# The Canon Thread



## lan

I know there's a lot of people interested in photography here and there's already a Nikon thread so I figured it's about time us Canon users had a thread for ourselves. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The latest thing that have been churning in my head is trying to choose a fast prime. One of the things I'm concerned about is autofocus speed. 

 50 f/1.4. I have this already and I find it not fast enough for my needs. I get some missed shots and it's somewhat frustrating.
 85 f/1.8. I hear this is very speedy. Only weakness seems to be chromatic aberations?
 85 f/1.2 has slow autofocus. The II version is faster but is it fast enough? Fast enough for sports? This is also pretty pricey but it's versatile.
 135 f/2. I hear this is very speedy also. I'm thinking this might be the most appropriate for me for subject isolation and indoor sports. Problem is, it's too long for everyday use.

 EDIT: 85 f/1.2 it is. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was messing around with focal length extenders. I tried the Canon 1.4 , Sigma 1.4, and a Kenko 1.5. Oddly the performed differently when focusing. The Canon slowed things down too much for my tastes. Sigma was good. The kenko seems to home in which is odd but it works pretty well as well as working on more lenses since it doesn't have protruding front element.


----------



## darkninja67

I loved my 85mm f/1.8 when I had my XT and 10D. So sharp close to wide open.


----------



## Edwood

Do Canon Camcorders count as well? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## Dimitris

I have a 17-40L, a 50mm f1.4 and a 85mm f1.8. Out of the 3 the 85mm is the fastest and the 17-40 is coming a close second. The 50mm is a bit hit or miss but when you get it to focus it takes very nice photos!


----------



## SayNoToPistons

Finally! I'll post my Elan 7e with craptastic 28-90mm kit lens. Thinking of getting the 108mm.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I know there's a lot of people interested in photography here and there's already a Nikon thread so I figured it's about time us Canon users had a thread for ourselves. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yes about time
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Now we have some catching up to do with the Nikon thread!!!

 RE: fast AF. I can attest to the 135mm 2.0L speed. It is the fastest AF lens I have. No matter what lighting condition, it hardly ever hunts and pecks. Yeah, focal length is questionable for some dSLRs...especially on a 1.6 crop. It was a no brainer of a portrait lens for me, though, since I knew I wanted a FF dSLR. So that pretty much only led me to the Canon camp
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Well since this is a Canon thread, should we start up the rumor mill on what the next Canon might be? a 1Ds mkIII, a 5D mkII, or a 40D? I think the 1Ds is the next that will be upgraded. Canon has to provide good reason why someone would spend twice as much as other Canons just for its MPs.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do Canon Camcorders count as well? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Sure it's made by Canon isn't it? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Can't wait for some of your test footage hehe.


----------



## Dimitris

I hope Canon comes out with a new full frame soon so that the prices for used 5D go down.


----------



## Mrvile

Yay a Canon thread, finally 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'll post the first couple of pics for this thread, taken with ALL CANON gear...

 Sometimes the pop-up flash on the Rebel can come in handy when you forget your lighting equipment at home (Rebel XT, 100mm macro):





 And who doesn't love beautiful flower pics (Rebel XT, 50mm f/1.8):





 Hooray for Canon!


----------



## Sh0eBoX

haha canon user here too! but i don't have anything amazing, as head-fi has sucked away the majority of my money and i'm only in college so i don't have an expendable budget and must choose one hobby at a time 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 --- this is what i've got:

 canon digital rebel xt
 ef-s 18-55mm kit lens
 ef 50mm f/1.8 mkII
 sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG macro
 bogen/manfrotto 3021bpro/488rc2


 i'm trying to find a telephoto to replace my sigma as it has very poor indoor performance and is not fast enough for indoor use. i don't know what to get though as i don't have much money. i can't decide if it's more important to have IS or to have f/2.8 (can't have both, too much money --- actually i don't even know if i can afford the lenses good enough for my needs as it is!)

 i'm debating between the canon 70-200mm f/4L IS and the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ex --- what do you guys think would be a better choice for indoor use? is it more beneficial to have f/2.8 over f/4 or IS over no IS?


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_haha canon user here too! but i don't have anything amazing, as head-fi has sucked away the majority of my money and i'm only in college so i don't have an expendable budget and must choose one hobby at a time 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 --- this is what i've got:

 canon digital rebel xt
 ef-s 18-55mm kit lens
 ef 50mm f/1.8 mkII
 sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG macro
 bogen/manfrotto 3021bpro/488rc2


 i'm trying to find a telephoto to replace my sigma as it has very poor indoor performance and is not fast enough for indoor use. i don't know what to get though as i don't have much money. i can't decide if it's more important to have IS or to have f/2.8 (can't have both, too much money --- actually i don't even know if i can afford the lenses good enough for my needs as it is!)

 i'm debating between the canon 70-200mm f/4L IS and the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ex --- what do you guys think would be a better choice for indoor use? is it more beneficial to have f/2.8 over f/4 or IS over no IS?_

 

IS only helps with camera shake, it won't stop subject movement. If it's too dark to get a high enough shutter speed to stop movement, IS won't help. I'd go with the faster lens for indoors. If you have problems handholding, a monopod will help.

 Fast + IS is more useful, but more $$$. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS is an excellent lens, but very pricey.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And who doesn't love beautiful flower pics (Rebel XT, 50mm f/1.8):



_

 

Nice flower. What kind is it? I've never seen that before.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i'm debating between the canon 70-200mm f/4L IS and the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ex --- what do you guys think would be a better choice for indoor use? is it more beneficial to have f/2.8 over f/4 or IS over no IS?_

 

What exactly are you going to take photos of? I really like IS. I think it depends what you're going after.

 f/2.8 Pros
 - Extra stop of light which allows you stop motion better
 - Can give you your more subject isolation
 - Autofocus is better

 f/4 Pros
 - Lighter lens
 - F4 IS is one of the sharpest Canon lenses
 - more is in focus given that it's f4.

 IS Pros:
 - gives you more handhold ability and more sharp pictures. At night time this is great for non moving subjects
 - another useful thing which people don't mention often is you can increase your depth of field by stopping aperture down. When I'm not perpendicular to my subject and part of them may get out of focus, I stop down to get a bit more.

 Canon Pros:
 - Faster and quiet autofocus (depends which lense but the one you mention, yes). This is important in lower light IMO.
 - L color is awesome

 Sigma Pros:
 - it's cheaper

 One important thing to note is quality when the lens is operating at it's extremes, whether wide open aperture, at it's closest, and farthest focal lengths if it's a zoom. I do not know how Sigma 70-200 2.8 operates at 2.8. On some lenses they become softer. Whether you like that or not is up to you. I know that on some lenses, to me, they are not that useful because I don't like the images. e.g. 50mm @ 1.4. I use that lens at f2. I wouldn't want to buy a faster lense just to stop it down.


----------



## GlendaleViper

I'm currently "between" Canons right now, but should have a new 30D as early as this Friday... and I can't wait! Haven't had an SLR for about 5 years now!


----------



## laxx

I have a Rebel XT with kit lense and BG-E3 battery grip. I'm currently shopping for an everyday lense (I think you guys convinced me on the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 in another thread, especially at <$300 used). I'll also be getting a 70-200 in some variant and I should know which one by Thursday or Friday depending on price (waiting on discount list). And by mid July, I should have a monopod and either a 430EX or 580EX flash.

 But more importantly, I need to practice taking shots.

 I spent a weekend with the 17-40L and it's a ton faster than the kit lense. =T It was a very fun lense to shoot with, though I would have prefered a bit more zoom (taking pictures during a Memorial Day BBQ with about 50 friends). But hey, can't complain when you get to try gear out for free.


----------



## snejk

I have the 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/1.2L, 85/1.8, 135/2L and the 24-105/4L. Used on my 350/Rebel Xt (planning on getting a 5D or the 'sequel'). The 135/2L is amazing but a bit long on 1.6x so it is a bit awkward to use regurarily. My new 50/1.2L is unfortunately misfocusing badly so I need to get it fixed. The 35 doesnt get much use. The single lens I use the most is the 85/1.8 which is the one I'd recommend to people trying out primes; gives good out-of-focus if you need it and the perspective is quite flattering for people shots. I'm a speed freak (as in aperture) so I have a hard time using the 24-105 which is good, but too slow in low light...


----------



## uofmtiger

Another Canon fan here. I only own a couple primes, though (Canon EF 50mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 Macro). My dad has the 85mm mentioned above and it is a great, sharp lens. If you shoot indoors a lot it is worth getting.

 I also have some Canon zoom lenses, a P&S (Powershot S45), and a rarely used video camera (ZR60). Yep! I am a fan!


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *beerguy0* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_IS only helps with camera shake, it won't stop subject movement. If it's too dark to get a high enough shutter speed to stop movement, IS won't help. I'd go with the faster lens for indoors. If you have problems handholding, a monopod will help.

 Fast + IS is more useful, but more $$$. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS is an excellent lens, but very pricey._

 

thanks for that, i didn't really even think about how the IS would not help stop subject movement -- i will take that into consideration

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What exactly are you going to take photos of? I really like IS. I think it depends what you're going after.

 f/2.8 Pros
 - Extra stop of light which allows you stop motion better
 - Can give you your more subject isolation
 - Autofocus is better

 f/4 Pros
 - Lighter lens
 - F4 IS is one of the sharpest Canon lenses
 - more is in focus given that it's f4.

 IS Pros:
 - gives you more handhold ability and more sharp pictures. At night time this is great for non moving subjects
 - another useful thing which people don't mention often is you can increase your depth of field by stopping aperture down. When I'm not perpendicular to my subject and part of them may get out of focus, I stop down to get a bit more.

 Canon Pros:
 - Faster and quiet autofocus (depends which lense but the one you mention, yes). This is important in lower light IMO.
 - L color is awesome

 Sigma Pros:
 - it's cheaper

 One important thing to note is quality when the lens is operating at it's extremes, whether wide open aperture, at it's closest, and farthest focal lengths if it's a zoom. I do not know how Sigma 70-200 2.8 operates at 2.8. On some lenses they become softer. Whether you like that or not is up to you. I know that on some lenses, to me, they are not that useful because I don't like the images. e.g. 50mm @ 1.4. I use that lens at f2. I wouldn't want to buy a faster lense just to stop it down._

 

thanks! lots of good stuff here. i'm not shooting anything in particular... i guess i would just like a versatile lens for whatever comes my way. the sigma is good enough for outdoor shooting, but when i go indoors it's just a pain. If i can find the ef 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS for a similar price i may consider getting that over the sigma, but i have to read up on reviews to find out how much of a difference the canon is over the sigma.

 IS would be useful, but i'm not sure how often i will be taking pictures of moving subjects under low light situations, and how much not having f/2.8 will hinder the performance of the lens.

 oh well, i have plenty of time to do some reading... i don't have enough cash yet to buy a lens like this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 thanks for all the info!


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I spent a weekend with the 17-40L and it's a ton faster than the kit lense._

 

You mean mechanically faster right? The kit lens is sort of close to f4 already.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_IS would be useful, but i'm not sure how often i will be taking pictures of moving subjects under low light situations, and how much not having f/2.8 will hinder the performance of the lens._

 

For me the difference between 2.8 and 4 isn't that big. Why? Because I don't think 2.8 is fast enough for low light situations anyway.


----------



## RedLeader

A710 IS user here. A mini-slr I can fit in my pocket! The glass may not be the most awesome, but a DIGIC 2 taking raw with IS isn't bad in my books.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RedLeader* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A710 IS user here. A mini-slr I can fit in my pocket! The glass may not be the most awesome, but a DIGIC 2 taking raw with IS isn't bad in my books._

 

That thing could have a 10-1000mm f/1.8 IS zoom lens on the front of it, boast a Digic III processor, and shoot 10mp RAW+jpeg at 8fps, but that doesn't make it close to an SLR.

 Nah dude I'm just playin, the A710 is a great little compact P&S that can take some amazing photos as long as the user knows what he's doing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you can find one, give the Canon Pro1 a try sometime. That will definitely make for quite a P&S experience.


----------



## vo328

My only lens (other than the XTi kit lens) is the 70-200mm F4 L lens from Canon. It's an amazing lens and the thing is built like a tank. I am still learning how to best take advantage of it, but I can say it is one heck of a sharp lens. I grappled with buying a non-L lens from Canon, but just didn't like the build quality of the the non-L lenses. I also love the 580EX-II flash... it's an amazing flash with excellent range.


----------



## RYCeT

I have Rebel XT w/ Canon 50mm 1.8. I tried Canon EF-S 17-55mm IS 2.8, I can't justify the cost for performance, my 50 1.8 seems give a slightly better result and it's not acceptable IMHO since 17-55 cost $1k. I'm still looking for walk around lens, considering canon 17-40 f4l or tamron 18-55 2.8.


----------



## 3x331m

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...considering canon 17-40 f4l or tamron 18-55 2.8._

 

17-40 F4 L is my walk-around lens. I can shoot wide-open and still feel confident about the image quality.

 If the lighting condition is less favorable, nothing is better than a tripod.


----------



## lan

You mean the Tamron 17-50 2.8? It's good lens, one stop faster and has a little more reach. The Canon 17-40 doesn't seem as good in flexibility in comparision.

 re: tripods, they don't work unless you carry one 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Well looks like I decided on a lense in my first post. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If anybody is interested in Canon 24 2.8, Canon 50 1.4, Tamron 28-75, let me know because they've been "replaced".


----------



## laxx

Did you get the 24-70 f2.8L?


----------



## lan

Nope. I was only interested in primes that can do slower speed motion sports. I chose the 85mm 1.2. I wanted something for lowlight and I like this focal length. I like image stabilization so I prefer 24-105 over 24-70. 135mm was just too long.


----------



## beerguy0

My current Canon inventory:

 Film:
 F1-n, with motor drive and speed finder (2" eye relief, swivels for waist level viewing- great for macro work.)
 Canon FD 200 f/4 Macro
 Canon ML-1 Macro Light

 EOS Elan 7, with the kit lens (28-90?)
 420EX flash

 Digital:

 Canon Pro 1 - my first real digital camera. It's a real gem for a P&S, as long as you can live with ISO 50. 

 I outgrew the Pro 1, and took the plunge for the 20D. I didn't buy the kit lens, instead opting for the 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L.

 I've always been a big fan of ultra-wideangle lenses. I used to own the Canon FD 14 /2.8 L, and felt handicapped by 17mm on a 1.6x body. So I added the 10-22 EF-S, and a 1.4x TC.

 Then I started doing some stage photography, which requires fast lenses. So, I added the 28 f/1.8 and 85 f/1.8. Great little lenses to have around, especially for cat pics.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My latest addition is the only non-Canon lens I have ever bought for any of my Canon cameras, in 23 years of shooting Canon. I needed a macro lens, and I wound up buying the Sigma 150 /2.8 macro. Fantastic lens, at a great price. And, it includes the things Canon charges extra for now, like hoods and tripod rings.

 I still have a few items on my wish list, like the battery grip, vertical finder, a long telephoto, macro flash....


----------



## RedLeader

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That thing could have a 10-1000mm f/1.8 IS zoom lens on the front of it, boast a Digic III processor, and shoot 10mp RAW+jpeg at 8fps, but that doesn't make it close to an SLR.

 Nah dude I'm just playin, the A710 is a great little compact P&S that can take some amazing photos as long as the user knows what he's doing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you can find one, give the Canon Pro1 a try sometime. That will definitely make for quite a P&S experience._

 

If I could afford anything better I would in a heartbeat, but this was a birthday present from several people (quarterbacked by my wonderful girlfriend) and I have no complaints. I don't know nearly enough to justify the expense of a DSLR setup, so I'm more than happy to learn all I can with this camera which takes IMO awesome pictures. When I feel I've outgrown it, I'll move on to something else.


----------



## oic929

My canon gear consist of

 400d/Xti
 Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5
 50mm f/1.8
 70-200 f/4L

 I will soon be upgrading the 50mm to the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 as I find 50mm on a crop camera is a bit long. Hopefully by the end of the year I'll be able to get the IS version of the 70-200


----------



## Mrvile

Is anyone interested in either a Sigma 10-20 or the Sigma Ringflash? The ultrawide is getting less and less use these days and I've found that I don't really need the ringflash, it just adds to the bulk, and I've wanted to give some other lenses, like the 85/1.8, a try.

 Also, does anyone have any experience with the Bushhawk? I'm thinking about picking one up to use with my 100/2.8, hopefully it will work for macro as well as it would for telephoto.


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also, does anyone have any experience with the Bushhawk? I'm thinking about picking one up to use with my 100/2.8, hopefully it will work for macro as well as it would for telephoto._

 

It's interesting, no? I've considered it, too, but it's definitely something I'd like to try before I buy for macro. 

 Why are you getting rid of the ring light? Are you happy enough with just a normal flash? I've seen some pretty good slap fights on other forums concerning ring vs. standard for macro. 

 ()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

 Anyone else out there in Canon land a Custom Function 4 (4-1 specifically) fan? It took some getting used to at first, but I wouldn't be without now. It puts autofocus on the * button, separating it from exposure lock. Got to be careful with it shooting wide open. If you recompose you can lose the focal plane. Still, I like.


----------



## Mrvile

Samgotit,

 My original intentions were to use the ringlight for fill while I used my 430EX for directional. However, I've noticed that the small amount of light the ringlight produces isn't worth the cost and added bulk of the system, and since the bulbs are so small the light tends to look harsh and rather unnatural. I've tried nearly every flash setup there is and I've surprisingly had the best success using a single, diffused flash pointed down at the subject. It offers the most natural look, is conveniant and can be quickly altered if I want a change in lighting.

 Anyway, as for CF4, I've tried it several times before and always find myself switching back to the standard shutter button for autofocus. I see its advantages but just can't get used to it. But then again, since I don't really use autofocus much for the work I do (no birding or sports shooting for me), it's not really a problem.


----------



## Sleestack

I just picked up the 30D with the 17-85 lens. I don't know much about photography, but am hoping this camera helps me along the way to producing some respectable shots.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Samgotit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone else out there in Canon land a Custom Function 4 (4-1 specifically) fan? It took some getting used to at first, but I wouldn't be without now. It puts autofocus on the * button, separating it from exposure lock. Got to be careful with it shooting wide open. If you recompose you can lose the focal plane. Still, I like._

 

I'm almost always on 4-1 now. I find it does make composing the shot faster....having the exposure lock on the shutter seems easier for me to spot meter too. But I guess it's whatever you get use to. One of the main things I like the 4-1 best for though is being able to focus while in AI Servo mode. Seems pretty good at focusing even a non moving object (so that I don't have to necessarily go to One Shot). Mainly keep it at that in case I have my camera around when an airplane or a bird all of a sudden flies overhead. I wanna be ready for capturing the moment!


----------



## MusicallySilent

The 70-200mm f/4 L IS lens is a great lens it takes some exellent shots even though it is only f/4 if you don't greatly need IS because you can still take some good pictures hand held try out the 70-200mm f/2.8L the f/4 is still greatly sharp

 The Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro is a highly versitle lens for both portriats and macros


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Samgotit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone else out there in Canon land a Custom Function 4 (4-1 specifically) fan? It took some getting used to at first, but I wouldn't be without now. It puts autofocus on the * button, separating it from exposure lock. Got to be careful with it shooting wide open. If you recompose you can lose the focal plane. Still, I like._

 

That's how I have my 20D set up. Works great, especially if you like to fine tune the focus manually, which I do a lot. Just have to remember to keep that button pressed when in AI Servo mode and you want to track something.


----------



## c0mfortably_numb

I started with a Canon EOS 650 around 2001, but it developed the famous "sticky shutter" problem that allot of the older Canon's develop. I moved to a used Elan II body a few months ago and love it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Lenses:
 Vivitar Series 1 APO 70-210mm
 Canon 35-70mm
 Cosina 19-35mm

 Filters:
 B+W


----------



## lan

I also love Custom function 4-1. Having them separated like that totally makes sense since you have maximum control. I also use 4-2 when i don't need any form of lock.


