Rainbow Chaser wrote:
Crazy idea, but worth considering!
Sorry, but I don't understand. Can you explain a little? Are you just saying, "cropped", because of the sensor size?
I keep coming back to those two primes for this reason. I hate carrying anything. Their small size should keep the overall center of gravity near the heart of the body.
I'm mostly photographing random scenes I find when out walking during summer travels.
I wouldnt really want 50 and 28mm for that, I'd rather have the 18-150, myself. I use 18-55 and 55-250 lately vs 18-135 probably better iq more reach and i like macro on 55-250's although 18-55 IS seems good for macro. You'd have to adapt i guess
As far as 45 1.2, the main advantage is the 1.2. If you want 71mm ff equivalent (might be good for portraits) 1.2 gives great low light performance and helps get rid of bg which is tough to do around 50mm. Not likely to see much difference between the 1.2 and lighter less expensive 50 1.8 by 5.6 imo though
Rainbow Chaser wrote:
Crazy idea, but worth considering!
Sorry, but I don't understand. Can you explain a little? Are you just saying, "cropped", because of the sensor size?
I keep coming back to those two primes for this reason. I hate carrying anything. Their small size should keep the overall center of gravity near the heart of the body.
I'm mostly photographing random scenes I find when out walking during summer travels.
I had to crop the image to get a full picture of the hawk in the frame, the same with the moon.
If you look into extreme tele, do check the 600 f/11 too for a 960mm field of view. When I had the R7, I used the 1280mm (800/11) with some success. But the extreme reach fooled me into shooting wildlife at great and convenient distances... which turned out mostly disaster due to temperature shimmer.
The 800/11 is 35% heavier (1260g vs 930g) and 41% longer (291mm vs 207mm) in their collapsed state.
960mm is also extreme tele, but in a substantially smaller and lighter package. The 800/11 I take when I know Iīll use it, the 600/11 as a bonus lens that wont break my back or spirit, but might save the day if an unexpected opportunity presents itself. Like the RF16, it fits the bag and adds something very special.
The comparably small and very light RF 100-400 also makes a well balanced combo with the R100.
Rainbow Chaser wrote:
Crazy idea, but worth considering!
Sorry, but I don't understand. Can you explain a little? Are you just saying, "cropped", because of the sensor size?
I keep coming back to those two primes for this reason. I hate carrying anything. Their small size should keep the overall center of gravity near the heart of the body.
I'm mostly photographing random scenes I find when out walking during summer travels.
Cropping: basically trimming the image. Let's say you printed ~8x10, and just took scissors and cut out the part of the image you wanted, thats cropping. Of course it's done digitally, in software
Another thing you can do is take a macro lens, thats what I usually do, just looking around. A lot of zooms focus closely and can do well, Tokina 100 had been inexpensive, older Canon 50 and 100 macros probably pretty inexpensive, can be adapted, probably good optically
The 18-150 is pretty light, about the same as EF 18-55 + adapter. That's going to be hard to beat. Idk how good optical performance is, but it can be improved using DLO (Digital lens Optimizer) in DPP, on RAW files
Z250SA wrote:
If you look into extreme tele, do check the 600 f/11 too for a 960mm field of view. When I had the R7, I used the 1280mm (800/11) with some success. But the extreme reach fooled me into shooting wildlife at great and convenient distances... which turned out mostly disaster due to temperature shimmer.
The 800/11 is 35% heavier (1260g vs 930g) and 41% longer (291mm vs 207mm) in their collapsed state.
960mm is also extreme tele, but in a substantially smaller and lighter package. The 800/11 I take when I know Iīll use it, the 600/11 as a bonus lens that wont break my back or spirit, but might save the day if an unexpected opportunity presents itself. Like the RF16, it fits the bag and adds something very special.
The comparably small and very light RF 100-400 also makes a well balanced combo with the R100....Show more →
+1
The 100-400 on the R100 (160-640) is a great, light weight combination
Jim
Rainbow Chaser wrote:
I keep coming back to those two primes for this reason. I hate carrying anything.
I'm mostly photographing random scenes I find when out walking during summer travels.
I cut up one of your posts as I think it's relevant to the conversation. It seems that you have a fairly obvious use case, which would fall into a kind of street photography. It may be worth doing some reading up on different view points in that genre to see if they align with your goals. If they do, then it might also help give some inspiration into what type of gear to carry.
You might be able to get away with only bringing the RF 28mm and the body, and then figuring out how to make it work. That certainly would be more freeing than worrying about having to swap back and forth between lenses. I definitely can understand wanting to have something longer on hand, and it may be worthwhile to have that zoom with you as well. That said you may find that you never bother to mount it, or you just leave that lens on all the time because it's more convenient. It's really going to come down to figuring out how you like to photograph and what works best for you.
