Forgive my ignorance.... but what exactly do the screens 'do'?

i bought a 5d mk2 today. it's coming with the original screen, an eg-s screen and a bill maxwell treated eg-s screen (this one stays bright when stopped down). and an eg-d but i dont think ill use that one.

should arrive in a couple of days so you're welcome to stop by my office with your camera and compare side by side to see the difference

Had a look at this.... makes sense now
http://www.focusingscreen.com/privacy.php

Now clear that it would be awesome for fast glass.

you can get different types which do different things, but the ones for fast lenses make what's in focus really pop. So much easier even with f/2.8 lenses

Does it only really work if it's center focused?
The ones on that page look that way..

nah those are all central prism screens.

the stock screen is for af lenses. it retains good brightness for fast and slow lenses, and the transition of focus to OOF is smoother.

eg-s screens and other high precision matte focus screens are brighter with fast lenses and darker with slow lenses. the transition from in focus to OOF is very abrupt. people refer to subjects popping into focus.

the treated eg-s screen in the camera i've bought has been chemically treated to retain high brightness with slow lenses. canon for example, don't recommend using lenses slower than f/2.8 with the eg-s.

Ive got a few lenses that are f4, so I might have to look into them

herm a focus screen doesn't affect AF. Only what you see in the viewfinder. They sit up underneath the pentaprism above the mirror

lens advice needed.

buying a macro lens atm. was just going for the canon 100m F2.8, but noticed this:

Tokina AT-X 100m F2.8

for about a third of the price.
not an expert on lenses. and cant say i've heard of that before.

will it be just as good? or is it a piece of shit and should just get the canon?

cheers



edit - oh. i have a canon 50D btw.

get the canon. or let rancho whore you a sigma

starting to more seriously consider a macro wither I buy an underwater case or not (which is still fucking with my head).

for a crop what seems to be a good length? is 105 too long?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NismoR31

get the canon. or let rancho whore you a sigma

this. although we're currently out of stock of the sigma 105/2.8 OS macro for canon. hit me up if you're willing to wait a few weeks.

Get the Sigma 150mm. Trust me, if you get into Macro you'll end up turfing your 90 / 100 / 105 for something with a bit more working distance so might as well just get it from the start

Hi guys...just looking for a bit of advice on lens choices. Moving to Canada for a year and want to get into some serious photography (landscape/nature stuff mostly). I already have a Canon Eos 450D which has served me well, but am going to upgrade to a 5D Mk III. I have found a kit with the camera and EF 24-105mm f4L IS Lens packaged together for a reasonable price. Am going to add to that an EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM Lens for some telephoto zoomability.

My dilemma beyond those two lenses is whether to add the EF 16-35mm f2.8L II USM Lens which gets heaps of good reviews on the web. Do you think that will add much to what I already have? Any other lens "essentials" that I should be looking at as better alternatives?

Money is a consideration, but from above I guess it's pretty clear that I am about to fork out a bit of cash! Adding the 16-35mm lens adds another $1300, so if it is not going to add much then I can use the money on other stuff lie bag/batteries/cards etc.

Any advice most welcome!

Leave the 70-300 off.
The quality of the lens is wasted on the 5D -- I've used it once (with my MKII), and hated the results.
Terribly slow and crap auto-focus, chromatic abberations (colour fringing), and generally average.

You could get the 17-40 instead, at half the price -- from the reading I did in the past, the image quality of the two is the same one you are at 5.6-8, which is where you will likely be for landscape.

While I have used my 24-105 less recently (trying out primes like 50 1.4, and 150 2.8 macro), I'd still recommend it.

I'd scrap the 70-300 as well and go for the 70-200L f4 if you want a tele. Also consider scrapping the 24-105 too. If you are considering an ultra wide (16-35 or 17-40), that plus a tele is all you really need. All your missing out on is the 40-70mm range which isn't really that useful for landscapes (unless you need a general walkabout lens for portraits and stuff)

Cheers for the advice guys. Just a followup question with regards to the telephoto lens. Although I am uncertain exactly what opportunities will present themselves over there I am kind of anticipating quite a few wildlife shots. Thinking along the lines of small birds all the way up to bears, all of which will hopefully be some way off. Just wondering if the 70-200L f4 is enough of a zoom for that kind of purpose?

Papa has a point.
In that 40-70mm range, you can always plonk in a sweet large aperture lens like a 50 1.4 down the track.

70-200 should cover you, and you can always use an extender if you need. (lazy maths but a 1.4x would yield 100-280 f5.6)

Just to throw another option at you I know several travel photographers in the business of taking wildlife shots without carrying too much weight who prefer to use the 100-400 to a 70-200. This would fit in with the 24-105 which is an awesome lens. Having had a teleconverter I would recommend against them as I find the loss of both light and image quality annoying, especially when shooting wildlife in situations when light is generally already low

Cheers again for the advice guys. Just finalising plans now. On a related (but not lens related) subject, any comments on 5D Mark II vs Mark III? As stated previously, I had found a pretty good deal on the Mark III plus 24-105 lens (~$3100). Overnight, the price on the site has now been increased to ~$3600. That now makes it more than a grand difference between the II and III with lens. Any comments on whether that is worth it for someone who is definitely just an eager amateur? Probably still looking at the same budget for a full setup (~$5000), but is a Mark III with 24-105 lens plus probably one other quality lens a better option than a Mark II with 24-105 lens plus a couple of quality lenses?

the mark 3 is a better camera with a much better AF system than the 2, but as far as output quality you really won't notice the difference. 3 has about 2 stops better iso performance, but its main benefits over the 2 is in the usage. It has a lot of improvements in ergonomics & thanks to the AF etc it's far superior in certain situations so you get more usable shots out of it.

birding would be beneficial of the improved AF system. Portraits & landscapes no.

the 2 is still a very very good camera so you won't be buying crap if you go that way, & will have more moolah left for good glass

Quote:

Originally Posted by base615

Just to throw another option at you I know several travel photographers in the business of taking wildlife shots without carrying too much weight who prefer to use the 100-400 to a 70-200. This would fit in with the 24-105 which is an awesome lens. Having had a teleconverter I would recommend against them as I find the loss of both light and image quality annoying, especially when shooting wildlife in situations when light is generally already low

Good point, and having just relooked it up, the 100-400mm is remarkably good value now ($1300-1400) from where it used to be a few years back ($2500-3000+). It'd be my go to if I ever were to find myself on a safari in Africa (though can't say I miss not having super telephoto here in Aus.)