Welcome to the IHoP v.2

[///M5 2,833]

Canon choices for APS
 

Lens	Focal Length	F stop	Price
Canon	24	2.8	$149
Canon	35	1.4	$1,799
Canon	50	1.4	$399
Canon	50	1.2	$1,449
Canon	85	1.2	$1,999
Canon	85	1.8	$419
Canon	135	2	$999
Canon	200	2	$5,699
Canon	17-55	2.8	$879
Canon	70-200	2.8	$2,099
Rokinon	12	2	$314
Sigma	50-100	1.8	$1,099
Sigma	30	1.4	$499
Sigma	50	1.4	$949
Sigma	18-35	1.8	$799
Tokina	11-16	2.8	$479
Rokinon	50	1.2	$449
Rokinon	85	1.4	$299
Rokinon	135	2	$549

[///M5 2,833]

Nikon choices for APS

Lens	Focal Length	F stop	Price
Nikkor	24	1.8	$747
Nikkor	35	1.8	$196
Nikkor	50	1.4	$446
Nikkor	85	1.4	$1,596
Nikkor	135	2	$1,391
Nikkor	200	2	$5,695
Nikkor	17-35	2.8	$1,951
Nikkor	70-200	2.8	$1,951
Sigma	50-100	1.8	$1,099
Sigma	30	1.4	$499
Sigma	50	1.4	$949
Sigma	18-35	1.8	$799
Tokina	11-16	2.8	$479
Rokinon	135	2	$549

[///M5 2,833]

Sony choices on 6300

Lens	Focal Length	F stop	Price
Rokinon	12	2	$314
Sigma	50-100	1.8	$1,099
Sony	20	2.8	$348
Sony	28	2	$448
Sony	50	1.4	$448
Sony	50	1.8	$248
Sony	55	1.8	$998
Sony	85	1.4	$1,798
Sony	16-50	2.8	$798
Sony	28-75	2	$898
Sony	70-200	2.8	$2,998
Sigma	30	1.4	$499
Sigma	50	1.4	$949
Sigma	18-35	1.8	$799
Tokina	11-16	2.8	$479
Rokinon	50	1.2	$449
Rokinon	85	1.4	$299
Rokinon	135	2	$549

[///M5 2,833]

Fuji mirrorless choices

Lens	Focal Length	F stop	Price
Fuji	16	1.4	$999
Fuji	56	1.2	$999
Fuji	50-140	2.8	$1,599
Panasonic	25	1.7	$247
Rokinon	12	2	$314
Rokinon	50	1.2	$449
Rokinon	85	1.4	$299
Rokinon	135	2	$549

[///M5 2,833]

Mirrorless 4:3 choices

Lens	Focal Length	F stop	Price
Olympus	12	2	$799
Olympus	25	1.8	$399
Olympus	45	1.8	$399
Olympus	50	1.2	USED
Olympus	75	1.8	$899
Olympus	40-150	2.8	$1,499
Panasonic	15	1.7	$597
Panasonic	25	1.7	$247
Panasonic	42.5	1.2	$1,597
Panasonic	35-100	2.8	$1,297
Panasonic	14	2.5	$297
Panasonic	20	1.7	$297
Panasonic	12-35	2.8	$997
Rokinon	12	2	$314
Sony	55	1.8	$998
Voigtlander	17.5	0.95	$899
Voigtlander	25	0.95	$799
Voigtlander	42.5	0.95	$799
Rokinon	50	1.2	$449
Rokinon	85	1.4	$299
Rokinon	135	2	$549

[///M5 2,833]

Obviously you can see I am playing with all variables.

The Fuji is the most complete non-Nikon/Canon system in a small body but I think that its future will be limited since it is unique.  

Considering Sony's propensity to put some much tech into the body, if Sigma and others start to focus on converters for glass it could the right long term solution.

Yes, aargh!!!

[///M5 2,833]

All prices B&H or Adorama.  Only listed lenses that potentially I could own.  I did no research on the quality of many of them, just the Fstop and range.  Next step in my process is to put together option packages and then research them.