----------



## AdamP88

I love my 20D. Though I'd eventually like to step up to a full-frame sensor and regain a full size viewfinder. Lens-wise I'm also quite happy. I've got it to 3 lenses that cover pretty much everything I shoot - 10-22, 24-70L and 70-200 f/4L. I also have the nifty fifty (f/1.8) and the 85 f/1.8. The 85 is easily the sharpest lens I own, but it does suffer from chromatic aberration more often than most lenses I've tried, especially with backlighting. But with good lighting conditions the clarity, contrast and bokeh are gorgeous:






 My favorite lens has to be the 24-70 though. Though the 85 tops it in image quality, the 24-70 isn't really that far behind, but it is soooo much versatile - it's the lens that is on my camera the most, by far.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *AdamP88* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I love my 20D. Though I'd eventually like to step up to a full-frame sensor and regain a full size viewfinder. Lens-wise I'm also quite happy. I've got it to 3 lenses that cover pretty much everything I shoot - 10-22, 24-70L and 70-200 f/4L. I also have the nifty fifty (f/1.8) and the 85 f/1.8. The 85 is easily the sharpest lens I own, but it does suffer from chromatic aberration more often than most lenses I've tried, especially with backlighting. But with good lighting conditions the clarity, contrast and bokeh are gorgeous:






 My favorite lens has to be the 24-70 though. Though the 85 tops it in image quality, the 24-70 isn't really that far behind, but it is soooo much versatile - it's the lens that is on my camera the most, by far._

 

Lovely shot with the 85. I use mine with the 500D closeup adapter sometimes for flowers, since the 85/1.8 doesn't focus especially closely. (The minimum focusing distance is about the only thing I don't like about this lens).

 The 24-70 would drive me nuts on a 20D - not nearly wide enough for a crop body. Heck, the 17-40 isn't even wide enough for me on the 20D.


----------



## GTRacer

I have a Canon G7. It's a great camera with great image quality to boot.


----------



## AdamP88

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *beerguy0* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 24-70 would drive me nuts on a 20D - not nearly wide enough for a crop body. Heck, the 17-40 isn't even wide enough for me on the 20D._

 

That's why I've got the 10-22. Definitely don't feel the need for anything wider with that lens on the camera.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *AdamP88* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's why I've got the 10-22. Definitely don't feel the need for anything wider with that lens on the camera. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yep, I added the 10-22 as well. I still miss my FD 14 f/2.8L, though. Even wider than the 10-22.


----------



## TheRobbStory

I bought an Elan IIe with my first three months' wages from my first job at 16. I recently bought an XTi which now fails to turn on


----------



## Mr.PD

20D owner here.
 I got mine with the 17-85 IS kit lens. I like that lens okay. Then I got a Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS lens which has never taken a sharp photo. Then I got the Canon 100mm 2.8 macro lens. That one is a great lens. Good color and very sharp. The only AF problems I have are when working at it's closest focusing distance.

 I need suggestions for a really good circular polarazing filter. I got a Tiffen "Mooses warming" circular polarizing filter. I don't like it all that well.
 I think the "warming" effect is what I don't like. I tend to like cooler photos.


----------



## Mr.PD

I also need opnions on graduated nuetral density filters. I have one, a Cokin P series G2. I wonder if it is too gradual. And, I wonder if there are others out there that are a better quality material.


----------



## MusicallySilent

I am thinking of getting a powershot A640 because it is close to on par with teh G7 for half the price and the g7 is pretty on par with SLRs

 It can also take two teleconvertors


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sleestack* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just picked up the 30D with the 17-85 lens. I don't know much about photography, but am hoping this camera helps me along the way to producing some respectable shots._

 

Hi Sleestack, nice body to start with. Try to get Canon 50mm 1.8, it's so cheap yet one of Canon sharpest lens. You won't regret it.


----------



## Mrvile

Does anyone here think owning a 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and 100/2.8 is redundant? Because I'm a little reluctant to purchase the 85 since I already own the other two, but can't really think of any other lenses that I want and can afford.

 Oh and Beerguy, try the Sigma 12-24 on a fullframe camera like the 5D...12mm is WIIIIDE!!


----------



## AdamP88

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mr.PD* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I also need opnions on graduated nuetral density filters. I have one, a Cokin P series G2. I wonder if it is too gradual. And, I wonder if there are others out there that are a better quality material._

 

I also have the Cokin system - you can get filters from Lee ($$$), Singh-Ray ($$$), Tiffen ($$$$) and Hi-Tech ($) that will also work with it. The Hi-Tech ones are cheap, but work well for me - and they also come in hard and soft grad. I really only use mine if it's an easy horizon to mark off with a hard grad, otherwise I just take multiple exposures and blend in Photoshop. The most useful one for me is a .9 hard grad. The Hi-Tech one is $40, I think the Lee filter is $90 or $100, and the Tiffen is almost $200.

 As for a good polarizer, look for B+W or Hoya multi-coated. Top-notch stuff.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does anyone here think owning a 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and 100/2.8 is redundant?_

 

This is not like having multiple headphones, of course it makes sense. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The 85mm is over 1 stop faster and you can get pretty sweet background blur. I think this is perfect range for subject isolation. I find 50mm too short and 100 a little long as well as 2.8 not fast enough. 85/1.8 is fast in autofocus also and would be sweet in fast paced shooting.


----------



## euclid

edit: woops i just saw Ian bought the 85L
 I like the 85f1.8 it has the best price/build/performace ratio there is. the hood is sold seperatley and is snap-on which is alittle disappointing. i realy dont like 50mm on a crop body, its not long enough to get good portraiture and its not wide enough to get scenic. an 85mm and 35mm are a good combo IMHO.

 it's a shame Canon does not make more lenses like the 85mmf1.8 the build quality is above average and the image quality is very good, i decided awhile ago that an Ultrasonic motor with FullTimeMaunual focus and non extending sealed front element are an absolute must. unfortuately one must often go straight to the L family to get those features.

 i have the 85f1.8 and the 135f2.0L, the 135 is a better lens. even though its slower Fstop it has better bokeh, its very sharp, and the build is incredible. but focal length its too long for many situations and the 85f1.8 makes for the perfect compliment, the 85mm will reliably work for shots that the 135L "go-to lens" doesnt. 

 i also have the 35f1.4L, the 180f3.5Lmacro and the 300f4LIS. they are all very good and my only complaint is the 35L is made from smooth plastic like the 85f1.8, considering its $1150 i think Canon should have stepped it up to magnesium like most of the other L family lenses.

 FWIW i would *really* enjoy a 90mm tilt/shift, i am hoping to buy one soon. in the spirit of the thread i still use 10D and 1D bodies but the 1D is taken apart at the moment.


----------



## GlendaleViper

It's official folks - I am now the proud owner of a 30D with EF 50mm 1.8 lens.

 Of course, now I'm thinking the 85 might have been the better option...


----------



## euclid

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GlendaleViper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's official folks - I am now the proud owner of a 30D with EF 50mm 1.8 lens.

 Of course, now I'm thinking the 85 might have been the better option... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

at $70 and f1.8 you made a wise choice, go have fun shooting.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *euclid* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_edit: woops i just saw Ian bought the 85L

 in the spirit of the thread i still use 10D and 1D bodies but the 1D is taken apart at the moment._

 

Yeah I should've updated my first post to reflect my choice.

 What happened to your 1D that necessitated it to be opened up? I used to have the same cameras. I had sold the 10D because it is just too slow in more ways that one. I use the XTi now. It lets me do a few more things like AF is better (since it's same as 30D), more modern flash algorithms, more megapixels so I can crop, a bit better low light capability, faster start up times, and lighter weight. Sometimes I like to use more than 1 camera at a time and it gets crazy to have two larger cameras.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GlendaleViper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's official folks - I am now the proud owner of a 30D with EF 50mm 1.8 lens.

 Of course, now I'm thinking the 85 might have been the better option... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

Congrats! It's better to be wider so you can crop if you're using one "general" purpose lense IMO.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does anyone here think owning a 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and 100/2.8 is redundant? Because I'm a little reluctant to purchase the 85 since I already own the other two, but can't really think of any other lenses that I want and can afford._

 

I wouldn't hesitate to add the 85 /1.8. Great lens, fast AF, has excellent bokeh. You can get some great OOF effects with this lens.

 My buddies Crate tube amp:
 20D, 85/1.8 handheld at 1/10s, f/1.8, ISO1600 





  Quote:


 Oh and Beerguy, try the Sigma 12-24 on a fullframe camera like the 5D...12mm is WIIIIDE!! 
 

Believe me, I've already pondered that one. I know someone who has a FF Kodak body, and has a 12mm lens. I've seen what that combo can do. Someday...


----------



## c0mfortably_numb

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GlendaleViper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's official folks - I am now the proud owner of a 30D with EF 50mm 1.8 lens.

 Of course, now I'm thinking the 85 might have been the better option... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

Congrats 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 the 50mm is a great all around prime lens, and I'm sure it will see plenty of action.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is not like having multiple headphones, of course it makes sense. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The 85mm is over 1 stop faster and you can get pretty sweet background blur. I think this is perfect range for subject isolation. I find 50mm too short and 100 a little long as well as 2.8 not fast enough. 85/1.8 is fast in autofocus also and would be sweet in fast paced shooting._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *beerguy0* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wouldn't hesitate to add the 85 /1.8. Great lens, fast AF, has excellent bokeh. You can get some great OOF effects with this lens.

 My buddies Crate tube amp:
 20D, 85/1.8 handheld at 1/10s, f/1.8, ISO1600 

 Believe me, I've already pondered that one. I know someone who has a FF Kodak body, and has a 12mm lens. I've seen what that combo can do. Someday..._

 

Well the thing is, I already don't use the 100/2.8 for portraits because f/2.8 is actually kind of slow and the focusing, while already fast for a macro lens, is still slow for anything other than static portraits. And while the 50/1.8 is my main portrait lens right now, 50mm is a little short and the thing is horribly soft wide open, not to mention the rather unreliable AF (but hey, I'm already happy with what I got for $70). With the 85, I'm looking for real AF performance and sharpness wide open.

 And the real problem is, if I jump on the 85, that'll leave me with just those three lenses, and I'll be kicking myself if I ever need to shoot landscapes. It's either the 85 or something along the lines of the Tamron 17-50. Agghh I wish I were richer.

 Oh and btw beerguy, 1/10s @ 85mm handheld is ridiculous, you have _got_ to be on benzos or something.


----------



## potatotron

I'm going to be buying an XTi as a first digital SLR, and I'm having a little trouble selecting a lens. I want something that's good for walking around and taking pictures of people. I'm not going to be doing portraits or anything - just people that I see about; general purpose, basically.

 I've got it narrowed down to two lenses: the Canon 17-85mm and the Sigma 17-70mm. Each of these, it appears, has advantages and disadvantages - the Sigma has better optics and a fast aperture, while the Canon has a better, quieter autofocus, the extra 15mm of reach and image stabilization. I think I'm leaning towards the Canon due to its image stabilization despite its optical faults (distortion and chromatic aberration, which can be fixed in post-processing, right?) but I keep finding that shots out of the Sigma are a lot crisper and better-looking on the whole. For the same price - $1400 CAD - and bearing in mind that I'll also be buying the Canon 50mm f/1.8, which one would you recommend?

 Also, are there any specific accessories that I should be getting, such as lens hoods or filters?

 Thanks in advance for your recommendations.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Oh and btw beerguy, 1/10s @ 85mm handheld is ridiculous, you have got to be on benzos or something._

 






 I was at the minimum focusing distance of the 85, and just moved back and forth to focus. I shot a burst and hoped for a sharp one. This was the best of the bunch.


----------



## Ooztuncer

Howdy friends,
 I am a dslr newbie, even tough time to time I read mainstream camera reviews in dpreview, fred miranda, magazines etc . 

 I was pretty much settled on buying a used 300d or 350d as a starter package. However, I came across a deal (not certain yet) for 1D for around $700. It seems that it is little bit under the market value. 

 Do you think is it a good move to buy a 6 years old but still a great camera for almost twice the cost of used 350d?

 Your insights are greatly appreciated...


----------



## Davesrose

I wouldn't go for it. Its sensor is outdated (low resolution and ISO), and even if it's still in good working order, it's going to be a complex camera to try to learn on. The 350 is a very capable camera that will give you good auto features for when you're first starting off.


----------



## Ooztuncer

thank you for the straightforward answer


----------



## Mrvile

The 1D would be a pretty ambitious step for a first DSLR, but I personally would go for it. $700 is a good deal on a still very capable camera, and it can hold its market value quite well in case you want something else (while the Rebels tend not to). Plus, the only thing the 1D has "inferior" to the Rebels is the resolution. But what beginner is going to fully utilize 8MP? The 1D's CCD will provide solid 4MP photos that will be more than enough for you. And unless you're going to be doing a lot of, say, wedding photography, the CCD's noise level is something you won't have to worry about.

 Anyway, a DSLR is not a difficult system to learn. I started with a Rebel XT and, without any previous knowledge in photography (what the hell is a shutter), I started right off the bat in M mode. I flipped through the manual to see how to change things, looked online a bit to learn about how aperture and shutter speed affect the image, and then went shooting. I botched a lot of shots but within the first month I had almost no problems getting the shot to look how I wanted it to look. Don't be discouraged by something like a DSLR - its "complexity" should only stir you to learn more.

 Good luck


----------



## Ooztuncer

mrvile or dave or someone else, can you please briefly highlight the advantages of 1D over 350d. 

 I will use the camera for family gatherings, low light shots, portraits, some soccer action, and possibly baby shots (in the future). Thanks again...


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 1D would be a pretty ambitious step for a first DSLR, but I personally would go for it. $700 is a good deal on a still very capable camera, and it can hold its market value quite well in case you want something else (while the Rebels tend not to). Plus, the only thing the 1D has "inferior" to the Rebels is the resolution. But what beginner is going to fully utilize 8MP? The 1D's CCD will provide solid 4MP photos that will be more than enough for you. And unless you're going to be doing a lot of, say, wedding photography, the CCD's noise level is something you won't have to worry about._

 

The only reason why the 1D would hold its value is because it's already as low as it will get. It's a 6 year old camera!! It's too complicated to be a camera that can last 30 years....it may conk out tomorrow. A used 350D is not going to lose that much value either. And since its half as much, you'll be half as upset if it does break down
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 A newbie to photography would get very lost in trying to figure out controls with a professional 1D series. dSLRs are their own things: I had had experience with manual film SLRs (with my own developing), but even I had to find that I needed some adjustment to learn what AF servo modes, color profiles, file settings, and white balance were all about. If you want decent photos out of a professional camera, you need to know those settings. It's not going to have those "basic modes" that the 350D has.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ooztuncer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_mrvile or dave or someone else, can you please briefly highlight the advantages of 1D over 350d.

 I will use the camera for family gatherings, low light shots, portraits, some soccer action, and possibly baby shots (in the future). Thanks again..._

 

The main difference with the 1D is that it will be larger and very robust in feel compared to a plastic 350D. You also have to be sure that you have a firewire port or a compact flash reader on your computer (no USB). The main advantages of the 1D is that it's capable of faster shutter speeds (up to 16000), can get up to 8fps continuous shooting, and it has a more precise autofocus. A word of note about autofocus though....SLRs have troubles focusing in low light. They need an assist beam. Consumer cameras like the 350D already have them (basically all dSLRs that have built in flash have them). The 1D does not. So if you need good AF performance in low light with the 1D, you need a speedlite (like the 580EX).

 The 1D will be faster for outdoor sports, but when you consider that you'll do family photos, you may ultimately like the 350's higher resolution. Larger resolution is good for making enlargements or cropping.

 I still stand by my opinion that the 1D is a bit too much to bite off for your first foray into digital photography....when you consider that it's a professional level camera, it needs more user intervention to get good shots, and it also needs more expensive accessories.


----------



## Mrvile

Dave, it sounds like you don't have a lot of faith in our aspiring photographer here 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 When you first got your camera, how often did you shoot in "P" mode or "green box" mode? After owning my 350D for two years, I have never once shot in anything other than M, Av or Tv, and would not hesitate to trade it in for a 1D if I had the opportunity (and the funds). If Ooztuncer did his research on Fredmiranda, DPR, etc. and is even considering a 1-series, he must be at least somewhat serious about taking up the hobby and I honestly can't see him relying on the auto shooting modes that the 350D offers. The 350D is a camera aimed at the typical consumer who goes to Best Buy and is talked into a DSLR by the salesperson behind the counter, walks away with the camera, kit lens, a memory card, cleaning kit, and all that gear will likely be the first and last photographic gear he purchases. While the 350D is still very much so a capable system, a serious photographer may find that its shortcomings (build, size, autofocus, yucky viewfinder) outweigh its advantages over the other options.

 Anywho, the situation does change a bit when it comes to "your first camera." As Dave mentioned, the 350D is much cheaper than the 1D right now, and depending on your financial situation, you are actually much better off going with the cheapest camera body and spending the rest of your money on lenses. And while the 1D is a nice camera, it is only as nice as its glass allows it to be, and I would much rather own a 350D and a foray of good glass than a 1D and, I dunno, a mere 50/1.8.

 As for you, Ooztuncer, your best bet is probably to stick with a cheaper body. Have you considered the 20D? It is right in between the entry-level Rebels and the pro-level 1-series, and used bodies go for pretty cheap these days (~$500).

 Anyway, in reality the camera body you end up getting isn't really going to matter that much in the long run. Glass > camera, so dedicate the bulk of your research and funds towards the lenses you'll purchase instead of the body.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dave, it sounds like you don't have a lot of faith in our aspiring photographer here 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Nah, it isn't about that
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm sure that if Ooztuncer has the determination to learn on a 1D, he'll get the hang of it. Since you can set meter, WB, and exposure compensation in P mode , I actually do use that mode. I've never used the green box, though, that is true
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But I also was coming from a manual camera with just center weighted metering: M and priority modes is what I've been accustomed to. For someone who wants to get the most out of basic fundamentals, I think it's easiest to start off one step at a time. If you go to full manual, on a color digital camera, you don't just have to worry about exposure. Even though exposure is a big concept: you're an art major, so you have an advantage of knowing what tonal value is....how many beginers to photography do know about dynamic range? On the POTN forums, I have seen numerous beginners complain about a photo being underexposed when it really was that the color balance was off, they haven't quite gotten the hang of metering, or that the image was blurry because of a bad lens. My favorite is that the sensor must be bad because of funky edges that are going on in the photo (which instead, is again a bad lens showing chromatic aberration).

 The thing is that I believe that if you start spending the big bucks in a camera body, it should be one that you will have full use for. The 1D's advantage over the 350D is speed and AF performance for action photography. The 350D is going to be better at portraiture (with its extra resolution...though I just remembered that it doesn't have a spot meter). And the 350D is still not going to be a slouch at action photography. I know for myself, I was just looking for a dSLR that had the awesomeness of FF that I was used to with 35mm. The 5D is something that I can keep for a long time. With my style of shooting (portrait and art photography), I don't need any of the extra features of the 1D series (and actually being a crop body is an issue for me). The only camera that can better the 5D for me, is the twice as expensive 1Ds mkII. 

 Anywho, just playing devil's advocate so that you get several sides to this decision Ooztuncer


----------



## lan

Ask yourself, are you hardcore enough for the 1D? It's not a toy. If you can master this camera and it's limitations, it will make the others a breeze. There is nothing convenient about this camera.

 Cons
 - It weights a lot
 - Battery life isn't long. Extra batteries are heavy. The charger is also huge.
 - No built in flash
 - High ISO is noisy
 - All the accessories are heavy/large/costly.
 - Lower resolution means you have to get things right more. 2MP is all that's needed for 4x6 anyhow so there's still room for cropping.


 Pros
 - Brighter viewfinder
 - Better AF performance
 - Spot metering
 - Weaker antialiasing filtering yielding sharper photos
 - 1.255 crop factor meaning you can get wider angle shots
 - Faster drive speed
 - Weather sealed
 - Lower resolution RAW files = more images per memory card, faster post processing times, less storage requirements.