Rainbow Chaser wrote:
Does shooting in the cold help with temperature shimmer?
Nope, it actually can be worse. "Heat shimmer" is simply a product of a temperature difference between two areas. Any time the sun is bright it's going to heat up surfaces that it's shining on. Some of my worst heat shimmer is the sun shining on top of ice on a river where the air is warmer than the surface below it. There's not a way to fix the distortion at this time, and the only work around is to get closer or pick another time where the conditions change.
I would go with either the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm or the Sigma RF 30mm f/1.4.
The Sigma 30mm is more affordable, it's field of view on crop is a tad more flexible, it lets in more light, and it's most likely a tad sharper on a crop camera.
The Canon has image stabilization and it's also usable on a full frame camera.
30mm = 48mm full frame equivalent
35mm = 56mm full frame equivalent
As a general purpose lens I would definitely prefer 48mm. 56mm is pretty narrow which is limiting for normal purposes.
Rainbow Chaser wrote:
Does shooting in the cold help with temperature shimmer?
50° day in February much more likely to have a lot of shimmer vs 95°F in July believe it or not.
But, I mean, you mostly have to have a tele to get close enough to do wildlife etc. Kinda have to try it that day mostly imo. You might not notice it if its not too bad and you dont have anything to compare it to, I'd guess, mostly shoot if I see something good, suppose if the sharpness is no good maybe won't use it
Rainbow Chaser wrote:
Does shooting in the cold help with temperature shimmer?
No. Thatīs why I try to remember to write temperature shimmer. As bman21 says above, it is when air masses with different temps mix, cold or hot. Itīs the diff. Moisture might also be part of the phenomenon. The more air you shoot thru, the worse it will be. Therefore the humongous reach we got with the 800īs Canon suddenly provided for the masses has made the phenomenon very apparent to the same masses. We suddenly get the same size duck in the viewfinder at 80m as we had at 30m with the shorter teles we could afford before the f/11īs.
Well, I got the worst images at 30m of a male crane (Grus grus) that tried to find something suspect close to its nest. Just twirl and blurl. My expectations were sky high with my splendid 100-500 on the high megapixel R7. Yes, the higher resolution sensor the worse too.
The only way to maybe, and that is a long shot, is to machine gun it. I have a few cases where a talon and beak of an eagle just happened to be sharp in on images. But it is mostly infinite unlikelihood. A better word is mush.
From a artistic POV shimmer can be wonderful indeed. But not when you hope to mirror yourself in the eye of a crane.
Amazing food for thought from you guys. I think the first step is just to let the R100 shine when given ample, quality light.
See if you agree with my thought process:
Among primes like those mentioned in this thread (and none heavier), is there one that can be expected to show off what the R100 is capable of in good light, especially for people photos in JPEG mode? This might simply be another way of asking which prime, if any, matches uniquely well with the R100 for this kind of photography.
The reason I'm asking is because I could start with such an exemplary lens. Later, when I add another lens, I'm in a good position to compare results. When comparing to the best (or better), I'll be able to see the compromises made by another lens.
Somewhere along the path (maybe over years), I can figure out how to handle low light and the lack of IBIS.
If the "best" happens to be low-light capable, then so much the better.
I like the RF 24 1.8 Macro IS STM on my R7 for low light: sharp, faster focusing and more surefooted than the RF 35 1.8 and has excellent IS (4 or 5 stops?). It's also small and light and I use the macro (1:2) feature a lot for travel details, flat art and flowers. Decent bokeh as well:
Clitoria Ternatea Flower | Mōʻiliʻili Community Garden | Honolulu HI | R7 and RF 24 1.8 Macro IS STM
Hibiscus | Mōʻiliʻili Community Garden | Honolulu, Hawaii | R7 and RF 24 1.8 Macro IS STM
The short answer: Any of the primes are good choices, especially if you're going to use them between F4 - F8.
The long answer:
Picking a lens is far more that what you might think about on the surface. The logical thought is big object = wide lens. Low light = fast aperture. But in the world of photography neither of those matter. An example would be you can photograph an airplane up close with a 16mm lens, or you can photograph it using an 800mm lens. The two will produce vastly different results. The same can be said for F1.4 vs F16. So part of the thought process is being intentional about why you chose the settings you did and how they are working to enhance your vision. (Same thing for shutter speed, which tends to be one of the more overlooked settings at first)
So doing an A / B test of like a 16mm vs a 50mm doesn't really make a lot of sense because you probably aren't trying to do the same thing with them. You will be able to see a significant difference in how the photos compose. But honestly the reality is that you probably won't see things, which is why I'd suggest the prime first. (When you look back at the photos 10 years from now you might appreciate some of the little nuances of a prime versus a budget zoom. The budget zoom can be good, but my opinion is that it has more variables to control that you might overlook initially.)
