>24mm to 105mm
>f/2.8 throughout on FF
Is this literally the most versatile zoom lens to ever exist?

>>4440506 (OP)
That reward would go to my feet. Tyvm!

>>4440506 (OP)
35-150 f2-2.8

As phone photos main wide cameras start to look better, focal lengths <35mm start to look like phones. And since you're doing "impressing normies" photography with an unwieldly behemoth (that still compromises rendering espec. color and contrast) like this, focal length is how you stand out from the wedding guests phone photos.

For artistic and studio photography primes are always preferred. While a zoom can resolve as many line pairs at some focal lengths, primes always do so with more contrast, saturation, and generally all that stuff called "tonality" from losing less light to reflections and general optical weirdness.

For normie "memories" photography this thing is totally fucking useless due to the cost and handling/logistics. A smaller lens like the kit zoom would mog it by 1: leaving the hotel room 2: not getting stolen, frankly.

>>4440506 (OP)
Yes.

>>4440509
This. Theoretically I like the Tameron more

>>4440509
>35-150mm
>versatile

>>4440509
>color and contrast
Can someone explain why these are good or important to have in a lens when we can set wb and adjust for tints and increase contrast digitally? I get the importance for film but if anything a lens decreasing contrast is useful when bringing it back is 0.5s of adjusting a slider. I've never thought "this raw file doesn't have enough contrast" but I frequently think the opposite when a scene has too much DR. (I also seriously doubt this lens has any trouble with colors.)
Anyway, most of your post misses the point of this lens which is wedding and event photography. 2.8 is often enough for indoors with high end bodies these days. Not having to swap when you want portraits in the 85-105 range is genuinely useful to these people. It's obviously not for studio photography.

>>4440506 (OP)
too big heavy and expensive for /p/

>>4440522
getting a better result out of the camera is always preferred. Editing only extends your ability so far

>>4440523
the weight is actually a big deal tho
you practically need a rig for it

>>4440525
just go to the gym

>>4440506 (OP)
Sigma 28-105 f/2.8 already exists, costs half as much and weighs 400g less.
But I guess you lose a whole 4mm on the wide end.

>>4440524
When the auto adjust fixes these issues entirely I don't agree anymore.

>>4440526
going to the gym doesn't negate a million years of evolution
carrying 10lbs on your neck all day will fuck your spine

>>4440532
It's not for free though. Pushing shit you fucked up results in a loss in image quality. Granted for certain applications it's not a big deal. But if I dot paid to do portraits I wouldn''t be breaking out the tameron
>>4440534
So don't carry it around your neck. I've never seen someone with a camera strap in public

>>4440509
24mm vs 35mm is infinitely more useful than 150mm vs 105mm.
>>4440522
Its just cope. He probably doesnt shoot Canon so cant mount a 24-105/2.8.

>>4440525
It's not the weight because it's a load it's the weight because it smacks against you all the time and you need to prevent the camera for hitting stuff.

>>4440522
>Can someone explain why these are good or important to have in a lens when we can set wb and adjust for tints and increase contrast digitally?
Because trying to edit in missing information does not work. It looks unnatural. Also see: "Every lens is sharp because photoshop has a sharpness slider" - Len Rockwell
>I doubt this lens has any trouble
It's a digitally corrected canon, and a zoom. It's never going to render like a summilux.
>Still the point is weddings
Yeah, so you shouldn't be using 24mm that looks like a phone

>>4440539
>24mm is useful
Snapshit focal length, looks the same as a galaxy s24 ultra's main camera. Take less than two steps back. If you need more, you need way more, use an UWA f4 zoom.