 If you want low light shooting, your options are faster glass and / or better high ISO capability in the body. It's always better to have better glass, so I would go XT (350D) or used even better yet a 20D with better lense given the choice. I wouldn't go with 300D. It's high ISO is noisy and it's a slow camera.

 I disagree with Davesrose on a few things. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 - The controls on the 1D are not complicated. If they can't figure it out, they'll have equally hard time with any of the other cameras
 - 1D is built to professional standards. It's supposed to last longer. This camera was a statement product from Canon. In ways it still does things more modern cameras don't e.g 1/16000th shutter speeds, 1/500 flash sync.

 I love mine and when I don't use it, I use XTi.


----------



## Ooztuncer

great going guys - I really enjoy reading your comments.

 Even tough 1d looks good, with lens + flash it will cost me at least $1000. On the other hand, I can find a rebel (xt), evolt e500 (or 410), pentax k10d, or nikon d40 for half of that price. Me thinks it will be a better start... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 EDIT: I just saw your comments lan - thanks for the help. My biggest concern with rebel xt is, its feeling in my hand. I need to get a proper grip.


----------



## lan

You can still find XTs in the shop. I suggest trying one out.

 I used to think I prefered the 1D because it was bigger but I found that I just invented new ways for me to hold and use a smaller camera so ergonomics isn't as high a priority for me.


----------



## Mrvile

Ooztuncer, what lens are you looking at? If the 1D costs $700 and you mentioned that the lens + flash would take you to $1000, that extra $300 is not a lot to be devoting to the other equipment. Flash alone (ie-430EX) costs a good $230.

 Lenses are something to not be taken lightly, and I learned this the hard way. If your budget is only about $1000, I highly recommend you go with something cheaper and set aside at least $300-400 for the lens, even if you are just a beginner.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 I disagree with Davesrose on a few things. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 - The controls on the 1D are not complicated. If they can't figure it out, they'll have equally hard time with any of the other cameras
 - 1D is built to professional standards. It's supposed to last longer. This camera was a statement product from Canon. In ways it still does things more modern cameras don't e.g 1/16000th shutter speeds, 1/500 flash sync.

 I love mine and when I don't use it, I use XTi._

 

Well if it's only a couple things
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Complexity and ease of use varies from person to person....I would say that the interface of a camera does have a lot to do with how comfortable one feels about shooting. I notice many professional reviews on cameras boil down to whether the person is a Nikon or Canon user.

 I realize the 1D is supposed to last longer then a consumer level 350.....but look me up in 30 years lan to let me know if your 1D is still working
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My Canon AE-1 is still going strong, and is only becoming obsolete because its film based. Modern cameras are complex and may be unreliable once the warranty has expired.

 But anyways, if the budget is $1000, I would look at entry level bodies. You'll get better photographs using lenses that have good optics vs getting a more expensive body.

 If I were you Ooztuncer, I would go to a store that lets you hold and feel a Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, etc. The consumer level cameras in particular have different feels to them.....getting something that feels comfortable _to you_ is the most important thing.


----------



## Ooztuncer

^^ i tried it 4 or 5 different times already. As I tried to say, i didn't like the feeling of rebel xt in my hands...If I go with xt, I know that I will invest in the bg-e3 grip.

 Personally, I like the grip in nikon d50; but again, when I compare one after other cameras against rebel xt in dpreview, I always like the canon's outcomes. My next preference would be the pentax K100D (both in ergonomics and performance wise)...

 I have one more question to xt users > as far as I understand, xt's low light performance is poor compared to d40 or k100d - what do you think?


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ooztuncer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_^^ i tried it 4 or 5 different times already. As I tried to say, i didn't like the feeling of rebel xt in my hands...If I go with xt, I know that I will invest in the bg-e3 grip._

 

If you want Canon, but don't like the feel of the XTi, then maybe a used 10D (or 20D if cheap enough) would be the best....

 While the 10D is older, it's fairly inexpensive these days....and it would have a magnesium body and will be be easier to upgrade to a higher end Canon.

http://search.ebay.com/search/search...trypage=search


----------



## laxx

Get the XT and get a grip. I got my BG-E3 grip and extra batter in mint condition, though used, for $60 shipped. =T


----------



## Mrvile

The BG-E3 isn't going to change the fact that the XT's grip is thin as a pencil.


----------



## laxx

I guess from using an XT primarily and recently with the grip, my friend's 30D felt awkward.

 For me, the XT is pretty small, but the grip helps alot. It's not a huge difference in size, but jsut being able to move my pinky position onto the grip made a huge difference in comfort.


----------



## Davesrose

Getting a grip might also make it easier to hold the camera with your left hand. The best way to shoot is to have almost all the weight of the camera on your left hand, and your right hand barely grasping the hand grip at all. That way you're less likely to get camera shake when pressing the shutter.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Getting a grip might also make it easier to hold the camera with your left hand._

 

Why is that?

 When using short lenses, the grip usually just gets in the way of my left hand.

 Don't get me wrong I love my BG-E3 and my pinky would be positively lost without it, but I don't see how it helps the other hand.

 Unless you hold the vert grip with your left hand and the standard grip with your right...


----------



## GlendaleViper

I had the same decision to make just recently actually (had a slightly larger budget though) and was considering some of the older high-end bodies. Everyone is making a good point here though: With the 1D, you are getting some of Canon's best work in a camera - something they've been mastering over decades. You are not, however, getting their best work from a digital perspective, as the medium has expanded greatly since the 1D was released.

 Personally, I would get the newer technology and upgrade the body in the future. If you want a better body than the XT without making some of the sacrifices of the 1D's sensor/CPU, the 20D or Nikon D50 or D70 may be worth checking out.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why is that?

 When using short lenses, the grip usually just gets in the way of my left hand._

 

Not everyone's hands are the same
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 I said the grip _might_ help keep most the camera weight on your left hand. Maybe I should have stressed MAY OR MAY NOT
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 I find, for myself, I like to keep most of my left hand on the camera body and have some of my fingers wrapped around the lens.


----------



## lan

Yeah I use my left hand nearly the same as Davesrose. My left fingers don't leave the lens and the weight is mostly on my left hand. Kind of like an organic tripod ring. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I would agree on getting cheaper body and better lens. Not too cheap a body though. I wouldn't get the 10D. Get XT or 20D.


----------



## Ooztuncer

exactly what I am thinking. 

 I decided to get a rebel xt body rather than the 1D, 10D, 20D, pentax k100d, evolt e-410, or nikon d40.

 Now, next phase - a _sharp_ walk around lens (somewhere from 15-25mm to 90-145mm) with good AF capability on _low light_ for around $300. Any luck?


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ooztuncer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_exactly what I am thinking. 

 I decided to get a rebel xt body rather than the 1D, 10D, 20D, pentax k100d, evolt e-410, or nikon d40.

 Now, next phase - a sharp walk around lens (somewhere from 15-25mm to 90-145mm) with good AF capability on low light for around $300. Any luck?_

 


 The 17-85 is closest to the focal length you want, but it's not a low light lens, sharpness is OK stopped down, and it's way more than $300. (around $490 or so). The 17-55/2.8 EF-S is much sharper, a lot faster, but even more $$$. 

 Basically, the only thing you're going to find that's fast and cheap will be a prime. Zooms in this price range will be slow (f/3.5 - 5.6 or so), and hence useless in low light. They all have sliding apertures, which means it might be fast on the wide end, but slower on the long end.

 Actually, you can hardly even get a good prime for $300. The 50/1.8 is ok stopped down, and it's cheap (around $70). It's an ok lens, but nothing special. 

 Your best bet will probably be to check out the third party lenses, like Sigma, Tamron or Tokina. The Sigma 17-70 /2.8-4.5 is around $360, and it's close to your budget and focal length needs. The sliding aperture is the killer, though. No idea on the sharpness, tho.


----------



## laxx

I picked up a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for a good price from lan. It generally goes for slightly below $300 used. ~$380 new. It's not great in low light, but I don't know how bad it is either.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not everyone's hands are the same
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 I said the grip might help keep most the camera weight on your left hand. Maybe I should have stressed MAY OR MAY NOT
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 I find, for myself, I like to keep most of my left hand on the camera body and have some of my fingers wrapped around the lens._

 

Oh I see. I guess that works. I generally like to have the lens or camera sit in the palm of my hand while I'm shooting, but with the grip that's more or less impossible with shorter lenses. But to each his own.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ooztuncer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_exactly what I am thinking. 

 I decided to get a rebel xt body rather than the 1D, 10D, 20D, pentax k100d, evolt e-410, or nikon d40.

 Now, next phase - a sharp walk around lens (somewhere from 15-25mm to 90-145mm) with good AF capability on low light for around $300. Any luck?_

 

Two lenses that you should really consider are the Tamrons 17-50 or 28-75, depending on which focal length you prefer. Sigma also makes a little-known 24-60 that is very good. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of really good lenses from the ~17-~90 range besides the Canon 17-85IS, but it's kind of slow and not that sharp until it's stopped down.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I picked up a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for a good price from lan. It generally goes for slightly below $300 used. ~$380 new. It's not great in low light, but I don't know how bad it is either._

 

If you mean AF performance, it is slower then more expensive lenses. But its optics are very good and it stays at 2.8: so it can keep a good, fast exposure in low light. I think Tamrons are good for the money

 I've found buydig has some good prices on Tamron....they have decent, fast service

http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=TM2875EOS


----------



## Dimitris

I got a Canon 10-22mm and I have been enjoying getting wideangles back in my life. I am checking out the used market and I see some 1DS bodies go for less than $2k. Would you guys recommend this body over a 5D or is the new body a better IQ deal?


----------



## laxx

I thought the choice between 1d and 5d were if you were if you care more for fps (1d) or less noise with higher iso (5d).


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I got a Canon 10-22mm and I have been enjoying getting wideangles back in my life. I am checking out the used market and I see some 1DS bodies go for less than $2k. Would you guys recommend this body over a 5D or is the new body a better IQ deal?_

 

The 5D has better high ISO quality (because of its processor). It also has slightly higher resolution. The 1Ds has the 1D AF system, weather sealing, and audio notation capabilities. Then of course there's size/ergonomics. Do you want smaller and more portable, or do you want a vertical grip built into the camera body? Certainly one is not better then the other....


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I thought the choice between 1d and 5d were if you were if you care more for fps (1d) or less noise with higher iso (5d)._

 

1DS doesn't have high fps, that's only 1D. I would go 5D given the prices are around the same ballpark.

 Ooztuncer, there aren't any cheap f/2.8 zooms around $300 new. Zooms are not the best in low light given the fastest they come in is f/2.8. Your range is rather wide spread and the compromise there is quality and speed. So basically what you're asking for is not possible in one lens even if you had no monetary limit.

 I recommend getting one lens for now and saving for another lens later. The other fellas already recommended some lenses.


----------



## GlendaleViper

DIY optics anyone?


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GlendaleViper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_DIY optics anyone?_

 

Yessir.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I got a Canon 10-22mm and I have been enjoying getting wideangles back in my life. I am checking out the used market and I see some 1DS bodies go for less than $2k. Would you guys recommend this body over a 5D or is the new body a better IQ deal?_

 

I would get a new 5D if I had to choose. While the 5D isn't weathersealed, it is still built to professional standards and a very capable camera in itself with image quality second only to the 1DsmkII.


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would get a new 5D if I had to choose. While the 5D isn't weathersealed, it is still built to professional standards and a very capable camera in itself with image quality second only to the 1DsmkII._

 

and it's the cheapest FF canon body too (i think)! and oh yeah, if you decide to get a FF camera... you'll have to ditch the 10-22 if you're not already aware... very sad 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 i'm debating picking up an external flash (looking at the Sigma EF-500 DG Super). anybody here have this flash? I'm looking at either this or the 430EX (don't need the power of the 580EX, and it's too pricey). the EF-500 DG Super has more features than the 430EX, but a poorer build from what i've read. I don't even know if i'll use it that much, as i don't really take enough pictures as it is (when i'm not on vacation and whatnot) but for $150 it's almost hard to pass by


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i'm debating picking up an external flash (looking at the Sigma EF-500 DG Super). anybody here have this flash? I'm looking at either this or the 430EX (don't need the power of the 580EX, and it's too pricey). the EF-500 DG Super has more features than the 430EX, but a poorer build from what i've read. I don't even know if i'll use it that much, as i don't really take enough pictures as it is (when i'm not on vacation and whatnot) but for $150 it's almost hard to pass by 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The Sigma 500DG Super was my first external flash unit. I absolutely loved it. To have the freedom of a flash you can swivel and point introduces countless opportunities into your photography, and honestly, any flash with swivel/bounce is better than no flash.

 I later picked up a 430EX to use as a slave flash. When I realized I didn't really need two flash units, I had to choose between the two and ended up selling the Sigma. Why? While the Sigma is more powerful, the 430EX is enough to cover most lighting applications, and in those situations where the 430EX wouldn't be able to handle, like trying to bounce in a ballroom, the Sigma wouldn't do much better. Also, the Sigma does feature master mode, which is important if you are using more than one flash, but I didn't need more than one flash so what was the point of having a master. I liked the Canon more because it didn't feel like I was going to break it (the Sigma scared me), it was smaller and more compact, and Canons seem to hold their value better. The 430EX is also ergonomically eons ahead of the Sigma, which had slightly confusing controls and other little nuances that could be pretty annoying, like separate buttons for bounce/swivel.

 Anyway, the bottom line is that it doesn't really matter what flash you get. The Sigma is just as capable a unit as the Canon, and vice versa, and either will provide the lighting opportunities that is the magic of a flash unit.

 Oh and btw, make sure you pick up the Canon off-camera cord. Just do it.

 Good luck!


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The Sigma 500DG Super was my first external flash unit. I absolutely loved it. To have the freedom of a flash you can swivel and point introduces countless opportunities into your photography, and honestly, any flash with swivel/bounce is better than no flash.

 I later picked up a 430EX to use as a slave flash. When I realized I didn't really need two flash units, I had to choose between the two and ended up selling the Sigma. Why? While the Sigma is more powerful, the 430EX is enough to cover most lighting applications, and in those situations where the 430EX wouldn't be able to handle, like trying to bounce in a ballroom, the Sigma wouldn't do much better. Also, the Sigma does feature master mode, which is important if you are using more than one flash, but I didn't need more than one flash so what was the point of having a master. I liked the Canon more because it didn't feel like I was going to break it (the Sigma scared me), it was smaller and more compact, and Canons seem to hold their value better. The 430EX is also ergonomically eons ahead of the Sigma, which had slightly confusing controls and other little nuances that could be pretty annoying, like separate buttons for bounce/swivel.

 Anyway, the bottom line is that it doesn't really matter what flash you get. The Sigma is just as capable a unit as the Canon, and vice versa, and either will provide the lighting opportunities that is the magic of a flash unit.

 Oh and btw, make sure you pick up the Canon off-camera cord. Just do it.

 Good luck!_

 

haha thanks for the info... basically you hit the nail on the head as far as what i've read so far. i haven't been able to find the 430EX for as cheap as this EF-500 DG Super though... which is mainly the reason i'm considering it. I've never had an external flash unit before, and i am wary to buy one because i feel like i don't give my camera as much use as it deserves, especially when i'm in school... it rarely leaves the bag 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. so now, it all comes down to whether or not i think i will use it enough or not. decisions, decisions!

 also, if i do end up getting it, i will probably get a sto-fen omnibounce diffuser and probably an off-shoe cord.

 cameras are too darn expensive! and i thought headphones were a money pit! hahaha


----------



## cotdt

Do Canon DSLRs work well with Nikon lenses? What kind of adaptor would I need?


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do Canon DSLRs work well with Nikon lenses? What kind of adaptor would I need?_

 

Depends on what you mean by "well"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They do make converters for nikon lenses (so that they would mount on a Canon. The problem is that most of the good Nikon lenses do not have a focus motor in the lens (unlike the EOS system). So, you lose any AF functions, and you may have to set aperture manually. At least they don't need optics like some converters do.


 But in short, it's easiest to just stick with Canon or Nikon...and not mix the two
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...focus_EOS.html


----------



## cotdt

there's some nice manual focus nikon lenses that are pretty cheap, but unfortunately manual focus lenses won't meter on my Nikon D50 =(. I heard that they would meter on the Canons though. To be honest I'm not satisfied with the Nikkor lens selection because the lens I want are all so expensive.


----------



## Ooztuncer

Probably most of you already knew about this forum but I just found out 2 hours ago and thought that I should share with my fellow head-fiers: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=141406

 I really like the idea of merging all lens threads under one. And, I set my goals (all used parts):

 350d
 bg-e3 grip
 tamron 17-50mm 2.8 OR nifty 50 (contingency plan)
 2gb compact flash
 ?? bag

 range: $600 - $950 (depends on lens and bag)

 sounds like a plan to me, agreed? Thanks!!


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ooztuncer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Probably most of you already knew about this forum but I just found out 2 hours ago and thought that I should share with my fellow head-fiers: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=141406

 I really like the idea of merging all lens threads under one. And, I set my goals (all used parts):

 350d
 bg-e3 grip
 tamron 17-50mm 2.8 OR nifty 50 (contingency plan)
 2gb compact flash
 ?? bag

 range: $600 - $950 (depends on lens and bag)

 sounds like a plan to me, agreed? Thanks!!_

 

yep, i'm a regular at this forum. i always throw it out around here but i don't know if anyone actually goes there... no one ever says anything 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 hahaha, but anyway. are you going to get the 350d with kit lens? if so, do that and then get the nifty 50. even though the kit lens has that distance covered, the nifty is kinda like the KSC-75 of the photography world. everyone needs to have it at least some point in their time. many will upgrade to the 1.4 or even the 1.2, but it's okay you might like it enough to not want to upgrade!


----------



## GAD

I shoot a Canon 1DsM2. I have also used the 1DM2, 30D and XT. 

 I have owned the following lenses: 

 17-40 f/4L
 16-35 f/2.8L
 24-70 f/2.8L
 70-200 IS f/2.8L

 35mm f/1.4L
 35mm f/2
 50mm f/1.4
 85mm f/1.2L
 135mm f/2L
 200mm f/1.8L (Yes - that one). 

 My favorite out of all of them? The 135 f/2L hands down. 

 GAD


----------



## cotdt

how about this site:
 nikonians.com


----------



## Ooztuncer

I'm officialy a canon owner now > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=320129762288

 I decided to get the starter package, but still thinking to get 50mm f1.8 for low light shots. After some time, I will sell the kit lens and move to tokina 17-50 2.8...

 Thanks guys!!!


----------



## Davesrose

Congrats! Yeah, it looks like you scored a good price so that you have enough money left over for that 50mm 1.8
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








 Sorry about your wallet!!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Avoid the *L* (they get addictive)


----------



## lan

Welcome to the club!

 Hmm... microdrive. Anybody ever had one of those fail? It is a harddrive afterall.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GAD* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My favorite out of all of them? The 135 f/2L hands down._

 

It's just too long unless you're using full frame IMO. So I went for the 85 1.2 instead.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ even though the kit lens has that distance covered, the nifty is kinda like the KSC-75 of the photography world._

 

Well, not quite. The 50 can do a lot of things the kit lens can't. Like...shoot 50mm at anything under f/5.6 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But yeah, whatever you do always put aside $70 and pick up the 50/1.8. Everyone should have one in their bag.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Depends on what you mean by "well"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They do make converters for nikon lenses (so that they would mount on a Canon. The problem is that most of the good Nikon lenses do not have a focus motor in the lens (unlike the EOS system). So, you lose any AF functions, and you may have to set aperture manually. At least they don't need optics like some converters do.