I can give a great example off hand. If I see a great photo I might not be able to explain why it's great, but over time the more you photograph and the more you learn, the more things you'll pick out. There was a time I didn't see catchlights in people's eyes, just that the lighting looked great. Now any photo of a person I'm studying the catchlight to see what kind of light they used and what angle it was light from.
So I wouldn't worry about nitpicking minor differences in image quality, it's more about making sure there are broad strokes that are in the right direction. Gochugogi showed that you can get good results from even the budget zoom, but I think you need to be a more more intentional about how you utilize it.
bman212121 wrote:
So doing an A / B test of like a 16mm vs a 50mm doesn't really make a lot of sense because you probably aren't trying to do the same thing with them.
I see your point. If it makes more sense, we could limit choices to the following to compare image quality in good light:
Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM
Canon RF 28mm f/2.8 STM
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary
Sometimes the question is what access you have available. If you're at an aviation museum, maybe the only lens that works is a 16mm because there's other exhibits nearby and a barrier in your way. If you're at an airshow, that 800mm may be the only way you can get close to the plane when in the sky.
That intentional process mentioned above is really the creative part about photography.
Rainbow Chaser wrote:
Among primes like those mentioned in this thread (and none heavier), is there one that can be expected to show off what the R100 is capable of in good light, especially for people photos in JPEG mode?
I think the first order of business is to choose a focal length, and then decide among the available lens options.
I mention this because the field of view difference between something like the Canon 24 and Sigma 30 (38mm versus 48mm) will have a larger practical significance for your images than anything else about these two lenses.
For example, it's great that the Canon 24 has image stabilization, but if you don't get on with the focal length, that won't matter.
The RF 24mm is a bit sharper in the center of the image, the RF 28mm is more consistent across the frame meaning that it has similar sharpness from the center all the way to the edge.
Why those two differences matter and how you would utilize them.
The RF24mm is going to help enhance items in the center of the frame. Gochugogi's pictures of flowers are a great example where you want the viewer to look at the flower, and don't really care about the background that's around the outside. The 24mm is going to aide you with that because eyes tend to be drawn toward the sharper areas.
The RF28mm can be better when your subject fills the entire frame, and you want detail out to the edges. tsangc's image of the plane is a great example of that because the wing goes all the way to the edge of the frame, and the lettering on the wing is not centered in the view. A more consistent frame can help with sharpness to keep the fuselage of the plane sharp while still highlighting the wing.
Those a very subtle details that when first using the lens you probably won't notice. But over time if you really hone in on a lens you can utilize those differences to your advantage.
Unfortunately there isn't a chart for the sigma lens in Canon mount. There's a lot to unpack now because in EF all of the 3rd parties didn't autofocus as well as native lenses, but I'm not sure if that's the case in RF mount now.
One final comment is that you're going to have to determine what's most important to you in features. the RF28mm F2.8 STM is a pancake style lens and is much smaller and cheaper than the RF24mm. The RF24mm has image stabilization, macro capabilities, and the ability to have a more shallow Depth of Field. It also costs twice as much. If I were picking for myself I wouldn't choose either of those, I'd be picking the RF 24 - 70mm F2.8L. The compromise is that it's double the size, three times the weight and four times the cost. But the image quality will be good no matter where you use it. That lens is in the complete opposite direction you are trying to go, which is why I don't think I'm the right person to give you a great answer between the lenses you are choosing.
As the headline on this thread is rather general, Lenses for the R100, Iīd like to add the 24-240. As my lightest do-it-all kit when wildlife might show up more than landscape, the 38-380mm field of view has brought some nice images home. The RF 24-240 deserves far more positive comments here around than it gets. Perhaps the contributors here are too specialized and use their preferred FLīs, where as the 24-240 is the sole magnificent Jack of All Trades. But contrary to the classic JAT, the 24-240 is expert of many! Except the coveted shallow depth of sharp focus, mastery of blurred backgrounds. Those takes some planning and/or luck to get.
Although the 24-240 is smallish for itīs capabilities, it is rather heavy on the R100, better balanced on a R5 sized body. But the 24-240 on the R100 is actually a spectacular package for opportunistic general photography. I would feel naked without this lens.
---
Remember when you read the reviews on The Digital Picture, a site I use for reference, is that he shows the aberrations as they are. For FF lenses he use FF bodies, so with a crop sensor you wont get the corners he show, but you will demand more of the center part of the lens due to the denser more demanding crop sensors. The 24Mp crop would be a 61Mp FF sensor if the same pixels are used.
Furthermore lens corrections in post processing takes care of most of the aberrations. What you get with expensive lenses, the Līs, is mostly much more subtle than brute sharpness or lower aberrations, especially in the end result.