>>4440556
>Snapshit focal length
p is so funny sometimes

>>4440506 (OP)
ef 70-300mm f/4-5.6

>>4440518
>just get closer anon

>>4440578
too dark. Too close

>>4440585
>too close
i disagree, not close enough i've been thinking of getting that 600mm ef tamron but i'm poor as shit
>too dark
yes, i have had that issue

>>4440586
>i disagree
Then you're just looking for a regular telephoto anon.
35-150 is the most versatile range. They make them for events of journalism. Easy to get wide and capture a lot that's close to you or enough zoom to keep you away from crazy shit going on

>>4440588
honest i find myself using 55 a lot anyway

>>4440507
this nigga walking through walls n shieet

>>4440556
>Take less than two steps back.
NOT how FOV works, READ A BOOK

>>4440632
is there really a great utility in having your diagonals being at a more extreme angle?

>>4440650
>Pays $7000 (body+lens)
>Takes 24mm snapshit
ISHYGDDT

>>4440506 (OP)
You forgot to mention you need to dela with the weight and size

>>4440578
you mean the 75-300. the lens was so good canon rereleased it on RF mount with almost no changes!

>>4440506 (OP)
Who the fuck is daily carrying a general purpose zoom this large? The entire purpose of a GP zoom is the fact you couldn't be arsed that day to bring a proper kit with you.
>>4440681
I don't fucking believe they did that. Rotating focusing motor in THIS day and age? They really did just have extra units lying around at the factory that day and figured a new mount will do. If someone enjoys it then whatever, but damn.

>>4440681
>>4440578(me)
mine starts at 70

>>4440707
yours wasn't good enough to be rereleased on RF mount

>>4440506 (OP)
>Only portrait lengths
I'll take my 3.5-5.6 28-210 any day of the week, thanks.

>>4440555
>Because trying to edit in missing information does not work. It looks unnatural. Also see: "Every lens is sharp because photoshop has a sharpness slider" - Len Rockwell
How is adding contrast the same as adding information that wasn't there before? Do you have an example of this effect?

>>4440836
>original scene: gradual gradient from color A to color B
>capture scene with technological issues, lens washout/poor SNR/lacking color depth/etc
>have a less gradual gradient from color A to color B
>try to fix contrast with sliders or curves
>actually exaggerate the issue
Artistically a shit camera can work in your favor if you want less smooth, less 3d looking stuff and more harshness. Terry richardson famously used a lumix gf1 for taking the trashiest looking pictures ever. But tonality is still a real thing you have to get right in camera. This is what people call 3d pop, and why it was pinned to lens element counts for a while. Internal veiling flare.

>>4440838
ah right of course

>>4440839
Yannick is a bit of a schizo because he doesn't actually know how lenses work (and later rescinded EVERYTHING when he found out coating efficiency > element count) but mate if you cant see the difference here you gotta fix your screen

Six figure pros are not still buying leica/hasselblad/rodenstock/cooke for shits and giggles. It's their version of "FF just looks better than m43".

>>4440537
going to the gym will not make it smaller, wielding this lens + camera is an absolute choir, you will get discouraged at the 2nd day after you bought to take outside with you.

>>4440844
>an absolute choir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1H_aH6H2zQ

>>4440844
small asian girls lug around 24-120 lenses all day

>>4440843
different yes, but you'd still never be able to pick out which is which in blind comparison

>>4440874
>i swear to god bro it doesnt matter b-b-b-b-because-
You are visually illiterate, I know. And this is a mild example, sigma vs nikon, not canon's window glass zoom vs a good hasselblad prime.

Nikon telezoom vs teleprime has an even more obvious difference because only the reflectance changes, not the brand. It might as well be different trees and a different cat. Go crank that slider if you want the plasticky m43 look DOE.

>>4440851
yeah in place of their pure

it is the nature of a Man to abhor a bouncing weight to manage unless it kills things

>>4440878
cope for being weak

>>4440879
I can carry a 60lb load for miles and go hiking with that plus a 20lb rifle regularly, but a bazooka camera bouncing around at the ready is obnoxious, and so its trying to keep it from hitting stuff.

>>4440881
wow I wonder how professional nature photographers exist

>>4440847
>>4440851
no thank you, better alternatives exist, enjoy carrying bricks.