 But in short, it's easiest to just stick with Canon or Nikon...and not mix the two
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...focus_EOS.html_

 

Well there are a couple of lenses Nikon makes that Canon doesn't have. The Nikon 200mm f/4 macro, for one, is a lens that I wouldn't mind having at my disposal, even if I do shoot Canon. And since it's a macro lens, AF isn't really important. I would probably have one right now if it didn't cost so damn much.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_how about this site:
 nikonians.com_

 

Although this is probably just a troll post (in the tradition of cotdt), I do find myself browsing Nikonians every once in a while. It's a very informative site, especially when trying to look up stuff about third party lenses, which span across both Nikon, Canon, and other mounts. Also, photography is photography, and some great general shooting tips can be found there, too.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well there are a couple of lenses Nikon makes that Canon doesn't have. The Nikon 200mm f/4 macro, for one, is a lens that I wouldn't mind having at my disposal, even if I do shoot Canon. And since it's a macro lens, AF isn't really important. I would probably have one right now if it didn't cost so damn much._

 

Canon does make a EF 180mm f/3.5L : a little less macro, and a little faster. I would do that over spending a lot for "iffy" results on a lens with different mount. At f/4, I would probably even get the EF100mm 2.8 and stick an extension tube on it even. Heck, with the Sigma 150mm 2.8, you have even less light fall off from a smaller extension tube if you wanted to go bigger in magnification still.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Canon does make a EF 180mm f/3.5L : a little less macro, and a little faster. I would do that over spending a lot for "iffy" results on a lens with different mount. At f/4, I would probably even get the EF100mm 2.8 and stick an extension tube on it even. Heck, with the Sigma 150mm 2.8, you have even less light fall off from a smaller extension tube if you wanted to go bigger in magnification still._

 

The Sigma 150/2.8 Macro is an awesome lens, and a real bargain to boot. I use mine a lot.The Canon 180 is also an amazing lens, but very expen$ive and heavy. Way out of my price range, or at least what my wife will allow me to spend on a lens. 

 The Nikon 200/4 macro is very likely not 200mm at 1:1; many lenses of this type change the focal length slightly as you focus closer to 1:1. Not that it makes any difference, 1:1 is 1:1.

 I still own the Canon FD 200 f/4 macro, which was the 180/3.5 L's predecessor. It's still an amazing hunk of glass, even before they made it an L lens. One of my all-time favorite lenses.


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ooztuncer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Probably most of you already knew about this forum but I just found out 2 hours ago and thought that I should share with my fellow head-fiers: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=141406

 I really like the idea of merging all lens threads under one. And, I set my goals (all used parts):

 350d
 bg-e3 grip
 tamron 17-50mm 2.8 OR nifty 50 (contingency plan)
 2gb compact flash
 ?? bag

 range: $600 - $950 (depends on lens and bag)

 sounds like a plan to me, agreed? Thanks!!_

 

I don't know how I got away with my BG-E3 grip+battery for $60 shipped since POTN has them selling almost daily at >$100. But Definitely look on POTN for one.

 As for a bag, I'd recommend the Crumpler bag. I'm ordering a 6 Million Dollar Home bag as we speak. =] I debated getting a 4 MDH for walk around and a 7 MDH for storage, but I don't see myself filling out the 7 MDH for awhile, so 6M MDH is my compromise, and when/if I do get that much gear, I'll just buy a new bag. =]

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_yep, i'm a regular at this forum. i always throw it out around here but i don't know if anyone actually goes there... no one ever says anything 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 hahaha, but anyway. are you going to get the 350d with kit lens? if so, do that and then get the nifty 50. even though the kit lens has that distance covered, the nifty is kinda like the KSC-75 of the photography world. everyone needs to have it at least some point in their time. many will upgrade to the 1.4 or even the 1.2, but it's okay you might like it enough to not want to upgrade! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I browse the forum daily, but I don't post much. Still getting comfortable with the camera.


----------



## Ooztuncer

I checked out the lowepro, domke, and crumpler bags; for my taste, none of them was the correct combo of functionality and aesthetics.

 Researched more and voila! kata h-14 > http://www.kata-bags.com/Item.asp?pi...d=4&ProdLine=4

 and a review here: http://www.cambags.com/canon/350d/ho..._h-14_desc.htm

 it's a bit expensive though, $80 + shipping 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 EDIT: good thing is, perhaps I can put my iriver,microdac,xenos, ety4p set one of the side bags...


----------



## Davesrose

That might be good for your current setup, but if you start collecting lenses, it'll get too small.

 this is my walkaround bag that I use all the time. It's getting way more use then my $350 Tamrac bag
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 don't let Amazon's price fool you....the thing is wonderful for the insanely low price that it is!

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-2400-SLR...3057215&sr=8-2


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't know how I got away with my BG-E3 grip+battery for $60 shipped since POTN has them selling almost daily at >$100. But Definitely look on POTN for one.

 As for a bag, I'd recommend the Crumpler bag. I'm ordering a 6 Million Dollar Home bag as we speak. =] I debated getting a 4 MDH for walk around and a 7 MDH for storage, but I don't see myself filling out the 7 MDH for awhile, so 6M MDH is my compromise, and when/if I do get that much gear, I'll just buy a new bag. =]



 I browse the forum daily, but I don't post much. Still getting comfortable with the camera._

 

Where did your purchase your 6MDH? Also, what color did you get? I realized recently, when contemplating a flash purchase, that if I add any more gear to my "collection" then my bag won't have room for it, so I'm thinking about getting a bag. the 6MDH seems nice but I feel like I might fill that up quick too. But the 7MDH seems a little big for me to want to carry around all the time. And I found an awesome deal on a black 6MDH


----------



## laxx

I just bought a 6 MDH in brown for $82.29 shipped to NYC. The 7 MDH comes out to $102 and change, but I feel that extra 6"x4" is more than I want at the moment. I know when it comes down to it, I have friends who can use the 6 MDH if I ever want to get a 7.

 How much was your awesome deal? I bought mine from www.photocous.com.


----------



## GlendaleViper

Guys, those bags look excellent as an "everyday lug-around". Have you used them before? I know they're dedicated camera bags, but I wonder how protective they are compared to a nice Lowepro backpack or slingshot, as an example.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GlendaleViper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Guys, those bags look excellent as an "everyday lug-around". Have you used them before? I know they're dedicated camera bags, but I wonder how protective they are compared to a nice Lowepro backpack or slingshot, as an example._

 

I can't speak for the Crumplers, but my cheapy Canon is good enough to make me confidently carry around my 5D and L lenses
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








 The Canon camera bag has as much padding as a Lowepro backpack...just not as much room. But it is amazing how much I can cram in there: 5D, 70-200, 100mm, 135mm, 28-75mm, 50mm and 2x teleconverter (and small accessories like cleaning supplies, memory cards, extra battery, and remote) is what I've been able to carry on something that's lightweight and easily hangs from your shoulder.

 My Tamrac, on the otherhand, is a tank. It has steel re-enforced sides and is too heavy to be a shoulder bag (even though I think its funny that they include a shoulder strap)!!


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GlendaleViper* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Guys, those bags look excellent as an "everyday lug-around". Have you used them before? I know they're dedicated camera bags, but I wonder how protective they are compared to a nice Lowepro backpack or slingshot, as an example._

 

My friend has a Crumpler 4 MDH and it looks strong enough. I know the 6 MDH has a hard protective layer on the bottom of the bag, aside from that, there's alot of padding on the sides. =T I'll let you know when I get it?


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just bought a 6 MDH in brown for $82.29 shipped to NYC. The 7 MDH comes out to $102 and change, but I feel that extra 6"x4" is more than I want at the moment. I know when it comes down to it, I have friends who can use the 6 MDH if I ever want to get a 7.

 How much was your awesome deal? I bought mine from www.photocous.com._

 

nice --- i also feel the same way. the 6MDH i could probably fill up with just a couple more purchases, but the 7MDH is so big, i don't know if i would want to carry all that with me when i walked around. if it came down to it, i could always swap a lens or two out depending on where i'm going. my deal is $65 shipped for a black one... used about 2 months in perfect condition from POTN... i'm waiting for the seller to PM me back still though


----------



## laxx

Yea, I just came back to this thread to say I saw what deal you found, but you beat me to it! I didn't want black anyway. My favorite color for clothes and bags is brown and green, so the brown 6 MDH was perfect. =]


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Canon does make a EF 180mm f/3.5L : a little less macro, and a little faster. I would do that over spending a lot for "iffy" results on a lens with different mount. At f/4, I would probably even get the EF100mm 2.8 and stick an extension tube on it even. Heck, with the Sigma 150mm 2.8, you have even less light fall off from a smaller extension tube if you wanted to go bigger in magnification still._

 

Um, the point of getting a longer macro lens isn't for magnification, it's for working distance. At f/4, I would still much rather have the longer lens instead of the extra magnification or aperture speed because it allows me to keep my distance when I'm shooting, whereas using extension tubes or whatever just requires me to get closer. One of my photographic heroes, Tom Hicks of FM, says that when it comes down to macro lenses for shooting insects, especially dragonflies and butterflies that don't let you get as close, he needs all the focal length he can get. If Canon made a 200mm, 250mm, or 300mm 1:1 lens, he would get it. However, since we don't have the luxury of access to such lenses, we end up relying on teleconverters and close-up filters to get the distance we need, which are in some cases a much greater compromise to image quality than a mere mount adapter. And yeah, Canon (as well as Sigma and Tamron) makes a 180/3.5 that is a great piece of glass, but even if the Nikon is only 20mm longer, it's only half a stop slower, and I would gladly trade in half a stop for an extra 20mm. And, like beerguy mentioned, most macro lenses can't keep their specs at 1:1, and as the Nikon probably isn't a full 200mm at maximum magnification, the Canon can't hold f/3.5 at 1:1, either.

 But all in all, I'm just speaking out of my ass. I personally traded my Sigma 150 for the Canon 100 because I actually like shooting macro with shorter glass (more compact and easier to handhold) but I'm know from experience that there are shooters out there who are the opposite.


----------



## Mrvile

PS - does anyone have any experience with Slingshot-type bags? I like the idea of being able to just swing the bag over to access my gear but from what I can tell they don't hold all that much stuff.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Um, the point of getting a longer macro lens isn't for magnification, it's for working distance. At f/4, I would still much rather have the longer lens instead of the extra magnification or aperture speed because it allows me to keep my distance when I'm shooting, whereas using extension tubes or whatever just requires me to get closer._

 

Macros serve several purposes. If focal length is more important, get an EF 600mm lens and an extension tube
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 My only point was that since Nikon and Canon have similar lens line-ups, I don't think its worth it to buy a new Nikon lens if you're in the Canon camp. Beerguy0 also mentioned that there was a FD 200mm f4. For the price of the Nikon, you could get an original Canon FD to EOS converter (the trick is finding them) and FD200mm. But if it's just 20mm difference then the EF 180mm, you get even more focal distance sticking a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter to the 180mm. Makes it a bit more transportable then the theoretical 360mm Macro as well (slight loss in optics aside)


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yea, I just came back to this thread to say I saw what deal you found, but you beat me to it! I didn't want black anyway. My favorite color for clothes and bags is brown and green, so the brown 6 MDH was perfect. =]_

 

haha yeah, the brown looks very nice. i wouldn't mind either brown or black but i got lucky because i wear black more than i wear brown (it used to be the other way) so this is definitely a great deal! i may as well pick it up


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well if focal length is more important, get an EF 600mm lens and an extension tube
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

Nothing funny about it, some of the best dragonfly shots I've seen were taken by the 600/4IS


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nothing funny about it, some of the best dragonfly shots I've seen were taken by the 600/4IS 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

More reason to save up on glass
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 A 600mm for dragonflies and F-22 flybys...who would have thought


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_More reason to save up on glass
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 A 600mm for dragonflies and F-22 flybys...who would have thought
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Nah I'm the kind of guy who would use the 600 to shoot flowers at...200 yards...


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nah I'm the kind of guy who would use the 600 to shoot flowers at...200 yards..._

 

LOL! Reminds me of arguments they seem to have on POTN about crop vs FF body: the ability to use telephoto on the 30D is why you should consider it over a FF 5D
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ....my subjects are not flying all over the place, so my 135 2.0L can stay a great portrait lens. And 50mm is a great walk around lens length for FF.


----------



## TheChemist

I'm bringing the XT with grip (and both sleds), a few CF cards, the kit lens, and the 50 1.8 on my backpacking trip next week, which will include summitting Mt. Whitney and hopefully Mt. Muir. woo. 

 I wish I wasn't a poor student.


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheChemist* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_... I wish I wasn't a poor student._

 

OH BOY, do I hear ya!


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheChemist* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm bringing the XT with grip (and both sleds), a few CF cards, the kit lens, and the 50 1.8 on my backpacking trip next week, which will include summitting Mt. Whitney and hopefully Mt. Muir. woo. 

 I wish I wasn't a poor student._

 

I think if I were in your shoes, I'd rent a wide angle for the trip.


----------



## TheChemist

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think if I were in your shoes, I'd rent a wide angle for the trip._

 

I'll deal with 18mm. And I wouldn't feel comfortable carrying a rented lens out there that I can't afford.


----------



## cotdt

where is a good place to rent nikkor lenses?


----------



## TheChemist

Maybe I won't bring the 50 1.8. Apparently if something is shipped Thursday with second day air, it arrives on Monday.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_where is a good place to rent nikkor lenses?_

 

You can try, http://www.adoramarentals.com


----------



## cotdt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can try, http://www.adoramarentals.com_

 

wow i can rent the Nikkor 28mm f/1.4 D for $25! Cool!


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheChemist* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm bringing the XT with grip (and both sleds), a few CF cards, the kit lens, and the 50 1.8 on my backpacking trip next week, which will include summitting Mt. Whitney and hopefully Mt. Muir. woo. 

 I wish I wasn't a poor student._

 

Unless you're going to shoot birds or something, there really isn't anything that combo can't do. The 18-55 covers the most important range you'll need for the trip, and the 50/1.8 will cover any low-light or narrow-DOF shots you want to take. And best of all, the combo is _compact_.

 The fifty on a hiking trip:






 Have fun


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_PS - does anyone have any experience with Slingshot-type bags? I like the idea of being able to just swing the bag over to access my gear but from what I can tell they don't hold all that much stuff._

 

I have the 100 and 200. The 100 is THE day bag for me. The 200 is too big to be useful IMO. It holds quite a bit of gear, but it becomes too heavy to be comfortable. I have the Canon backpack, which I'd rather use if I were lugging around all my gear at one time, which is almost never.

 As for the 100: It's perfect for carrying a camera with lens, a second lens, and flash. It's really a very nice design, but I believe the 200 and 300 outgrow the usefulness of a sling. If you're looking for pure speed, I'd get some kind of toploader, though.

 Also, the sling wasn't really meant to access _gear_. It was meant to access the camera only, as far as I can tell. To access the depths of the compartment you'd have to unzip the cover quite a bit. Once you do that there's some risk to losing gear --Gravity, she is whore, No? The flap acts as a lid. To access only the camera there's no need to unzip it very far (there are 2 zippers, one for each side). This keeps the rest of the compartments covered and secure as you're going for you camera. 

 Actually, all of my bags use a 2 zipper system. I secure the 2 zippers together on each with a carabiner for safety.


 Edit: The 200 is for sale is someone want to try it out.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Samgotit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As for the 100: It's perfect for carrying a camera with lens, a second lens, and flash. It's really a very nice design, but I believe the 200 and 300 outgrow the usefulness of a sling. If you're looking for pure speed, I'd get some kind of toploader, though._

 

Looks like the Lowepro Toploaders are only big enough to hold a camera and an attached lens...I'd like something big enough to hold a camera, two lenses, and a flash (like the slingshot you mentioned). Right now I just use some old messanger bag that I used in school to hold my extra gear (my camera usually stays around my neck or shoulder). It works alright but it doesn't have separate compartments to keep my other gear from banging against each other. What's nice about it is that I can quickly unzip the top and pull out whatever I need, and speed, or at least easy access to gear without having to fumble around too much, is important to me.


----------



## tooch

Picking up a 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM tonight or tomorrow, I can't wait!

 Going to Europe on Wednesday for 2 months, so hopefully I'll come home with some great shots from this lens and my nifty fifty


----------



## TheChemist

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Unless you're going to shoot birds or something, there really isn't anything that combo can't do. The 18-55 covers the most important range you'll need for the trip, and the 50/1.8 will cover any low-light or narrow-DOF shots you want to take. And best of all, the combo is compact.

 The fifty on a hiking trip:





 Have fun 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I guess you didn't catch my second post.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Looks like the Lowepro Toploaders are only big enough to hold a camera and an attached lens...I'd like something big enough to hold a camera, two lenses, and a flash (like the slingshot you mentioned)._

 

I have one of those LowePro top loaders (75 AW) but also have a larger toploader, Tamrac Pro 5, http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...amera_Bag.html if I need to carry more lenses and stuff.

 Now that I think of it, I can fit 70-200 2.8 and 1D and 580 flash in the lowepro which is at it's maximum capacity. If you have shorter lenses, you can easily put it underneath. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tooch* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Picking up a 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM tonight or tomorrow, I can't wait!_

 

Sweet! Just with any lens, I'd give time to take some test shots. Some lenses are under par and not sharp enough (bad sample). One I previously tried was unimpressive to me. It can happen with any lens also. My 1st 24-105 was not very sharp either. It would suck to go on a vacation and then you can't return the lens and have a bunch of mediocre shots.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheChemist* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I guess you didn't catch my second post. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That's unfortunate 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Though the shot shown above was taken at f/9, which isn't anything the kit lens can't do


----------



## TheChemist

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's unfortunate 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Though the shot shown above was taken at f/9, which isn't anything the kit lens can't do 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

no doubt. i will do my best - the sierras do must of the work for you.


----------



## Ooztuncer

hooray got my camera today (great shipping). It seems that it has around 3,500 actuations but it is in very good condition with a never used 18-55mm lens. I will start posting in the other thread but here comes one of the first shots:

 EDIT: I need to say that I love photoshop - even tough I don't know what I am doing, hehe


----------



## TheChemist

wow...a friend just let me borrow the 10-22. i dont think its going to leave my camera much.


----------



## Mrvile

Ooztuncer - my Rebel XT has been going strong for over 9,000 actuations.

 TheChemist - would you be interested in a Sigma 10-20mm? I'm selling mine...


----------



## TheChemist

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ooztuncer - my Rebel XT has been going strong for over 9,000 actuations.

 TheChemist - would you be interested in a Sigma 10-20mm? I'm selling mine..._

 

Just got the 50 1.8, gotta get new IEMs, college around the corner...I dont think I can afford it right now.


----------



## Mrvile

Ok let me introduce a bit more discussion. I've been toying with the thought of picking up a telephoto zoom for a while. But which one, 70-200/4L or 70-300IS?

 Primary uses: Distant macros and landscapes

 Discuss


----------



## Sh0eBoX

hrm, that's a tough one. 70-300 covers more range and has IS, but 70-200 has better IQ and a constant aperture throughout the focal distance. since you're shooting outdoors you will most likely have no need for IS as you will get more than enough natural light than you will need anyhow, so i would shoot for the 70-200 for the constant aperture and superb IQ --- great build too (and internal zooming so less dust will get sucked up over time... and retains its value better so you can sell it later for little to no loss).

 oh yeah, and because of *L* fever


----------



## tooch

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sweet! Just with any lens, I'd give time to take some test shots. Some lenses are under par and not sharp enough (bad sample). One I previously tried was unimpressive to me. It can happen with any lens also. My 1st 24-105 was not very sharp either. It would suck to go on a vacation and then you can't return the lens and have a bunch of mediocre shots._

 

Yeah i'll get some outdoor shots tomorrow, but so far I'm very impressed! Took a shot of the other side of my bedroom at 55mm, and when i looked at it I was like "What are these marks", looked scratched. turns out they were small scratches and spider webs on my wall! that was in low light too! so its fairly sharp!


----------



## GTRacer

Is there a Canon equivalent of the Nikon 18-200 VR? I'm considering a DSLR and right now I'm leaning towards Nikon.


----------



## cotdt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is there a Canon equivalent of the Nikon 18-200 VR? I'm considering a DSLR and right now I'm leaning towards Nikon._

 

NO! go for the Nikon! specs aren't everything. nikons meter better and have a larger, brighter viewfinder.


----------



## uofmtiger

I borrowed my dad's 70-300IS for a recent trip and really liked it. I put up some of the pics I took with the lens here, if you are interested.