If I weren't scared of the Sigma reliability it would be easier.

[///M5 2,833]

Either way I am interested in playing with the 50-100 Sigma 1.8.  

[///M5 2,833]

The 70-200 Canon is sick though.  Do you hear the autofocus motor much in video Matt?  I couldn't hear it at all in the store.

[///M5 2,833]

Just now, dem beats said:

I think you are having a dilemma of what paradigm you want to be in.

 

Yes, but the dilemma is straightforward.  If I can do what I need with something smaller and long term not give up anything that is the route I will go.  That is not today, but I am willing to adopt a little early to wait for the bodies to catch up.  Bodies are disposable, glass not.  I realize I can flip lenses as well, but if there is no lens then there is no system.  

[///M5 2,833]

Playing with the kit lenses from Canon/Olympus/Fuji yesterday really nailed home the point.  They are all basically useless.  I didn't try the Nikons but even if they are better it isn't enough to warrant using.  AF was slow as dirt, couldn't lock in light that isn't good, and zero bokeh.  I would MUCH rather have a camera with a 50mm 1.4 equivalent and nothing else than all the range in the world with lesser glass.

Exactly why I am drawn to the 50-100mm 1.8.  I don't really "need" the 200 and using a TC to get there and only stepping up to F3.6 will make those shots worse, but if the others are better it would be worth it to me.  Of course that lens will fit on my current camera and eventually scale to mirrorless which would mean I would keep the 70d atm.

[///M5 2,833]

Of course on a Sony body it would have image stabilization though which is sorely lacking on the Canon/Nikons

While I also generally prefer the lens stabilization, there is no reason to not have it in both locations.

[///M5 2,833]

Sorry Ryan.  Realize this is the opposite of what you wanted. 

 

....and how I feel during the gun talk, although I find it interesting as specialty tools of any type I find wicked cool

[///M5 2,833]

Hopefully those shopping lists helped you MK.

A 24mm 2.8 STM for video and wider shots and a 50mm 1.4 will buy you 90% of what you need.  Landscape will require stitching or a wider lens and you'll have nothing long, but you can take great shots.  

[dem beats 1,223]

I think Maybe I can chime in with some data points here that might help others too.  I went extremely safe and traditional.

I rarely go wide so I have the 16-35 2.8 L. The 11-24 would be awesome... But being more than the lens I use the most, I can't justify.

The next lens is the 24-70mm 2.8. I chose Tamron. The Tamron has IS and at the time it was the only option that did. I'll go into more on that later.

The next lens is the 70-200 ISii 2.8 L. This is the best lens. It has so much intangible value that I would use it even when it's not the ideal focal length. It's so capable I'll get more usable shots even when it's not the right took specifically.

 

I suplement my kit with a 50mm 1.2 and the 2x extender. The extender and the big whitey gives me a range from 16mm to 400mm and further on a crop sensor in one bag. The 50mm 1.2 is the most affordable hyper low light lens and it means I can shoot in moonlight and get completely usable images. If I ever wish to do video it's also a real brute.

[dem beats 1,223]

I had to have a philosophy and truely set priorities. So what are the pillars and paradigms?

My goal was to not have equipment hold me back without spending for the sake of spending. I'm known for trying to buy my way out of problems and I didn't want to spend more for things that won't help me.... Like a noctilux or similar.

So what helps me get shots? 90% of the time I just want more light. IS is extremely helpful, but I shoot action normally and shutter speed is ends up being too fast for IS to be the only answer. I drink less caffeine now and I have noticed my hands are more steady as I get healthier too... So I really look for the widest aperature. I could focus on flash, but that is more for staged shots IMHO so I'm not going to rely on that either.

 

So the primary focus points are.....

 

#1) Wide Aperature. If it's not f2.8 capable I'm going to be really frustrated. Not only do I get better isolation and bokeh I get more shots that are usable. In Rome and PR I could not have done the weddings without it.