>>4440885
For one, they're actually getting something out of the weight, instead of a lame 24-105mm and a slow f2.8.

>>4440877
>higher ISO is worse
True

>>4440893
> slow f2.8.
you'd hate to see what nature photographers use

>>4440877
https://bcgforums.com/threads/nikon-z-400-4-5-vs-z-100-400mm-real-wild-life-comparison.40720/
>using this to say there's a major difference
>meanwhile the forum post its from says "Is there a difference in bokeh? It is very difficult to tell..." and "Would you believe that there are two different photos? Only if you look at the settings..."
not even ElenaH agrees with you and she took the damn pictures anon.

>>4440877
You are coping. These are comparisons with the same settings applied, not made to look as close as possible or as good as possible. Any difference would be completely obliterated by the smallest movement to a slider in the raw editor.

>>4440877
>Comparing f/4.5 to f/5.6
LMAO what.

>>4440911
they don't use 24 105 for sure

>>4440506 (OP)
Looks like my Tamron 70-200mm G2, which is considered the best tele lens in that focal range. Build quality is also similar from appearance.

I have 24mm prime and that tele and I think it does everything I need on my APS-C.

>>4441040
boomers are literally colorblind. never trust someone over 50 about color science or tonality. just look at the degradation of annie leibovitz's work. she has people editing for her now lol.
https://www.hunterlab.com/blog/how-our-perception-of-color-changes-as-we-age/

>>4440506 (OP)
Yes. All systems should have a 24-105/2.8.

>>4441774
*All systems should have a 35-150 f2-2.8

>>4441776
they should just make it f2.8 all the way through and save some money

>>4441776
>Starts at 35mm
lol

>>4440877
Why does the prime have such awful CA? Left looks better despite being less colorful.

>>4441776
24-35 is much more useful than 105-150

>>4441776
Fucking retard

>>4440509
The fact is that you can't crop out, only in. You can't turn a 35mm photo into a 24, but you can turn a 105 into a 150. I also think of zooms in terms of the typical primes they "contain." From 105 to 150, there's only 135. From 35 to 24, there's 28 and 24.

>>4445218
Cropping is a cope and 24mm is a useless focal length that makes every photo look like it was shot on an iphone 16 pro.

>>4445222
you have never shot indoors

>>4445232
24mm professionally is only good for gwac wedding photographers who have to shoot arbitrarily large groups in small spaces while being too beta to tell them to form two rows. otherwise it's a street photography and environmental portrait range that works better as a smaller prime instead of a cannot pos r bazooka lens.

35-150 is a real professional's working range.

>>4445234
I see you've never been in a museum before

>>4445232
>>4445259
He's coping because he doesnt own a Canon so he's stuck with his only 3rd party 35-150 option

What is this obsession over 24 mm? It's still a good focal length, it has not become bad since smartphones use it.

>>4441776
your dad shouldn't have forgotten to pull out.

>>4445268
It's a newfag looking for a gimmick.

>>4445268
It just doesn't do anything special. It used to before phones all used 24 and 28mm eFL. Even with annecdotal experience I can say that going wider <20mm results in far more interesting capabilities, and going narrower 35mm> gives you traditional SLR/DSLR framing. It's not some unbreakable rule or anything (and some anons getting hung up about it is cringe), but it can be a bit plain and snapshitty.

>>4445268
I want a 100nm lens

>>4440522
>Can someone explain why these are good or important to have in a lens
hallo saar
for able to has did the needful we must process image yes?
if we process image why needful obtain capture good quality when we just process anyway? hmm?

The same reason using a lens hood improves image quality. Zoomers will have more chromatic abberations, distortion, glare, color shift, and none of that can actually be corrected in post.

>>4445400
I just make the AI give me new colors until I like.
AI can do all the thing now, so no need for expensive stuff. I use iphone, make image quality very amazing in the lightroom

What sort of computational shitfuckery goes into not having retard amounts of distortion throughout 80% of its zoom range? Am I right in thinking the only EF mount lenses with such a range were only for the cropped EF-S mount and wouldn't physically mount to a film era EOS? I guess wedding photographers will eat this shit up anyway.