 Not sure how it compares with the 70-200, but I wanted to the extra length to compliment my 18-200mm Sigma.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_NO! go for the Nikon! specs aren't everything. nikons meter better and have a larger, brighter viewfinder._

 

what are you smoking? Oh, you are just now being a camera troll instead of a headphone/ amp troll
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 A: spot meters are the most precise kind of meters in cameras.

 B: Canon has FF dSLRs with large pentaprisms: the brightest you can get in optics.


 And RE, Canon's 18-200mm....yes, Canon makes one that's similar. But IMO, unless you just want a light lens, better to get nicer optics.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...9&modelid=7443


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is there a Canon equivalent of the Nikon 18-200 VR? I'm considering a DSLR and right now I'm leaning towards Nikon._

 

Canon doesn't make one, but Sigma does make an 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 OS, which features optical stabilization that rivals Canon's. The Sigma is a third of a stop slower than the Nikon, but it has surprisingly good optics and value.


----------



## lan

I'd get the 70-300 because it has image stabilization. IS is quite useful. F4 is already kind of slow in the daytime if you get clouds or your subject is in the shade.

 There's some black "things" in my 85m lens. I must return it! I'm not sure what they are. Not dust as they are too big and hard edged. Could it be something inside chipped off? I hope they don't appear in my pics since I took over 2,200 photos this weekend.


----------



## laxx

Wow, 2,200 pics is alot.

 I spent some time with the 70-200 f4L this past weekend at friend's wedding and I thought it was great. I was at a friend's house and picked up hsi 70-200 f2.8L IS USM and put it right back down and walked out with the f4L since the 2.8 is just too heavy to walk around with.

 I felt there was a good balance with the XT+grip. It was much better of couse when I was using his 1Ds, but hey, I have no complaints. =T


----------



## lan

Yeah the 70-200 2.8 is just too massive to balance right on anything less than a 1D series. the f4 versions are perfect for xt/xti though.

 Yes it was intense weekend. I was using the 2.8 a good amount of time. Consider it free exercise


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ok let me introduce a bit more discussion. I've been toying with the thought of picking up a telephoto zoom for a while. But which one, 70-200/4L or 70-300IS?
_

 

I've use the 70-200 f4 with tubes once before for dragonflies before M. I'll dig for one of them and post it when I find it.


----------



## mrdeadfolx

My gf bought me a Canon Powershot SD1000 for my bday today! I dunno how sweet they are on the sweetness scale, but it seems pretty awesome to me! Go Team Cannon Bandwagoners!


----------



## Mrvile

Just picked up a 70-200/4L for $435 shipped! And earlier today I snatched a set of Kenko tubes for $110 shipped! Whoo hoo, saving money is fun


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just picked up a 70-200/4L for $435 shipped! And earlier today I snatched a set of Kenko tubes for $110 shipped! Whoo hoo, saving money is fun 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

dang nice, where'd you pick it up from? POTN?


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_dang nice, where'd you pick it up from? POTN?_

 

Good website. I've unfortunately had to temporarily hang up my camera since I don't have access to my work one anymore. Only shoot RAW... and OS 9.2 and Photoshop 5 don't exactly read RAW.

 JagWire is over there as well posting up a storm... although he dissapeared 3 weeks ago


----------



## Sh0eBoX

quite unfortunate that you had to put a hold on the camera! my photography hobby has been pretty dormant for a while while i was upgrading my headphones and whatnot... but now that i'm done with that, i can put that on hold while i get back into photography.

 just purchased a 430EX tonight from a POTNer for $190 shipped, and now i'm trying to decide what diffuser i want to buy. hopefully i will get familiar with the flash by the time we take our trip to hawaii in august 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 i also have to decide what lens i want to rent to take on the trip as i don't have any particularly nice ones. What do you guys think? i'm trying to decide between the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, EF 24-70 f/2.8L, and EF 24-105 f/4L IS

 can't decide if i want the 2.8 and IS and sacrifice reach, or if i want to have the extra reach and 2.8, or give up a stop of light for even more reach and having IS.

 do you think having f/2.8 is necessary if i'm going to be using the 430EX while i'm there? i'm thinking most of my shots will be outdoors and probably during the day, but i will want to take evening shots as well. help me out 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 i would also love to rent the 10-22 as well, but i don't think i'm gonna be able to cough up the cash


----------



## Edwood

I played around with a Canon HV20 today. It certainly handles better than the HV10, as it should since it's quite large in comparison.

 But it feels so poorly built in comparison. And the manual controls still suck. HV10's suck as well. 

 I am still tempting myself, but I am still planning on keeping the HV10 and perhaps upgrading to whatever the next HDV cam from Canon may be. Hopefully they improve on the HV20.

 Till then, I shot some footage of my daughter's first trip to a Japanese market. Played around a bit with different exposures, including fully automatic. 

 I may not have converted to the Canon DSLR camp (I'm a Nikonian now), but I am firmly in the Canon HDV Camcorder camp now. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -Ed


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_just purchased a 430EX tonight from a POTNer for $190 shipped, and now i'm trying to decide what diffuser i want to buy.

 i'm trying to decide between the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, EF 24-70 f/2.8L, and EF 24-105 f/4L IS

 i'm thinking most of my shots will be outdoors and probably during the day, but i will want to take evening shots as well. help me out 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You want a diffusor for indoors or outdoors? Indoors, you could probably make yourself one and learn to bounce. Outdoors and at night, maybe a small lightbox.

 Well for general purpose walkaround outside, you'd be better with the slightly more range so my vote is 24-105. Either of the 2.8 versions is heavy. 17-55 being wider would be better indoors or for wider landscapes but for anything else, be prepared to crop to get your frame right. Realistically for low light situations, learning to use the flash (if applicable) will be smart. To me the difference between 2.8 and 4 isn't much.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just picked up a 70-200/4L for $435 shipped! And earlier today I snatched a set of Kenko tubes for $110 shipped! Whoo hoo, saving money is fun 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Since when is spending, saving? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 I still prefer an IS lens for telephoto but you got a sweet deal on a great lens. We'd like to see what you make out of it.


----------



## Mrvile

Well I haven't been on FredMiranda in a while and when I went on the other day to sell some stuff, I found out that now you have to be a subscribing member in order to post in the Buy/Sell forum! So that forced me over to POTN, where I joined less than a week ago, and have already made numerous transactions through its Market forums.

 Anyway the guy wanted to trade his 70-200/4 for my Sigma 10-20, but by the time he reached me I had already sold it. Unfortunate, because a trade would've been easier and a better deal.

 And the tubes I picked up from an Ebay retailer.

 I can't wait till it all gets here


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Either of the 2.8 versions is heavy. 17-55 being wider would be better indoors or for wider landscapes but for anything else, be prepared to crop to get your frame right. Realistically for low light situations, learning to use the flash (if applicable) will be smart. To me the difference between 2.8 and 4 isn't much._

 

Still, 2.8 would make a difference if you need to capture motion indoors. Not as fast as 2.0 or 1.4....but every bit helps
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Especially if flashes still have a hard time with high sync shutter speeds....just some other things to think about.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Still, 2.8 would make a difference if you need to capture motion indoors. Not as fast as 2.0 or 1.4....but every bit helps
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Especially if flashes still have a hard time with high sync shutter speeds....just some other things to think about._

 

I still think it's fairly limited. You hardly ever need that high of a shutter speed indoors. The flash works fine in stoping most motion. And if you're more long than wideangle, not enough is in focus with 2.8. So for me I find I prefer f4 anyway unless it is really something like sports and 2.8's subject isolation and higher shutter speeds make a difference. IS will yield sharper photos in this case.


----------



## Sh0eBoX

sweet i was probably thinking to rent the 24-105 as it seems to be the most popular walkaround/vacation lens. i have a 50mm f/1.8 for low light situations, just so long as i have enough room to do some foot zooming


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So for me I find I prefer f4 anyway unless it is really something like sports and 2.8's subject isolation and higher shutter speeds make a difference. IS will yield sharper photos in this case._

 

I've noticed a lot of IS night-time shots that wind up with a lot of motion blurr....well it depends on application. As you say, sports would need higher shutter speed. I find myself going to 3.5 or 2.8 on night shots quite a bit (whether for motion or shallow DOF).


----------



## Mrvile

Got my 70-200/4L in the mail today. Had a few minutes to play around with it but now I have to go to work. I'll post some test shots when I get back. From what I can see it's very sharp wide open.

 Yay!


----------



## ChickenGod

I settled on getting a Canon Digital Rebel XT, but what lens should I get? It will be for taking pictures of family and scenery. Under 100 please


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Got my 70-200/4L in the mail today. Had a few minutes to play around with it but now I have to go to work. I'll post some test shots when I get back. From what I can see it's very sharp wide open.

 Yay!_

 

The Canon 70-200/4 L is a great lens. I shoot mine wide open frequently, and even with the 1.4x TC on it, it still looks great. You'll love it, I'm sure!

 Sample shot:

 20D, 1/1000 sec, f/5.6, ISO 800


----------



## RYCeT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ChickenGod* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I settled on getting a Canon Digital Rebel XT, but what lens should I get? It will be for taking pictures of family and scenery. Under 100 please 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Under $100.00, your best bet is Canon 50mm 1.8. You'll have no problem taking a family picture, unfortunately 50 mm will be too long for scenery.


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Hooray, got my 430EX in the mail today! Fired a few test shots and it's working great... I read the manual and have got to spend more time learning how to use it... will probably do some test shots a little later this afternoon.

 In preparation for my flash's arrival, I went out yesterday and bought some foam paper/velcro/elastic to construct some DIY diffusers (A better Bounce Card and Gardner's Diffuser, which I will provide links for). They're very easy to make, and with about $17 worth of material, I was able to make 10 total diffusers (8 A Better Bounce Cards --- 2 full size and 6 "baby" ones, and 2 of the Gardner's Diffusers). Later tonight I will do some test shots to compare the difference between direct, bounced, and diffused flashes using the diffusers and post them up here (once I get an elastic band made for my ABBCs).

 Here are a couple pics of the diffusers I made... for more views just click on one of the pictures:








 Links to how to make the diffusers: www.abetterbouncecard.com and http://super.nova.org/DPR/DIY01/


----------



## Mrvile

You know, I saw someone selling those things on POTN and it looked interesting. But since I already have the Lumiquest bouncer, I didn't feel compelled to buy it. How is that one supposed to work any better than the Lumiquest one or even a piece of cardboard suspended above the flash (besides the fact that you can fold it back)?


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You know, I saw someone selling those things on POTN and it looked interesting. But since I already have the Lumiquest bouncer, I didn't feel compelled to buy it. How is that one supposed to work any better than the Lumiquest one or even a piece of cardboard suspended above the flash (besides the fact that you can fold it back)?_

 

which one? i'm assuming you're talking about the Gardner one (the one i have a pic of mounted on my flash).

 I'm not so sure that it's made to work _better_ than the lumiquest, rather it's made to work similarly to it but for cheaper since it's DIY. From what i've read, it's pretty much the same idea though, gives the flash a larger surface to reflect off of giving the appearance of a larger light source while diffusing the light to rid harsh shadows of direct flash. throws light forward as well as bouncing some of it off the ceiling for an ambient/fill light combination.

 So basically it's just a cheap DIY alternative to the lumiquest promax i think... i just really wanted to do a little DIY project and this one seemed easy and fun. If it works well for diffusion then i don't see why not keep it and save myself some money 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 --- doesn't look that bad either for a DIY diffuser IMO


----------



## ChickenGod

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RYCeT* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Under $100.00, your best bet is Canon 50mm 1.8. You'll have no problem taking a family picture, unfortunately 50 mm will be too long for scenery._

 

Oh I heard about those lens 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was just making sure I was on the right track haha. Well are there any other lens under 100 for scenery?


----------



## lan

Unfortunately there are no good wide angle lenses that are <$100. I would just get the 50 1.8 and live with it. It's a lense worth keeping in ones' arsenal.


 Edwood.... I'm now considering HV20. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm about to go on a trip and I oddly have that video itch again. Funds have been freed since I returned the 85 1.2L.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ChickenGod* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I settled on getting a Canon Digital Rebel XT, but what lens should I get? It will be for taking pictures of family and scenery. Under 100 please 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Are you getting the kit lens (18-55) with the XT? It's not great wide open, but stopped down it's not all that bad. The 50/1.8 can be your low-light lens.


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Edwood.... I'm now considering HV20. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm about to go on a trip and I oddly have that video itch again._

 

I just ordered mine! Same thing. I was about to go on a trip and figured now was the time. B&H doesn't have in stock the wide angle kit that goes with it and one of the stops along the way will be the Grand Canyon, so I must find that bugger soon!

 This is the one I'm referring to: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=227155&is=REG


----------



## Wmcmanus

Found it at digitaldistributors.com Cost a little more because of the shipping charges I could have avoided by tacking it onto my B&H order, but 'oh well'.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *beerguy0* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you getting the kit lens (18-55) with the XT? It's not great wide open, but stopped down it's not all that bad. The 50/1.8 can be your low-light lens._

 

QFT. The kit lens is perfect for scenery since you will be stopping down to f/8-ish anyway. The kit lens + nifty fifty is a great budget combo


----------



## ChickenGod

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *beerguy0* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you getting the kit lens (18-55) with the XT? It's not great wide open, but stopped down it's not all that bad. The 50/1.8 can be your low-light lens._

 

No I'm not getting the lens with the XT. I'm just getting the 50/1.8. I'm ordering from bhphotovideo.com in like a few minutes 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Its all in my shopping cart already. Is it worth it to get the 18-55?


----------



## euclid

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah I should've updated my first post to reflect my choice.

 What happened to your 1D that necessitated it to be opened up? I used to have the same cameras. I had sold the 10D because it is just too slow in more ways that one. I use the XTi now. It lets me do a few more things like AF is better (since it's same as 30D), more modern flash algorithms, more megapixels so I can crop, a bit better low light capability, faster start up times, and lighter weight. Sometimes I like to use more than 1 camera at a time and it gets crazy to have two larger cameras.
_

 

sorry i didnt keep up with the thread, my 1D prism had accumulated ALOT of dust and no amount of compressed air was able to clean it. so rather than send it in to Canon to be serviced i figured i would try it myself... couldnt be that hard open the rear case and it probibly slides out.

 to descibe this camera as a brick of electronics is appropriate, i had to take the ENTIRE 1D apart to remove the prism and i was too lazy to put it all back together, now i ve waited too long and i need to buy a Canon service manual b/c ive forgot how everything fits. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 regarding the ergonics of the 1 series, its a joy. once you get used to the size and weight there is *almost* no going back, every function thats needed is integrated nicely into the hand controls, and by holding buttons and using the wheel or pressing other buttons it has a ton of functionality without needing to access menus. the custom functions menu is really big the camera has alot of personalization potential. AF is very good too, 10D AF is a joke and i used the 20D which is better but really cant compare to the 1D.


----------



## Kahuna

I have a 20D with a 580EX Speedlite, and use a 4x4 white poster board to reflect/bounce my flash with. My camera is mtd. to a Gitzo tripod and a Markins ball head with a release for the camera. (I hold the release and the bounce board). I'm going to have to try making one of your set-ups...



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hooray, got my 430EX in the mail today! Fired a few test shots and it's working great... I read the manual and have got to spend more time learning how to use it... will probably do some test shots a little later this afternoon.

 In preparation for my flash's arrival, I went out yesterday and bought some foam paper/velcro/elastic to construct some DIY diffusers (A better Bounce Card and Gardner's Diffuser, which I will provide links for). They're very easy to make, and with about $17 worth of material, I was able to make 10 total diffusers (8 A Better Bounce Cards --- 2 full size and 6 "baby" ones, and 2 of the Gardner's Diffusers). Later tonight I will do some test shots to compare the difference between direct, bounced, and diffused flashes using the diffusers and post them up here (once I get an elastic band made for my ABBCs).

 Here are a couple pics of the diffusers I made... for more views just click on one of the pictures:








 Links to how to make the diffusers: www.abetterbouncecard.com and http://super.nova.org/DPR/DIY01/_


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ChickenGod* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No I'm not getting the lens with the XT. I'm just getting the 50/1.8. I'm ordering from bhphotovideo.com in like a few minutes 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Its all in my shopping cart already. Is it worth it to get the 18-55?_

 

If you can only afford one lens, you might want to look into the 18-55. It would at least give you some zoom capability, and a little more flexibility. You caold add the 50/1.8 later, as it's only around $70.


----------



## TheChemist

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ChickenGod* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No I'm not getting the lens with the XT. I'm just getting the 50/1.8. I'm ordering from bhphotovideo.com in like a few minutes 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Its all in my shopping cart already. Is it worth it to get the 18-55?_

 

To start, I'd get the 18-55. You can add the 50 1.8 easily later, but in the very beginning its nice to have a zoom lens with a decent wide angle.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ChickenGod* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No I'm not getting the lens with the XT. I'm just getting the 50/1.8. I'm ordering from bhphotovideo.com in like a few minutes 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Its all in my shopping cart already. Is it worth it to get the 18-55?_

 

Yeah what they said. I started with the 18-55 and got the 50 later. I then gave the 18-55 away and now I don't have a standard zoom lens, which is very debilitating if I'm on the go.

 The 18-55, if used properly, is a very capable lens and can yield some very nice pictures. It also covers the most popular range for APS-C cameras and thus makes a very good learning tool.


----------



## euclid

my uncle has a 17-40L which ive used a couple times and its pretty good considering the price. slow at f4.0 and alittle soft at the edges wide open, but for landscape and other material you would be shooting with the wider lens usually stopped down to f8 or f11 which it does fine.

 he gets decent results with it indoors using a bounced/diffused 580ex.


----------



## Mrvile

Hooray for 70-200/4! I'm still waiting for my Kenko tubes to arrive, hopefully I get them soon.

 Test shot with the 70-200 at 200mm wide open:





 Here's a crop at 200mm wide open...looks sharp to me:





 Oh and another question...

 I have about $400ish to spend on another lens and I'm attracted to both the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and the Sigma 30/1.4. My current lineup goes as such: 50/1.8, 100/2.8 macro, 70-200/4L. Now I don't really need a "walkaround" lens since I can make any lens a walkaround lens. The Tamron is appealing because, well, it covers a very necessary focal range and is pretty fast, not to mention sharp...a 17-50mm f/2.8 zoom is a very powerful lens for only ~$400. The Sigma, on the other hand, is another powerful lens for cheap...the only other one in its class is the Canon 35L. It translates to about 50mm on APS-C, its speed makes for a great low-light lens, and its wide aperture opens up a lot of creative doors. And it's about time I stopped using my 50/1.8 wide open (ugh).

 So what do you guys think?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *euclid* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_sorry i didnt keep up with the thread, my 1D prism had accumulated ALOT of dust and no amount of compressed air was able to clean it. so rather than send it in to Canon to be serviced i figured i would try it myself... couldnt be that hard open the rear case and it probibly slides out.

 to descibe this camera as a brick of electronics is appropriate, i had to take the ENTIRE 1D apart to remove the prism and i was too lazy to put it all back together, now i ve waited too long and i need to buy a Canon service manual b/c ive forgot how everything fits. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Wow wild. I think I'll send mine in to be cleaned eventually. It's not at the top of my priority list since I use other cameras mainly. This reminds me of other electronics projects. I have thing apart but it's going to be a puzzle to put back together. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Well I hope this works out for you.

 -------------

 I've never used the 18-55 kit lens so can't comment on it. I started with a 50mm. The zoom definitely does give you freedom and also gives you a wide angle. A picture is better than no picture and for indoor and outdoors, it can be useful to have such a lens. The 50mm is more of a keeper for lower light though. Each is not that expensive so you can eventuall have both 50 1.8 and 18-55. the question is which one first. For most people, I'd suggest the zoom.

 --------------

 Mrville, that 70-200 f4 looks pretty good. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Since you're the creative kind of guy, I'd go with the 30mm f1.4. I guess it also depends if you feel you want wide angle or not. Having a bunch of primes is pretty sweet!