 

#2) Focus speed and acuracy. This is why the 70-200 is the God lens for my kit. With that lens my confidence is unparalleled. Dynamic capability is key, and big whitey does way more than any other lens and usually more than a combination of lenses. Its frustratingly good because the only lenses that could beat it are other more expensive Canon white lenses.

 

#3) Stabilization. I'm glad I listened to Sean about this. I didn't think I would need it so much.  Its absolutely needed if you are holding your camera.  Even when using fast shutter speeds it gets about 15% more usable shots when under crazy dynamic situations. That's an insane amount. Absolutely nuts.

 

 

[dem beats 1,223]

1 hour ago, ///M5 said:

The 70-200 Canon is sick though.  Do you hear the autofocus motor much in video Matt?  I couldn't hear it at all in the store.

Silent enough for anything I'm going to do. If it's not ok in some silent situation I best those foam lens jackets would shut it up.

[dem beats 1,223]

For the record I could replace the wide zoom and the standard zoom with primes. I could not replace the 70-200 With primes. No primes are as good when you take into account the AF and amazing image quality at the moment.

Having only 4 lenses to keep track of us really nice for me. Even with a second shooter using the wide or standard zoom, I still feel confident having the 50mm and the 70-200. As my only go to. Not perfect for group shots but I can make it work with a FF.

 

 

Also  as to why I went FF. I don't think it's specifically better, but it's a larger landing zone for light. Its also nice when I really want to make some shallow DOF.

Edited May 28, 2016 by dem beats

[///M5 2,833]

On an APS sensor the 12-35 1.8 and 50-100 1.8 with an extender may be enough.

The only caveat is I would want a stabilized body then

[///M5 2,833]

The 18-35 looks awesome.  If the 50-100 is as good I am intrigued.

[dem beats 1,223]

Sean can you help with how a 1.8 on those sensors works?

Our cellphones are 1.8 I think, My concern is that it's still not going to be sensitive enough or deal with ISO well enough to Make images as nice as my FF with 2.8. 

 

I don't know enough about how that math works, but I feel like I get more light with the bid camera.

:-D

[///M5 2,833]

Sensor size on the phone is TEENY, gathers shit for light

Your Rebel has a 1.6 crop.  If you put your 70-200 on it the FL will go to 1.6*(70-200) or 112-320mm and the light gathering goes from 2.8 to 2.8*1.6 or 4.5.

Depth of field of the lens is not altered at all, you may perceive it differently though since you have to move to get the same picture in the field of view thus changing your overall dof as it is based not on the lens but its position to the target you are shooting.

1.8 on an APS is equivalent to 2.8 on a FF.  If you have a sensor that has the equal noise curve the light capabilities should be within some reasonable minimal uncertainty.  I used a lot of assumptions there, but just trying to explain how it works not be uber specific.  

[///M5 2,833]

So if you cell phone has a crop factor of 8 (no idea what it is but I would guess even more) you get to multiply that great under 2 fstop by a HUGE number

So yeah, phones are not good at all in low light

[///M5 2,833]

Exactly why I was hoping Samsung would stay in the camera market.  The tech they make for their phones applied to an APS sensor would be the bomb.  Also part of the reason I think long term the winner is going to be Sony or another tech company to eventually own the removeable lens camera market 

[dem beats 1,223]

1 hour ago, ///M5 said:

Sensor size on the phone is TEENY, gathers shit for light

Your Rebel has a 1.6 crop.  If you put your 70-200 on it the FL will go to 1.6*(70-200) or 112-320mm and the light gathering goes from 2.8 to 2.8*1.6 or 4.5.

Depth of field of the lens is not altered at all, you may perceive it differently though since you have to move to get the same picture in the field of view thus changing your overall dof as it is based not on the lens but its position to the target you are shooting.

1.8 on an APS is equivalent to 2.8 on a FF.  If you have a sensor that has the equal noise curve the light capabilities should be within some reasonable minimal uncertainty.  I used a lot of assumptions there, but just trying to explain how it works not be uber specific.  

This is what I needed. I'm kinda proud I had that as a general theory in my head though!

 

Lol

 

:-D