>>4440509
>focal lengths <35mm start to look like phones
There are many <35mm lenses that render beautifully and completely BTFO a smartphone out of the water. Even a snapshit like pic rel does it. Sensor size is what counts and phones will forever have tiny ones. As a matter of fact it's only going to get worse for phones are they begin to rely more and more on "computational photography", where at some point the term "photography" will no longer even be applicable (meaning literally drawing by light).

>>4446268
It's entrance pupil size that matters, equivalence. Total collected light.

>>4446271
Fine, let's talk about equivalence. Here's the current best smartphone camera module on the market.
>14mm f/6.9 equiv. | crop factor 3.46 | 50mp 1/1.28″
>35mm f/5.9 equiv. | crop factor 3.46 | 50mp 1/1.28″
>85mm f/8.5 equiv. | crop factor 3.75 | 200mp 1/1.4″
LMAO

>>4446277
>mechanical vignetting caused by periscope zoom housing
phonesisters.........i don't feel so good

>>4446277
The only reason phones can hold up as well as they do (which is not great) is because of the automatic shitfuckery that goes on like stacking, bracketing, forced NR/Sharpening, and their jpeg engine.
Anyone arguing that somehow a smaller sensor and smaller lens can take cleaner photos with more detail is not sane.

>>4446277
I don't disagree, just saying the small sensor isn't the problem but the small apertures they use. There's a reason they market them with relative aperture numbers despite being nothing like shooting a real camera with those relative apertures. To the layman, it seems like they're getting some AMAZING optics. Same reasoning behind vidicon sizes when listing their sensors. Misrepresenting the truth with misleading lingo. So the average Joe thinks there's a 1-inch sized sensor (nearly APS-C tier) because it's marketed as "1 inch". The largest dimension is actually 15.9mm (1 inch is 25.4mm)

>>4445392
When you first started your trip, you came off like a genuine photo noob trying to learn more
Now you just come off as retarded as cANON

>>4446294
It's both. Everyone on the site is retarded, but I still want to get better.

>>4446309
Try to be less retarded then

Nah, but this is
>replaces 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 105mm f1.8, 135mm f1.8, and 150mm f1.8, and 200mm f2 (just crop) primes in a single package.
There isn't a single prime lens that Canon sloptuber toy replaces except the defunct 200mm f2.8

>>4446386
The crop makes it a 200m f2.67 equivalent so it just replaces a 70-200 f2.8 by then.

Still pretty good.

But remember, equivalence is a half truth, and does not include ISO because camera sensors are not ideal devices, nor does it account for the relationship between pixel pitch and aberration size (an a7rv is going to basically create CA that doesnt resize away)

And this lens only attaches to cameras that barely last past their warranty period.

>>4446392
>more options for control is a bad thing
Just use the regular dials if you don't like it

>>4446395
>smooth aperture ring
>aperture ring only usable for still for 2024 or later EOS R cameras
>"""more""" options
canoncucks are funny

>>4446398
Would you prefer they omit the aperture ring entirely and then you just use the regular dials instead?

>>4446400
I would prefer if you stopped being a disingenuous brandcuck

>>4446398
These VCM lenses are confusing. It's Canon saying they'd rather commit to hybridsation, but these lenses... who the fuck are they for? The <50 videographers using an R5C?

>>4446402
>Would you prefer they omit the aperture ring entirely and then you just use the regular dials instead?
Why can't you answer a simple question?

>reeeee! you have to answer my disingenuous question!!!
No, I don't think I will.

>>4446400
I would prefer if canon were ran by photographers instead of printer salesmen

But if canon was good, sony wouldn't exist, so we already know how this has been going and will continue

>>4446460
>>4446469
>no I can't answer a simple question directly

>>4446386
>Snoys make fun of crop sensors smaller than FF
>but its a good thing when i cherry pick it!!
Lmao