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hooray for 70-200/4! I'm still waiting for my Kenko tubes to arrive, hopefully I get them soon.
_

 

This is one with the 70-200 f4 wide open and tubes. I think I just barley missed focus on his head (abdomen instead), but it's great for dragonflies and the bokeh is great, though a little busy in the pic below.
 (I actually had a dragonfly land on my arm and eat a mosquito that was stealthily sucking my blood today. No camera, but how cool is that!? He stayed on my arm as he ate. Thanks dragonfly.)









*M*, I say you need the Tamron 17-50. I've got it, and I love it.
*
 Kahuna*, that's a sweet homemade diffuser.


----------



## Kahuna

It looks a little odd in use, but it was cheap and does the trick! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 "*
 Kahuna*, that's a sweet homemade diffuser."


----------



## Mrvile

Well the thing is, I don't really care for wide angle, that's why I sold my Sigma 10-20. While I'm sure the Sigma 30/1.4 is a more "fun" lens to own, I'll probably be kicking myself the next time I see a sweet landscape and the widest lens I own is 30mm.


----------



## lan

I don't shoot wide angle much either. I use the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 for that. It's a cheaper lens and full frame (which I need).

 If you want to keep it on the cheap... why not get another stock kit lens


----------



## Kahuna

I use to us my wide angle a great deal, (17-40L f4) but lately I have been sticking with a Canon 70-200L IS f2.8 for my daughters soccer, and my sons baseball games.


----------



## Sh0eBoX

mrvile... i say you go for the 17-50 since you don't have a kit lens and the ability to zoom is a lot more practical than a prime, even though primes are more fun. 17-50 has gotten great reviews, and 2.8 should be plenty fast unless you find yourself shooting indoors a lot. but from what i've seen from you it appears the majority of your shots are outdoors, so you probably won't need the speed of the 30

 nice 70-200 btw, looks to be a pretty good copy! i'd love to pick one up, but i'm gonna try to save up for the f/4L IS, so i've got a little while yet to wait, especially after spending most of my cash on my darths 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 haha --- oh well, soon.


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Ok, so I finally got an elastic band made to hold the "A Better Bounce Cards" onto my 430EX so I did a very quick and rough test tonight. The test subject, as you will see, was not a person, unfortunately, as it's too late right now. I just used the 430EX case set on the table against in front of the wall with my Digital Rebel XT and kit lens mounted to my 3021bpro/488RC2 about 3 feet away from the case.

 All pictures were taken in Shutter Priority (Tv) mode at 1/125s, f/4.5, ISO200, and 34mm focal length with center-point focus. I left the camera on AWB mode and the flash on auto (E-TTL). Absolutely no post-processing was done, just resized to 640x480 in Photoshop.

 Below are the results with the type of diffuser or flash method used. For convenience sake, the pics are posted in 640x480, so if you want to see the full size, click on the picture to view it.

*Direct Flash*




*Bounced Flash*




*A Better Bounce Card*




*Gardner's Diffuser*




 As you can see, the direct flash did produce the harshest shadows out of all of them, and also produced slightly bright spots on the case, although it's really not so bad. It also did the worst job of lighting the background. Bounced flash looks almost as if it is purely ambient light, with a very light orange-ish color cast (sorry for the slight blur, I told you this test was very rough 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




). A Better Bounce Card and Gardner's diffusers both produced very, very similar results in this test. However, If you look closely, the ABBC did still produce a slight shadow behind the case just above the table. Gardner's diffuser did the best job with reducing the harsh shadows and looking nearly like the flash was not even used.

 Even though this is just a very rough test that only skims the surface of what these things can do, it's fairly apparent that the diffusers make a HUGE difference in flash photographs. They offer a great advantage over direct flash as they eliminate harsh shadows, and I also find them superior to bounced flash as they allow bouncing, as well as throwing some of the light from the flash foward to act as fill flash, which also helps bring out subtle details in the photograph.

 For only a few bucks, I think these diffusers are definitely worth it. I don't have any consumer diffusers, such as the Sto-fen Omnibounce, Gary Fong Lightsphere, or Lumiquest Promax, but as I've read, they do offer almost the same performance for a fraction of the cost. Pretty fun project too!

 So if you have a flash and are looking for a diffuser, I highly recommend giving this a try. Hopefully it will suffice for your needs and save you from spending more money on a consumer diffuser later on!


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hooray for 70-200/4! I'm still waiting for my Kenko tubes to arrive, hopefully I get them soon.


 Oh and another question...

 I have about $400ish to spend on another lens and I'm attracted to both the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and the Sigma 30/1.4. My current lineup goes as such: 50/1.8, 100/2.8 macro, 70-200/4L. Now I don't really need a "walkaround" lens since I can make any lens a walkaround lens. The Tamron is appealing because, well, it covers a very necessary focal range and is pretty fast, not to mention sharp...a 17-50mm f/2.8 zoom is a very powerful lens for only ~$400. The Sigma, on the other hand, is another powerful lens for cheap...the only other one in its class is the Canon 35L. It translates to about 50mm on APS-C, its speed makes for a great low-light lens, and its wide aperture opens up a lot of creative doors. And it's about time I stopped using my 50/1.8 wide open (ugh).

 So what do you guys think?_

 

I'd probably go with the 17-50/2.8, but I'm a wide angle guy anyway. The 30/1.4 wouldn't be nearly wide enough for me. The 17-50 fills in your lens lineup very nicely.


----------



## laxx

Man, I got my 580EX last week and I got one of those diffusers from PotN for fun. It actually works great, but it's too big to carry around. I've been wanting the 70-200 f4L since I used it 2 weekends ago, so I think I'll be joining that camp soon. =T


----------



## lan

laxx, you saw my 580ex. It wasn't that big. Diffusors maybe kind of big. WHich one did you get?


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well the thing is, I don't really care for wide angle, that's why I sold my Sigma 10-20. While I'm sure the Sigma 30/1.4 is a more "fun" lens to own, I'll probably be kicking myself the next time I see a sweet landscape and the widest lens I own is 30mm._

 

IMO, a "normal" focal length is the best walk around length. 50mm primes remained the most popular fixed length for 35mm cameras because they are versatile. My "normal" lens is my main walk around. If you want to get in closer, it forces you to get in closer
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Every once in awhile, I do go to 35 or 28mm on my Tamron (with FF camera). 30mm (or "normal")would give you a lot of use, and a lot of light. And if you want to get a landscape out of it, well it would be even better then wide angle if you tried out stitching several photos together to make a panoramic in PP


----------



## laxx

I got a 580EX (not the II) and Gardner's diffuser made by one of the PotN guys. My friend's actually going to pick up some Sto-fen Omnibounces this week since he works in the city, so we're gonna check them out this weekend.

 I took a stop to the Queens Botanical Garden this past weekend with my girlfriend and I snapped some pics. I really should have emptied my memory card before I left my house (only had room for about 40 shots) and I spent about 30 of them on some bees. Yea... they were alot harder to shoot than I thought. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 definitely gonna go back soon.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_laxx, you saw my 580ex. It wasn't that big. Diffusors maybe kind of big. WHich one did you get?_


----------



## lan

Got to make sure to bring more than one memory card 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm going to probably pickup a softbox on Wednesday. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Looks like we're all flash mad.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_IMO, a "normal" focal length is the best walk around length._

 

I agree. Forces you to be creative and helps you avoid taking the "cliche" shots that you probably would if you had a zoom.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_50mm primes remained the most popular fixed length for 35mm cameras because they are versatile._

 

My main walkaround lens right now is my 50/1.8. 50mm is fine for most things, but the problem is that the image quality isn't so good wide open and the focusing is pretty unreliable. I'm hoping that by getting the Sigma 30/1.4 I have a more reliable lens that I won't hesitate to use wide open.

 And just for the record, I don't need the f/1.4 for the light, I'd rather use it for its narrow DOF. I use DOF to isolate my subjects a lot, and unless I'm shooting landscapes, I generally like to have some OOF in my shots.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Every once in awhile, I do go to 35 or 28mm on my Tamron (with FF camera). 30mm (or "normal")would give you a lot of use, and a lot of light. And if you want to get a landscape out of it, well it would be even better then wide angle if you tried out stitching several photos together to make a panoramic in PP
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Or, better still, I can change the way I shoot landscapes by using a slightly longer lens.


----------



## lan

What about the 50 1.8 isn't good wide open? The Sigma I hear isn't really sharp edge to edge but with center focus point, maybe only the center matters?

 Well I went to the shop to checkout the HV20, AGAIN. I love the image quality BUT I just can't get over the cheap build quality and I just do not like how it feels in my hand. I started cramping up. ugggh.

 I'm debating on my trip how many cameras I should take. 3 still digi, 2 digi, or 1 digi + 1 video. I'm even thinking of bringing it all and not bringing many clothes. I'll just wash over and over again.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What about the 50 1.8 isn't good wide open? The Sigma I hear isn't really sharp edge to edge but with center focus point, maybe only the center matters?_

 

The 50/1.8 is really soft wide open. It's so bad that it almost looks like the entire photo is slightly motionblurred, but it's not because I'm shooting at like 1/500. From f/2.8 and up, it's fine.

 The Sigma is soft around the corners but very sharp in the center, even wide open. The corners won't matter too much since most of the time, shooting at f/1.4, the corners will already be OOF.


----------



## ChickenGod

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah what they said. I started with the 18-55 and got the 50 later. I then gave the 18-55 away and now I don't have a standard zoom lens, which is very debilitating if I'm on the go.

 The 18-55, if used properly, is a very capable lens and can yield some very nice pictures. It also covers the most popular range for APS-C cameras and thus makes a very good learning tool._

 

Aww poo. I ordered already... I got the 50/1.8 I guess I'll just buy more


----------



## ChickenGod

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah what they said. I started with the 18-55 and got the 50 later. I then gave the 18-55 away and now I don't have a standard zoom lens, which is very debilitating if I'm on the go.

 The 18-55, if used properly, is a very capable lens and can yield some very nice pictures. It also covers the most popular range for APS-C cameras and thus makes a very good learning tool._

 

Aww poo. I ordered already... I got the 50/1.8 I guess I'll just buy more 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Is this it?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._EF_S_USM.html


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ChickenGod* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Aww poo. I ordered already... I got the 50/1.8 I guess I'll just buy more 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Is this it?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._EF_S_USM.html_

 

That one is "USM" which you don't really need for the kit lens. I wouldn't buy a new kit lens, see if you can score one from either ebay or any of the buy/sell sections of photography forums. Check FredMirana and Photography-on-the-net. Kit lenses usually go for like ~$50.


----------



## lan

Yep, used is the way to go with those kit lenses.

 Mrvile, looks like 30mm FTW? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Yippy! Looks like the remote shutter release I order weeks ago was not lost in the mail. My neighbor / friend just had it but misplaced it in their house. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It's not as useful now since it only works on one of my cameras instead of two. The XTi uses different terminal.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_IMO, a "normal" focal length is the best walk around length. 50mm primes remained the most popular fixed length for 35mm cameras because they are versatile. My "normal" lens is my main walk around. If you want to get in closer, it forces you to get in closer
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Every once in awhile, I do go to 35 or 28mm on my Tamron (with FF camera). 30mm (or "normal")would give you a lot of use, and a lot of light. And if you want to get a landscape out of it, well it would be even better then wide angle if you tried out stitching several photos together to make a panoramic in PP
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The "problem" with the 50mm as a "normal" lens on a 1.6x crop body is that it's not a "normal" FOV. It's basically like using an 80mm lens. 50 is normal for a full-frame camera. 35 or 28 is closer to normal for an APS-C sensor. I've got the 28/1.8, and that makes a nice walk-around lens. It can focus fairly closely, and stopped down to f/2 or better, it's got decent optics. The 35/2 is another good choice for a normal lens on APS-C sensor cameras.

 I happen to think that 50 is a tad long on a FF camera. The 28 works out to about 45mm, which is very close to the equivalent of the diagonal dimension of a 35mm film frame (43mm). The diagonal dimensinon of the film format is what is usually considered to be the "normal" focal length for that format. An APS-C sensor is 22x15mm, which works out to a 26.6mm lens being the normal focal length. 28mm fills the bill nicely.

 The above is just my opinion, but my opinion is based an 40+years of shooting, on every format from 126 up to 8"x10", and having owned literally dozens of lenses in various focal lengths and formats.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *beerguy0* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The "problem" with the 50mm as a "normal" lens on a 1.6x crop body is that it's not a "normal" FOV._

 

That's why I said a 30mm would be "normal" in Mrvile's case
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 With my case of using FF, then 50mm is my preferred "normal": if there were 45mm lenses, then they would be a truer "normal".....but I am used to 50mm, so why break with tradition?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 50mm was the main lens I had growing up with a Canon AE-1.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *beerguy0* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_An APS-C sensor is 22x15mm, which works out to a 26.6mm lens being the normal focal length. 28mm fills the bill nicely._

 

Actually, APS C (film) is 16.7 × 25.1 mm, which equates to 30.15 mm image diagonal. Hence why 30mm would be as ideal a "normal" as one would get. But digital cameras do have a misnomer of labeling a sensor "APS C *1/8"*" if it's smaller then that....the 400D has a sensor size of 22.2 x 14.8 mm, which doing my math means 26.68mm ideal "normal"

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *beerguy0* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The above is just my opinion, but my opinion is based an 40+years of shooting, on every format from 126 up to 8"x10", and having owned literally dozens of lenses in various focal lengths and formats._

 

Everyone has their preferences with focal lengths. I'm less of a wide angle person myself. I don't like the distortions that one gets with close ups (though I just saw an Annie Leibovitz exhibit that had one great portrait done with extreme wide angle: an exception out of the norm)....and every once in awhile I need 28mm for landscapes (on my FF 5D). For further reference on what "normal" focal lengths are, this wikipedia article seems to cover a lot of formats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens


----------



## Mrvile

Where does the whole concept of "normal lens" come from? Is it supposed to mimic the viewing angle of the human eye? But then again, the human eye works so differently that you can't really compare it to a camera or lens.

 Anywho I personally also think 50mm on APS-C is a little long. 50mm translates to about 80-85mm, which is great for portraits given that I have room to work, but most of the time it's a little long for most indoor stuff. But with the 30/1.4, it's not so much that I'm worried about the "normalness" of the lens, but instead I'm looking for the fast aperture combined with a slightly wider lens. I want my focus to be mainly on the subject, but I want the background to be able to talk, too, which I normally can't achieve with longer lenses.

 Images like these are awesome IMO (not mine):

http://www.pbase.com/image/70703003
http://www.pbase.com/image/70416434


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Where does the whole concept of "normal lens" come from? Is it supposed to mimic the viewing angle of the human eye?_

 

Not so much viewing angle (especially since we have binocular FOV that gives us huge angle of view). It more has to do with perspective. Our eyes have a fixed focal length (roughly this 1:1 ratio of lens focal length to sensor size). How an eye focuses on things is to change the shape of its lens, and not focal length. Lens makers can't make a flexible lens, so their solution is to have flexible focal lengths. But the minute you change focal lengths, you also have a perspective change with the amount of light that's hitting the sensor.

 It is rather interesting to see these changes in perspective with an ultrawide angle lens vs telephoto lens. If I'm submitting proofs of a 3D model that I'm working on in the computer, I have to be sure my focal length on my camera is set to 100mm in Maya. Maya's default is 35mm, which often throws people for a loop when trying to judge a person's proportions. Suddenly they get a huge nose and small ears
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Images like these are awesome IMO (not mine):

http://www.pbase.com/image/70703003
http://www.pbase.com/image/70416434_

 

I notice those are shot from Nikons....which have a sensor size of 23.6 x 15.8 mm. Their normal focal length would be 28.4mm then. So the perspective would be slightly different on a Canon.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not so much viewing angle (especially since we have binocular FOV that gives us huge angle of view). It more has to do with perspective. Our eyes have a fixed focal length (roughly this 1:1 ratio of lens focal length to sensor size). How an eye focuses on things is to change the shape of its lens, and not focal length. Lens makers can't make a flexible lens, so their solution is to have flexible focal lengths. But the minute you change focal lengths, you also have a perspective change with the amount of light that's hitting the sensor.

 It is rather interesting to see these changes in perspective with an ultrawide angle lens vs telephoto lens. If I'm submitting proofs of a 3D model that I'm working on in the computer, I have to be sure my focal length on my camera is set to 100mm in Maya. Maya's default is 35mm, which often throws people for a loop when trying to judge a person's proportions. Suddenly they get a huge nose and small ears
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Hmm, I was always under the impression that a longer focal length was merely a "crop," if you will, of a wider focal length, and persective didn't change as long as you don't step in or out. That's why, regarding perspective and viewing angle, a 100mm lens on a APS-C camera can be said as being exactly a 160mm lens on a full-frame camera since, well, 160mm is technically a closer "crop" of the image a 100mm lens would take in. Of course, once you include DOF, things change, but assuming that everything is in focus, that would be the case. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I notice those are shot from Nikons....which have a sensor size of 23.6 x 15.8 mm. Their normal focal length would be 28.4mm then. So the perspective would be slightly different on a Canon._

 

Meh, the difference between 1.5 crop and 1.6 crop is discardable. I wasn't really talking as much about the width of the shot, more of the DOF.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmm, I was always under the impression that a longer focal length was merely a "crop," if you will, of a wider focal length, and persective didn't change as long as you don't step in or out. That's why, regarding perspective and viewing angle, a 100mm lens on a APS-C camera can be said as being exactly a 160mm lens on a full-frame camera since, well, 160mm is technically a closer "crop" of the image a 100mm lens would take in. Of course, once you include DOF, things change, but assuming that everything is in focus, that would be the case. _

 

Well a lens with a longer focal length is also magnifying the image: giving it a narrower FOV. But there are differences in perspective if you change the FOV on a fixed sensor size. Here is a classic example of what a wide angle lens does to a person's face:






 Since the FOV is much less with a long lens, it's not having to take in as much of the image and the narrower angle also leaves less distortion from differences in perspective.

 An APS dSLR is cropping out the image area that the lens is providing. However, you get more of this perspective distortion the further out you go from the center of the image...so it probably does have similarities with traditional film photography.

 AFAIK, these differences in perspective have to do with having a convex lens projecting an image onto a flat image plane (ie the sensor/ film). The bigger the FOV, the more of this distortion. Our eyes don't have this problem since the retina is curved.


----------



## Mrvile

Well yeah, perspective will change if the magnification stays the same. However, in order to keep the magnification constant, you'd have to step back or step forward, and as soon as you start moving around everything changes.

 Anyway, now that I have the Luxury of a zoom lens 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





, I was able to do this little experiment. I took a shot at 70mm and at 200mm from the same spot to see if they were essentially the same.

 Here is the shot I took at 70mm:





 Here is the shot I took at 200mm:





 Now I took the 70mm shot and cropped it to see if I could get the same image as the 200mm. Here is the 70mm shot, cropped:





 I imagine if I use a 50mm lens, a 30mm lens, or even a 12mm lens, the crop of the image would be no different, I would just have to crop more. From this example, I could easily take a 70mm lens, shoot something with it, crop it, and call it a 200mm lens (as long as everything is in focus, thus disregarding DOF). This is how "digital zoom" works with a lot of point-and-shoot cameras (as opposed to "optical zoom").


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well yeah, perspective will change if the magnification stays the same. However, in order to keep the magnification constant, you'd have to step back or step forward, and as soon as you start moving around everything changes._

 

Still, higher magnification gives you less lens distortion. If you try to get less distortion of a person's face using wide angle lens, you have to step back quite a bit and then crop out a lot of the image.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I imagine if I use a 50mm lens, a 30mm lens, or even a 12mm lens, the crop of the image would be no different, I would just have to crop more. From this example, I could easily take a 70mm lens, shoot something with it, crop it, and call it a 200mm lens (as long as everything is in focus, thus disregarding DOF). This is how "digital zoom" works with a lot of point-and-shoot cameras (as opposed to "optical zoom")._

 


 Well if you were using a 30mm lens and try to crop the image to have a FOV of a 200mm, that's a lot of reduction in resolution
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 In my above example of a portrait, that's the difference of using most the image area of a wide angle lens on a 35mm plane: you could get a similar perspective as a "normal" lens if you stepped back and cropped in the image. But the more you step back to get a cropped FOV, the less resolution you'll have in the image. Why digital zoom sucks compared to optical zoom. But maybe I'm just a purist and like having all my available pixels
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 This distortion of a convex lens is a rather interesting problem in optics. It was especially problematic with the first large screen movie theaters....the larger the screen, the more curved it would be.

