here for my nightly E > RF > EF comment
You can always "fro knows photo" if you want
Uhm, I think doing this for years someone should be able to judge even in non-ideal conditions. Personally I'm not a fan of retouching at all more so than bad conditions but it just may be his style. Then I can't really see on this washed out monitor anyway.
The point is there are a lot of good lenses Canon is coming up with that can make a lot of lenses redundant. Looking only at EF lenses or not going for RF first can end up costing more so the people recommending that or boycotting the RF system may just be shooting themselves in the foot. The 24-240 being a good example that can even initially replace a lot of lenses as a general lens.
I'm sure you know that depth of field decreases with focal length. So large aperture is only really important in low light. If you can increase the distance to your subject you can actually get a shallower depth of field than any short focal length lens can give so F2.8 and below lenses are not all they're made out to be.
Harmonic
Executive Member
Look there's definitely a reason the very expensive F2.8s and F4s exist and it's not just for "low light" conditions.
With any fast moving action, you may be at 1/3200 to 1/6400 in order to freeze the frame. This creates artificial "low light" conditions and usually a large bump in ISO. The wide apertures can save you a stop of ISO and result in a cleaner image.
The smoother bokeh and shallower depth of field at F2.8/F4 are often times just a bonus but not necessarily the primary reason for buying a large aperture lens.
These are things you could never get with a 24-240mm, leaving a wide space that is filled by the large aperture lenses.
Harmonic
Executive Member
I can understand the utility of a 24-240mm though from a number of perspectives. If you're budget constrained, space constrained, or don't know what you'll be shooting, it could be incredibly handy to have while you walk around.
That said, 24mm isn't particularly wide and 240mm isn't particularly long so for me its utility falls straight into the "I don't really know what I'm shooting" category. If I know what I'll be shooting in advance, I couldn't see myself ever reaching into the bag for this lens. Just my 2c
That said, 24mm isn't particularly wide and 240mm isn't particularly long so for me its utility falls straight into the "I don't really know what I'm shooting" category. If I know what I'll be shooting in advance, I couldn't see myself ever reaching into the bag for this lens. Just my 2c
I know there is, and even under the same conditions you expect the more expensive lens to do better. It's just a whole new game than when most of these people started out blurring a lot of lines. There is a reason the 24-105 F2.8 is getting so much attention and it's not just about a little bit extra focal length for taking photos. If someone can save from having to buy and carry around one extra lens it is money well spent.
None luxury lenses aren't that much more expensive than their EF counterparts so it makes no sense to recommend avoiding them, and for the extra you do pay you usually get a bit more quality. Even the 70-200 F4 is going for R27k new right now and that is an L lens.
The more I think about it he's not wrong. The 24-240 is the sort of inexpensive lens a dad would use to photograph their kids' sports events on a Saturday afternoon. A "pro" wouldn't even consider it until after they have all the 2.8's they can handle because at f/6.3 it's going to be far too limiting.
I can't disagree with you on that as far as professional work is concerned and where F2.8 does the job.
You know what though, something I see it's all those who follow the standard advice that never get anywhere. Just now I see someone asking if over- or underexposing is better. Most answered under but it's all those photographers who's work will look the same. It's always the person who does not follow the standard advice and does something different that stands out. A lot of standout photographers did not create well lit photos but deliberately turned down the lighting. A lot of them did not use the common types of equipment. A lot of them did not keep to the rule of "thirds". A lot of them did not stick to the common subjects. The list can go on.
You know, the point was never not to go for F2.8. There is some irony in this seeing the conversation has become casual vs professional. If you're a casual photographer there are some good RF lenses that can serve as replacements or keep you from having to purchase a bunch of lenses. If you're a professional and not already heavily invested in EF or looking to move over RF is lighter, more compact, has less room for error without the adapter and may keep you from having to change lenses so often with the new ones coming out.
For anyone that has the option there's no reason not to spend on RF.
For anyone that has the option there's no reason not to spend on RF.
Last edited:
Just did some math and to replace just three of my EF lenses (400mm f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, and 24-105mm f/4) it would cost me R225k assuming I got top dollar for my used gear. Then there's another R body and at least the 1.4TC...
My friends, many of who have already switched to R bodies are in the same boat.
My friends, many of who have already switched to R bodies are in the same boat.
Been seeing a lot of videos on EF to RF ND adapters including this one.
Obviously it's not an option if you're only shooting RF lenses, but if you're fortunate enough to have retained some EF glass then it seems ideal...
Obviously it's not an option if you're only shooting RF lenses, but if you're fortunate enough to have retained some EF glass then it seems ideal...
For interest sake. If you have a 24-105 f/2.8, what else are you going to need outside of that?
An interesting point though I think a CPL is more useful. I'm of the school though that if you spend R10k+ on a lens you should at least spend a few hundred on a basic filter for it. And with 3D printers nowadays it's easy to put together a system where you can change filters in a second.
I saw a video of someone discussing this. Also don't use filters regularly. All of his lenses flawless except for one expensive lens he happened to attach a filter to has a scratch. Now make of that what you will.
Clip Filters
STC Clip filters are customer designed for each camera model. We support Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm, Pentax, Olympus, Blackmagic, Z-Cam and Panasonic models. Our engineers tirelessly work to eliminate the color shift that can occur with lesser brands. We invest heavily to create coatings...
www.stcoptics.com