 BTW, in your experiment, it's using focal lengths that are both telephoto. The longer the focal length, the less difference in angle of view as well. But get to a "fisheye" angle


----------



## Mrvile

Hmm, ok let's say you take a 12mm lens and take a picture of someone's face, relatively close up so it looks distorted. Now you take a 100mm lens and take _several_ shots of that person's face from the same distance. Then you stitch all the photos together. Will the two images end up looking the same? Will the stitched 100mm image have the same amount of distortion?


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Then you stitch all the photos together. Will the two images end up looking the same? Will the stitched 100mm image have the same amount of distortion?_

 

Interesting hypothetical! Instead of a person's face....lets say it's some interior where you're 30 feet from your subject. Now you'll have a certain amount of lens distortion from the wide angle, but if the perspective of the scene doesn't reveal those distortions, then they won't look odd. Now if you take a longer focal length lens and then stitch an image together, you're eliminating some of this distortion with lens vs image plane. If you keep the camera on a tripod, you'll be tilting the digital back along with the lens (you're not introducing that parabolic distortion of a convex lens). So you'd get less distortion that way. And you'd get a more "orthographic" projection still if you moved the camera and made sure it stayed exactly parallel with that what you're photographing.


----------



## Mrvile

Ok, so you take a panoramic shot of, I dunno, a line of trees. If you're staying in relatively the same spot while shooting all the shots and you're tilting the camera back and forth to get all the images, you're essentially forming a "dome" shape with the sensor. Wouldn't this basically mimic the effects of a convex lens in collecting image information and introduce the same amount of perspective distortion? So in our example, the middle of the line of trees will look pretty big while it shrinks out into the distance towards the right and left sides of our panorama (which is the classic, distorted, "panoramic" look).


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Wouldn't this basically mimic the effects of a convex lens in collecting image information and introduce the same amount of perspective distortion?_

 

No, it would be less distortion....as the film/digital back is being curved. The wide angle lens is essentially having a convex lens that has a bigger curve: and it's projecting on a flat image plane.

 Now if you stitch a lot of telephoto pictures together (being taken from tilting a tripod), you have a different type of perspective....it's a point of view discrepancy that lets you see how far away something is. An orthographic view eliminates that and gives you the best sense of scale and proportion.

 POV is something artists have been factoring in for ages. If you look at a lot of sculpture from the Renaissance, some look rather odd from eye level. Michaelangelo's David is a great example. It has a huge head at eye level. Michaelangelo purposely gave him a big head so that he would look "normal" when viewed from underneath (as most sculpture was made to be on prominences of buildings).


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm debating on my trip how many cameras I should take. 3 still digi, 2 digi, or 1 digi + 1 video. I'm even thinking of bringing it all and not bringing many clothes. I'll just wash over and over again. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Quoting myself 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Well looks like I've decided.

 I'm going to get the HV20. I figure I should have a camcorder I can really do a lot with. I'll figure out new ways to hold it just like I did with getting used to the smaller XTi. I think for this trip, I'm going to do things different as in bring rigs I don't normally use.


----------



## Mrvile

Ok change of scenery! This is the third or fourth time I've copy/pasted this already 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Anyway I went dragonflying with the 70-200/4L today. No tubes yet, still waiting for those to arrive.

 I noticed a couple things while shooting today. First, shooting at 200mm f/4 at minimum focus distance isn't a good idea. Most of the shots I took at this range came out pretty soft, even though I was shooting at 1/800+. I was lucky enough to be able to salvage a couple. At f/5.6, it's tack sharp. Also, trying to AF macro with a non-macro lens is a bad idea. I learned that pretty quickly.

 Ok onto the pictures...I hadn't noticed at first but I guess all the ones I ended up picking were at the same angle. Hmm. Should've flipped one of them for variety. Oh well.


 1.





 2.





 3. I like how the white blobs in the background sort of "frame" this shot:


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_First, shooting at 200mm f/4 at minimum focus distance isn't a good idea. Most of the shots I took at this range came out pretty soft, even though I was shooting at 1/800+. I was lucky enough to be able to salvage a couple. At f/5.6, it's tack sharp. Also, trying to AF macro with a non-macro lens is a bad idea. I learned that pretty quickly._

 

What do you mean? Since you were at minimum focusing distance, you ending being too close OR f4's DOF was too shallow at 200mm? 1/800 is enough to get rid of motion blur.

 AF on macro lens is better in what way?

 I should post some pics from my 70-200 f4. I don't normally take photos of things like insects or flowers but I have a few.

 ---------------

 Well got the HV20 and wideangle adaptor. I also got a Stroboframe as rotating flash frame but i'll be using it for hv20 as a large rotating grip 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That takes care of the ergonomics issues. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'll be able to get some different angles also. Down low... throw on a monopod and i can raise the camera up to maybe 10ft... go or over a ledge. This should be insane. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I got a mini softbox also.

 I decided not to bring my XTi on my trip. I'll be bring my maxxum 5d instead. It's the mutt rig... Minolta body, sunpak flash, canon strap, tamron lens cap, 3rd party battery, oh yeah and vivitar lens. The stap is enough just to qualify for this thread no?


----------



## bperboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Quoting myself 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Well looks like I've decided.

 I'm going to get the HV20. I figure I should have a camcorder I can really do a lot with. I'll figure out new ways to hold it just like I did with getting used to the smaller XTi. I think for this trip, I'm going to do things different as in bring rigs I don't normally use._

 

I had asked advice a few weeks ago on the XT vs XTi and I wanted to let you know, I ended up with the XTi. Its paired with teh 100mm macro as my only lens, and I'm learning how to get lots of good images, but I'm definitely needing some work!


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bperboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I had asked advice a few weeks ago on the XT vs XTi and I wanted to let you know, I ended up with the XTi. Its paired with teh 100mm macro as my only lens, and I'm learning how to get lots of good images, but I'm definitely needing some work!_

 

That's good stuff. I'm sure you going to love it.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bperboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I had asked advice a few weeks ago on the XT vs XTi and I wanted to let you know, I ended up with the XTi. Its paired with teh 100mm macro as my only lens, and I'm learning how to get lots of good images, but I'm definitely needing some work!_

 

Wow the 100mm macro. I don't really shoot macro so I don't know what's up with that lens but at lot of the macro guys love it. Primes are sweet
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Are you going to primarily be taking those kinds of shots?


----------



## bperboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow the 100mm macro. I don't really shoot macro so I don't know what's up with that lens but at lot of the macro guys love it. Primes are sweet
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Are you going to primarily be taking those kinds of shots?_

 

Well, thats the lens I had with my film rebel, and its the only one I have now, so I guess so! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My next lens in the far future will probably be the 17-40L, but I don't have any more money to spend!


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What do you mean? Since you were at minimum focusing distance, you ending being too close OR f4's DOF was too shallow at 200mm? 1/800 is enough to get rid of motion blur._

 

Here's what I mean (100% crop, taken at f/4, 1/500s, unedited):





 It doesn't really look like motion blur to me, just classic soft lens blur. Luckily for me, when shooting "distance" macros, I don't really need tack sharpness.

 On the other hand, here is a shot taken at f/5.6:





  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_AF on macro lens is better in what way?_

 

Well, using AF while at MFD is usually not a really good idea because when the camera hits its limit and the subject is still a little bit closer, the AF begins to track backwards. It ends up hunting a lot and that's no fun. A macro lens will generally be better with AF at closer distances because, well, it focuses closer so you're not always at MFD. Also, the focusing is a bit more precise.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I should post some pics from my 70-200 f4. I don't normally take photos of things like insects or flowers but I have a few._

 

Yes you should


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's what I mean (100% crop, taken at f/4, 1/500s, unedited):





 It doesn't really look like motion blur to me, just classic soft lens blur. Luckily for me, when shooting "distance" macros, I don't really need tack sharpness._

 

looks like both OOF and some aberration to me. A wider aperture gives you shallower DOF, but blur from the lens is usually diffraction (which occurs with small apertures on small sensors). You also can't get as close to something with an open aperture because of aberration...it's supposed to be especially evident with non macros:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...ffraction.html


----------



## lan

Bugs are far and few here in NYC where I am. The most prevalent are roaches but usually they don't stick around when I turn on the lights. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Nah, actually I don't even have those.


----------



## ChickenGod

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That one is "USM" which you don't really need for the kit lens. I wouldn't buy a new kit lens, see if you can score one from either ebay or any of the buy/sell sections of photography forums. Check FredMirana and Photography-on-the-net. Kit lenses usually go for like ~$50._

 

What does "USM" mean? Should I even buy those lens or no? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Are there any other better lenses in that price range?


----------



## bperboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ChickenGod* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What does "USM" mean? Should I even buy those lens or no? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Are there any other better lenses in that price range?_

 

USM = UltraSonic Motor; what focal range are you looking at? Generally the USM lenses focus much faster and quieter than the non-USM lenses.


----------



## ChickenGod

I have no idea. I am just getting started in digital photography.


----------



## ChickenGod

Sigma 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6 & 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC

 or

 Canon 18-55mm


----------



## Sh0eBoX

my 6MDH came today finally! i placed the order 2 weeks ago tomorrow, and it just came today. the POTNer i bought it from isn't exactly the best person to do business with IMO. i paid on thursday, june 28, he said he'd ship it out the next day. that didn't happen, i e-mailed him and he said he shipped it out on the following monday (july 2). a week had passed so i e-mailed him to ask if he had a tracking #. he said he did but he threw the receipt out with the # on it, and that he knew there was trouble with the shipment due to july 4, and it should be to me by early this week. didn't happen... but i got the bag today.

 no shoulder pad, which he indicated would come with the bag. i decided to look up the tracking # as i was curious why it would take 2 weeks to arrive to my doorstep. turns out he didn't actually ship out the package until friday, july 6... 8 days after i paid for it.

 i can't say i'm satisfied with the way our transaction went, especially since i have to try to get the shoulder pad from him now.

 the bag, however, is in great shape. i really like the build of the bag, and it does fit all my gear. it looks so small though! the appearance is quite deceiving, but it really does have a lot of room on the inside. fantastic little bag, i highly recommend the crumpler series bags to anyone looking for a new transport for their gear


----------



## AudioDwebe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *AdamP88* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I love my 20D. Though I'd eventually like to step up to a full-frame sensor and regain a full size viewfinder. Lens-wise I'm also quite happy. I've got it to 3 lenses that cover pretty much everything I shoot - 10-22, 24-70L and 70-200 f/4L. I also have the nifty fifty (f/1.8) and the 85 f/1.8. The 85 is easily the sharpest lens I own, but it does suffer from chromatic aberration more often than most lenses I've tried, especially with backlighting. But with good lighting conditions the clarity, contrast and bokeh are gorgeous:






 My favorite lens has to be the 24-70 though. Though the 85 tops it in image quality, the 24-70 isn't really that far behind, but it is soooo much versatile - it's the lens that is on my camera the most, by far._

 


 Adam, that is one absolutely beautiful picture.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ChickenGod* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sigma 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6 & 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC

 or

 Canon 18-55mm_

 

The Canon 18-55 "USM" doesn't have a ring-type motor and thus its AF isn't much better than the stock version. However, most other Canon lenses (especially the expensive ones) have ring-type USM, which really helps and autofocus becomes very fast and near silent.

 I owned the Sigma 55-200 for a little bit then sold it; wasn't very happy with it. I recommend you just pick up the cheapest Canon 18-55 you can find and stick with that for a little while. That way, you can sort of develop a sense of what kinds of focal lengths you need and what you like to shoot (as well as learn how to use the camera). Also, if you wait, it'll give you a chance to save up some money, so when you want to buy a new lens you can afford some decent glass.


----------



## lan

Shot my first stuff in the NYC streets with the HV20. Best camera I've had so far. It really is high definition video. Too bad it's insane trying to upload the footage. I'll have to downsize and compress.


----------



## Mrvile

Shoebox - that's good news. The "million dollar home" bags always looked interesting to me, and as a messanger-bag fan, I might pick one up once I come up with the cash. I was looking as something a little bigger though, like the 8MDH, but from the pics I'm looking at, the 6MDH looks big enough to hold all my crap (my biggest lens is only a 70-200/4 so it shouldn't be a problem).

 I just hate how expensive the MDH bags are


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Shoebox - that's good news. The "million dollar home" bags always looked interesting to me, and as a messanger-bag fan, I might pick one up once I come up with the cash. I was looking as something a little bigger though, like the 8MDH, but from the pics I'm looking at, the 6MDH looks big enough to hold all my crap (my biggest lens is only a 70-200/4 so it shouldn't be a problem).

 I just hate how expensive the MDH bags are 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

8MDH eh? hahaha, do you mean the 7MDH? How many lenses do you need to hold? The 6MDH is actually surprisingly small looking, but quite roomy on the inside. I honestly expected it to be a big longer than it is... but it still fits all my gear with room to spare. I will probably end up upgrading to the 7MDH later on when I need it. The fact that these bags don't ever go down in price means they should retain their resale value 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 --- they're very well-built bags, i'm quite impressed with the quality. I also love the way they look too... very inconspicuous. they're fairly expensive yes, but for the quality, i can see why 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Also, if you want to buy soon, check out www.photocous.com --- they have the crumpler bags on sale, if you enter the code "SALE" in during check out you can cut a few bucks off the price. i think it brings the 7MDH to $114 or so after shipping, which is decent!

 Now... just to get that shoulder pad from the guy I bought the bag from... hopefully i don't have to wait another 2 weeks for this


----------



## ChickenGod

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The Canon 18-55 "USM" doesn't have a ring-type motor and thus its AF isn't much better than the stock version. However, most other Canon lenses (especially the expensive ones) have ring-type USM, which really helps and autofocus becomes very fast and near silent.

 I owned the Sigma 55-200 for a little bit then sold it; wasn't very happy with it. I recommend you just pick up the cheapest Canon 18-55 you can find and stick with that for a little while. That way, you can sort of develop a sense of what kinds of focal lengths you need and what you like to shoot (as well as learn how to use the camera). Also, if you wait, it'll give you a chance to save up some money, so when you want to buy a new lens you can afford some decent glass._

 

Well, Im not going to get the "USM" one but some used one that came with the camera for around $60. The picture I saw from it was much clearer than the 18-50mm Sigma. So I guess thats a good decision 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Now just to find a place that sells it. I think I may have to go to the marketplace on photography-on-the.net


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ChickenGod* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, Im not going to get the "USM" one but some used one that came with the camera for around $60. The picture I saw from it was much clearer than the 18-50mm Sigma. So I guess thats a good decision 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Now just to find a place that sells it. I think I may have to go to the marketplace on photography-on-the.net _

 

Yeah I think the regular 18-55, new, by itself, sells for like $120. Screw that. Head over to POTN, make an account, and start a "WTB: 18-55 kit lens" thread and I'm sure you'll be able to get some good deals.


----------



## ChickenGod

I have an account at POTN. That place is really awesome. Around how much will they be sold for?


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ChickenGod* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have an account at POTN. That place is really awesome. Around how much will they be sold for?_

 

i see them go for ~$60 shipped normally


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i see them go for ~$60 shipped normally_

 

I saw one go for $30 a couple days ago


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I saw one go for $30 a couple days ago 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

yeah i saw that too! crazy haha, where are those kinds of deals on Ls?!


----------



## cotdt

anyone tried the Sigma 30mm f/1.4? i'm thinking of getting one for my Nikon D50.


----------



## ChickenGod

Ooh not too expensive


----------



## lan

My camcorder rig is now set. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	









 Oh yeah I moved the Canon strap from the Maxxum to this rig. So the maxxum doesn't really count anymore in this thread since it's not branded anything Canon anymore but it did take these pics. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I just gotta pack everything for my trip to,






 Anybody know any cool photo locations? I was there in 2005 but that was more touristy.


----------



## Mrvile

Ian - looks nice, but the bracket looks a little unwieldy. Time to _Bushhawk_ that person! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Anyway I just put a WTB ad up for a Sigma 30/1.4. I had to do it to prevent me from buying an electric violin. I have spending issues


----------



## bperboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ian - looks nice, but the bracket looks a little unwieldy. Time to Bushhawk that person! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Anyway I just put a WTB ad up for a Sigma 30/1.4. I had to do it to prevent me from buying an electric violin. I have spending issues 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Ooh, I woulda gone for the violin!


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bperboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ooh, I woulda gone for the violin! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Not when I'm a month away from college where I probably won't have much of a chance to play. Otherwise I would've easily bought it. Man adjusting to college sucks.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ian - looks nice, but the bracket looks a little unwieldy. Time to Bushhawk that person! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Ha! Those mounts look heavier than the HV 20 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I have to carry 2 cameras so this is pretty cool. The bracket is really for the camera but it happens to be just fine for the HV20 also


----------



## bperboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not when I'm a month away from college where I probably won't have much of a chance to play. Otherwise I would've easily bought it. Man adjusting to college sucks._

 

Where are you going in the fall? I just got back yesterday from Case's open house.


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not when I'm a month away from college where I probably won't have much of a chance to play. Otherwise I would've easily bought it. Man adjusting to college sucks._

 

i agree, the adjusting part DOES suck. but enjoy your first year... mine was amazing!


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bperboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Where are you going in the fall? I just got back yesterday from Case's open house._

 

Rhode Island School of Design.


----------



## bperboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Rhode Island School of Design._

 

Ahh, going for the artsy stuff then! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm in for EE myself. Either Case or RPI at this point, but I've still got senior year to get through.


----------



## Mrvile

The Kenko tubes I ebayed _finally_ arrived today after two long weeks. I guess that's what I get for ordering from Hong Kong 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Anyway I played around with them and they work pretty well. I'll post some field results tomorrow or so.


----------



## Mrvile

Oh I just ordered that Sigma 30/1.4 too. Had to get it new since no one had one for sale. Can't wait till it arrives.


----------



## skyline889

Hey guys, I'm in a little situation and need some help from you Canon gurus. Right now, my father is really interested in entry level DSLRs and will probably be purchasing my D50 with the 18-55 kit lens from me. With the loss of the D50, I'm in a slight predicament. The prices of the D50s have actually risen since I purchased mine so it doesn't really make sense to buy another, so right now I'm on the edge between the Nikon D80 and the Canon EOS 20D. I'm really leaning towards selling off Nikon and just going with Canon for the high FPS and better high ISO performance than the D80. I shoot a lot of sports and also, often times in other situations, I'm also forced to shoot in very low light so these two benefits would be very crucial for me. The only downside of this is that, I'm gonna be stuck with a Nikkor 70-300mm VR. Do you think it would still be worth it to go with the Canon? The EOS 20D bodies are going for about $560 right now compared with $730 for the D80 but I'll probably lose about $150 if I have to sell the Nikkor. What do you guys think? Stick with Nikon and get the D80 or swear off the evil red triangle and go for the 20D?


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey guys, I'm in a little situation and need some help from you Canon gurus. Right now, my father is really interested in entry level DSLRs and will probably be purchasing my D50 with the 18-55 kit lens from me. With the loss of the D50, I'm in a slight predicament. The prices of the D50s have actually risen since I purchased mine so it doesn't really make sense to buy another, so right now I'm on the edge between the Nikon D80 and the Canon EOS 20D. I'm really leaning towards selling off Nikon and just going with Canon for the high FPS and better high ISO performance than the D80. I shoot a lot of sports and also, often times in other situations, I'm also forced to shoot in very low light so these two benefits would be very crucial for me. The only downside of this is that, I'm gonna be stuck with a Nikkor 70-300mm VR. Do you think it would still be worth it to go with the Canon? The EOS 20D bodies are going for about $560 right now compared with $730 for the D80 but I'll probably lose about $150 if I have to sell the Nikkor. What do you guys think? Stick with Nikon and get the D80 or swear off the evil red triangle and go for the 20D?_

 

i'm tempted to say just to stick with Nikon so you won't have to ditch the lens and then buy all new ones (assuming the lens is good enough that you would hate to leave it, i know nothing about nikkor lenses).


 now guys... i have my own dilemma that needs solving.

 i'm going to hawaii at the beginning of august and am trying to decide on a standard zoom to purchase and bring on my trip. i can't seem to make a decision between the 24-105 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/2.8L, and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

 it will go on a digital rebel xt. i plan on using this lens as just a general walkaround of all purposes (portraits, landscapes, blah blah). most shots will be done outdoors on this trip. i know many will say that 24mm (38 equivalent) is not wide enough for landscapes... but really i don't find it to be that big of a problem... and all summer i've shot maybe 3 shots wider than 24mm. BUT, this could be because the kit isn't fast enough so i tend to sway away from it most of the time.

 also, if i do keep this lens, when i get back home and get back to my normal shooting routine... the majority of my shots are usually taken indoors. this is swaying me a way slightly from the 24-105 since it's a full stop slower than the other 2, which might not work too well for me. but really, the most important thing is, which lens do you think will be right for the trip?

 i need to decide quick, as the trip is coming up in 2 weeks...


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *skyline889* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey guys, I'm in a little situation and need some help from you Canon gurus. Right now, my father is really interested in entry level DSLRs and will probably be purchasing my D50 with the 18-55 kit lens from me. With the loss of the D50, I'm in a slight predicament. The prices of the D50s have actually risen since I purchased mine so it doesn't really make sense to buy another, so right now I'm on the edge between the Nikon D80 and the Canon EOS 20D. I'm really leaning towards selling off Nikon and just going with Canon for the high FPS and better high ISO performance than the D80. I shoot a lot of sports and also, often times in other situations, I'm also forced to shoot in very low light so these two benefits would be very crucial for me. The only downside of this is that, I'm gonna be stuck with a Nikkor 70-300mm VR. Do you think it would still be worth it to go with the Canon? The EOS 20D bodies are going for about $560 right now compared with $730 for the D80 but I'll probably lose about $150 if I have to sell the Nikkor. What do you guys think? Stick with Nikon and get the D80 or swear off the evil red triangle and go for the 20D?_

 

Canon and Nikon are very close performance-wise, so most of the time the answer is either "Stick with ____" or "Go to the store and pick the one that feels the best." If the Nikon 70-300VR is anything similar to the Canon 70-300IS, it's probably a great lens and something worth keeping. So your best bet is probably to get the D80 to replace your D50 and stick with Nikon...you aren't really missing much from the Canon camp.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_now guys... i have my own dilemma that needs solving.

 i'm going to hawaii at the beginning of august and am trying to decide on a standard zoom to purchase and bring on my trip. i can't seem to make a decision between the 24-105 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/2.8L, and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS._

 

I would get the 17-55. You're going to want the wideness of it for somewhere like Hawaii, and it's technically "faster" than either of the other two since it has both f/2.8 and IS.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_it will go on a digital rebel xt. i plan on using this lens as just a general walkaround of all purposes (portraits, landscapes, blah blah). most shots will be done outdoors on this trip. i know many will say that 24mm (38 equivalent) is not wide enough for landscapes... but really i don't find it to be that big of a problem... and all summer i've shot maybe 3 shots wider than 24mm. BUT, this could be because the kit isn't fast enough so i tend to sway away from it most of the time._

 

That doesn't really make any sense...why would you need a fast lens to shoot wide angle? Usually you stop down to like f/8 or higher when shooting wide angle so speed generally isn't a concern. The kit lens actually makes a great landscaper. Oh and also, why is most of your trip to _Hawaii_ going to be indoors? Make sure you do get out once in a while; 99% of the magic that is Hawaii occurs outdoors.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_also, if i do keep this lens, when i get back home and get back to my normal shooting routine... the majority of my shots are usually taken indoors. this is swaying me a way slightly from the 24-105 since it's a full stop slower than the other 2, which might not work too well for me. but really, the most important thing is, which lens do you think will be right for the trip?

 i need to decide quick, as the trip is coming up in 2 weeks..._

 

Well the 17-55 is the indoor king. It has a f/2.8 aperture, IS, and is generally wide enough for most things. On an APS-C body, I don't really like shooting longer than 50mm for indoor stuff.

 Oh and on a side note, how does the range of your kit lens feel right now? The 17-55 is virtually the same thing so if you think the kit lens is either too wide or too long, the 17-55 is going to have the same "problem."


----------



## ChickenGod

Hey guys check out some of my first few pictures taken with my 50mm 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=350861

 The lens and camera are pretty darn good 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Thanks for helping me guys =] I'm happy. I also ordered the kit lens because I bought body only.


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That doesn't really make any sense...why would you need a fast lens to shoot wide angle? Usually you stop down to like f/8 or higher when shooting wide angle so speed generally isn't a concern._

 

Actually, when i said that it's not fast enough i meant for my average shooting... which is generally indoors --- sorry for the confusion on that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh and also, why is most of your trip to Hawaii going to be indoors? Make sure you do get out once in a while; 99% of the magic that is Hawaii occurs outdoors._

 

I actually said that most of my trip will be _outdoors_ haha, but it's understandable that you may have misread as this is a very long-winded and not well separated post


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well the 17-55 is the indoor king. It has a f/2.8 aperture, IS, and is generally wide enough for most things. On an APS-C body, I don't really like shooting longer than 50mm for indoor stuff._

 

This is very much a true statement so i have realized... the 17-55 would probably suit me very well after the trip is over with since the majority of my normal shooting is done indoors or in low-light conditions... although i do take pictures outside mind you hahaha, i just don't have as much opportunity to shoot when i'm in school 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh and on a side note, how does the range of your kit lens feel right now? The 17-55 is virtually the same thing so if you think the kit lens is either too wide or too long, the 17-55 is going to have the same "problem."_

 

Yeah i did notice that.... actually, the range of my kit lens is pretty good. but i do find myself not really using the wide end as much --- it wouldn't hurt to have though. but the thing is, i was planning on picking up a 10-22 in the future, so i figured having a 24-XXX lens would better suit that as there will be no overlap. but i suppose minimal overlap isn't really a big deal and i can worry about that later


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I actually said that most of my trip will be outdoors haha, but it's understandable that you may have misread as this is a very long-winded and not well separated post
 r_

 

Oops, I uh, wasn't thinking very well when I read the post 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Rough night


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ChickenGod* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey guys check out some of my first few pictures taken with my 50mm 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=350861

 The lens and camera are pretty darn good 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Thanks for helping me guys =] I'm happy. I also ordered the kit lens because I bought body only._

 

Cool! I really like the third one.


----------



## Mrvile

Ok I got my Sigma 30/1.4 in the mail today and had just a little time to play around with it. It looks like a good copy to me...sharp in the center and a little softer at the corners, which is to be expected. Here are some 100% crops, both at f/1.4:

 This is from the center:





 This is from the corner:





 Here are just some shots I've been able to take tonight. I took these for the RP21 review thread I made, they turned out looking pretty nice. I think I'm going to love this lens


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Nice, Mrvile! Looks like you've got a sharp copy! Nice pics also... the super shallow DOF looks like it will be lots and lots of fun! I expect to see some creative shots out of you in the near future 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I finally pushed the button tonight and ended up ordering my lens for hawaii. Couldn't find a used copy anywhere (they seem to be avoiding the surface since I am now on the market). I wound up getting the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, a B+W F-Pro Multicoated UV filter, and the EW-83J hood for the lens... set me back a pretty penny... hopefully it's worth it!


----------



## laxx

I saw that deal and thought alot about it last night. Hope you get it soon.


----------



## Mrvile

Holy bokeh batman!


----------



## Samgotit

Ian, thanks for starting this thread. I count ~40 posters participating so far. I have decided that I want a 1D Mark III. That's a scant $112.50 that each of you will need to paypal me. 

 I was just perusing some Mark III show and tell threads. The high ISO performance is punch-to-the-stomach amazing. That is a stunning camera. 

 I can't wait. Thanks all!


----------



## cotdt

i LOVE my sigma 30/1.4. it is razor sharp at f/1.4, which is quite a feat. they seem to work better on nikon cameras.


----------



## cotdt

Good news everyone!

http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-...707190113.html


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Good news everyone!

http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-...707190113.html_

 

Odd, from your other posts I never figured you for one of the sheep who tugs it to brand names.


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Samgotit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ian, thanks for starting this thread. I count ~40 posters participating so far. I have decided that I want a 1D Mark III. That's a scant $112.50 that each of you will need to paypal me. 

 I was just perusing some Mark III show and tell threads. The high ISO performance is punch-to-the-stomach amazing. That is a stunning camera. 

 I can't wait. Thanks all!_

 

not to mention the 10fps and super sweet ISO safety-shift custom function! hahah... absolutely sweet camera --- WELL out of my needs/price range though


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_not to mention the 10fps and super sweet ISO safety-shift custom function! hahah... absolutely sweet camera --- WELL out of my needs/price range though 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Me too, hence my plan. I'll PM you my paypal info. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I wonder how long it will take to get that kind of ISO performance down to entry level. I don't need most of the stuff that camera offers, but I'd love to have that high ISO sweetness.


----------



## Sh0eBoX

i'm just really appealed by the ISO safety shift custom function... that's genius! i tend to forget to change my ISO from situation to situation so this would probably be the most helpful C.Fn ever


----------



## Mrvile

Time for another picture post:

 I went out shooting today in some chilly weather (low seventies) in the marsh at a local park. It was pretty cold so there really wasn't much bug activity, but it wasn't a problem because I was only dragon hunting, which there were plenty of. Unfortunately, they decided to play games and kept flying circles around my head, and not a single one would land. And when they did land, they would always land on these stupid concrete blocks that made for a gross background. I finally had enough and was on my way out when I spotted this little guy sitting on a branch. He was very cooperative and only flew between closeby branches, staying in the same general area even as I took the time to equip an extension tube. I was especially lucky because the dragons I normally get are these little red ones, the blue and green ones are skittish as hell and I never get a chance to shoot them. So I set my camera to machine gun mode figuring I'd misfocus a lot (which I did) and shot my little model for quite a while.

 This is the only one with good composition. There's just something I love about "take-a-step-back" macro - it makes the photo much more dynamic and gives it character.





 These next couple just demonstrate the awesomeness of the 70-200/4L as a macro lens. I found it very easy to shoot and very easy to adjust focus/magnification. I had the 20mm tube on for these closer ones.





 It looks like the skin is cracking a little bit in this pic...is he molting? Do dragonflies molt or shed?





 Thanks for looking!


----------



## cotdt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Samgotit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Odd, from your other posts I never figured you for one of the sheep who tugs it to brand names._

 

I'm not the only one:

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/news...07_nasa_01.htm

 A lot of well-known institutions use exclusively Nikon. Nikon is used by NASA in space and Canon's flourite elements shatter on liftoff.


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not the only one:

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/news...07_nasa_01.htm

 A lot of well-known institutions use exclusively Nikon. Nikon is used by NASA in space and Canon's flourite elements shatter on liftoff._

 

Seriously, I've read a lot of your post (in DIY mostly). I definitely would not have thought of you the type to have a propensity toward an emotional attachment to a corporation. Do you genuinely care that Nikon out sells Canon or were you just trying get a rise in the Canon thread.

 You spelled Fluorite wrong, btw. It's a common mistake.


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Samgotit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Seriously, I've read a lot of your post (in DIY mostly). I definitely would not have thought of you the type to have a propensity toward an emotional attachment to a corporation. Do you genuinely care that Nikon out sells Canon or were you just trying get a rise in the Canon thread._

 

i think it's the latter lol... he's been doing it for a while --- i just ignore him... no sense feeding him the attention that he's quite obviously craving


----------



## feh1325




----------



## Sh0eBoX

haha a picture of a can(n)on taken with a nikon P&S 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 --- set at -1.3 exposure compensation and it's still blown out!


----------



## feh1325

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_haha a picture of a can(n)on taken with a nikon P&S 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 --- set at -1.3 exposure compensation and it's still blown out!_

 

couldn't resist
 just a quick shot before i left from visting in my sister at school last summer


----------



## Shizelbs

I just purchased a SD1000. I tried one out this weekend in person. I love the deck of cards size and feel. The thing that clinched the deal was for the first time with a camera I was able to snap a picture within 1 second of turning the unit on. I thought that was very cool.


----------



## cotdt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shizelbs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just purchased a SD1000. I tried one out this weekend in person. I love the deck of cards size and feel. The thing that clinched the deal was for the first time with a camera I was able to snap a picture within 1 second of turning the unit on. I thought that was very cool._

 

I have the same camera (actually belongs to my family) and the images are noisy at all ISOs. But I do like how quickly it turns on. Not instant like on my SLR, but better than my previous Canon compact cameras which took 5 seconds just to turn on, and had nonexistant battery life.


----------



## Mrvile

Oh, just to poke at the beast a little...cotdt, do you have a gallery or any photographs to share? You know, just out of curiosity...


----------



## cotdt

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh, just to poke at the beast a little...cotdt, do you have a gallery or any photographs to share? You know, just out of curiosity... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I do... but it is on my hard drive.


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh, just to poke at the beast a little...cotdt, do you have a gallery or any photographs to share? You know, just out of curiosity... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

hahah you know, i always wondered the same thing. although i never got around to asking --- at least someone finally did it


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A lot of well-known institutions use exclusively Nikon. Nikon is used by NASA in space and Canon's flourite elements shatter on liftoff._

 

Is that why NASA uses Canon video cameras?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Could you name 5 institutions that are "exclusively" Nikon? Let me guess....you're going to continue to use your own anecdotal evidence for Canon bashing/Nikon pumping just as you did your k701 trolling.

 BTW Mrvile.....I remember one photo that cotdt posted to show an example of his lack of exposure knowledge with zoom lenses:






 nuf said


----------



## cotdt

Davesrose, that photo was purposely distorted to capture the effect of waking up early every morning. I don't subscribe to the philosophy that images should be as clear and un-overexposed as possible.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Davesrose, that photo was purposely distorted to capture the effect of waking up early every morning._

 

cotdt, whether or not you were getting camera shake on purpose, that still doesn't fix the bad composition.


----------



## bperboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_cotdt, whether or not you were getting camera shake on purpose, that still doesn't fix the bad composition._

 

I don't particularly like this photo either, be it from Canon or Nikon.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bperboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't particularly like this photo either, be it from Canon or Nikon._

 

It might prove that Nikon dSLRs can't make everyone a photographer.....just as any dSLR can't


----------



## bperboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It might prove that Nikon dSLRs can't make everyone a photographer.....just as any dSLR can't
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Exactly! I've got myself a Digital Rebel XTi, and I know my photos aren't that good! Better than that maybe, but still not that great. I'm working on it though!


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bperboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Better than that maybe, but still not that great. I'm working on it though! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Aren't we all?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 IMO, once you get the feel for controlling exposure, the next thing to learn about is composition. Studying other photographers, taking an art class, or going to some art museums helps you see how composition makes or breaks an image...and seeing professional work helps you see approaches you may have never thought about.


----------



## Mrvile

Some pics from an overnighter at a friend's cottage on the lake:

 Getting the jetski ready:





 Brandon is getting pulled around in this stupid inflatable suicide blimp called the "Gyro," which is suppose to roll like crazy whenever you turn. Man that thing was stupid...I punched myself in the mouth when I rode it:





 Brandon trying to waterski...man he got beat up pretty good on this trip:





 Matt makes it look like cake though:





 The cottage was right across the lake from Cedar Point, America's Roller Coast 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. It's the home of several of the world's record breaking rides...great fun:





 Here is the view from the backyard of the cottage:





 After you're done admiring the sky, all you need to do is to look down and you'll get a slight change of perspective (that's Lake Erie for ya):





 Yeah I had a great time and tried a bunch of things I'd never done before, like waterskiing (which failed miserably). Not to mention a nice tan...these are some of the best times in life 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Thanks for looking!


----------



## bperboy

Oh, I'm in Milan, few miles south of Cedar Point! Cool, although I haven't actually gone there in several years, I'm not much of a rollar coaster person.


----------



## cotdt

I have some pics on the Nikon forum:

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/sea...earchid=985150


----------



## cotdt

[double post]


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have some pics on the Nikon forum:

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/sea...earchid=985150_

 









 You know we need user names and passwords to view that page, and, well, this is a Canon thread...


----------



## Shizelbs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cotdt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have the same camera (actually belongs to my family) and the images are noisy at all ISOs. But I do like how quickly it turns on. Not instant like on my SLR, but better than my previous Canon compact cameras which took 5 seconds just to turn on, and had nonexistant battery life._

 

Every review for any P&S I was looking at had a similar amount of noise. I couldn't find a noise-free camera that wasn't a DSLR. I also realize that I might be sacrificing some quality for the features I was looking for. Number one importance was size. We have a decent enough point and shoot right now, but its just big enough that we never take it anywhere. The SD1000 is like the size of a deck of cards. Its small enough to fit in my pants pockets. I imagine we'll take it pretty much everytime we leave the house.

 I'll be buying a DSLR (probably a D80) within the next year anyways. Thats the camera that will have me obsessing over quality.


----------



## TheChemist

the 50 1.8 is really quite sharp at f/4.0!


----------



## Sh0eBoX

received my 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM today 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 i didn't really have much time to play around with it so i just took a couple snapshots indoors to make sure focus was okay, IS worked, and it was sharp. and yes, yes, and OMG yes it was! i can tell i am going to fall in love with this lens...

 100% Crop




 55mm, f/2.8, 1/125s, ISO100, Av Mode, tripod mounted (IS off)





 40mm, f/3.2, 1/15s, ISO100, Av Mode, handheld (IS on)

 100% Crop









 55mm, f/2.8, 1/30s, ISO100, Av Mode, handheld (IS on)

 100% Crop





 the above images are just tests/snapshots, please bear in mind --- when i get the opportunity, i will go out and do some real shooting


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheChemist* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the 50 1.8 is really quite sharp at f/4.0!_

 

Hmm, the image looks pretty oversharpened. What are your post-processing steps? Post-processing is a vital and rather sensitive aspect of digital photography and can truly make or break an image, so make sure you learn it very well.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_received my 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM today 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 i didn't really have much time to play around with it so i just took a couple snapshots indoors to make sure focus was okay, IS worked, and it was sharp. and yes, yes, and OMG yes it was! i can tell i am going to fall in love with this lens...

 100% Crop

 55mm, f/2.8, 1/125s, ISO100, Av Mode, tripod mounted (IS off)

 40mm, f/3.2, 1/15s, ISO100, Av Mode, handheld (IS on)

 100% Crop

 55mm, f/2.8, 1/30s, ISO100, Av Mode, handheld (IS on)

 100% Crop

 the above images are just tests/snapshots, please bear in mind --- when i get the opportunity, i will go out and do some real shooting 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Holy cow, that is one _sharp_ lens! Sharper than a lot of L's I've seen. That's definitely a step up from your current kit lens, nifty fifty, and Sigma 7/3 APO lineup 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Have fun with it and enjoy Hawaii


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Holy cow, that is one sharp lens! Sharper than a lot of L's I've seen. That's definitely a step up from your current kit lens, nifty fifty, and Sigma 7/3 APO lineup 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Have fun with it and enjoy Hawaii 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

haha yeah a HUGE step up... but after seeing how this little bugger performs (ESPECIALLY wide open) i'm SO happy i took the plunge... i can tell it will be worth every penny. i can't believe it's as sharp as it is, and the colors as good as they are, with zero post processing! oh --- and thanks haha i'm really excited for hawaii 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 hopefully my photog skills are up to par with this lens, so i can produce the kind of pictures this lens is capable of turning out!


----------



## TheChemist

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmm, the image looks pretty oversharpened. What are your post-processing steps? Post-processing is a vital and rather sensitive aspect of digital photography and can truly make or break an image, so make sure you learn it very well._

 

edit oops lightroom sharpened it a little, hold up. 

 RAW>Lightroom>Crop>export

http://picturemonger.com/Images/IMG_6749-4.jpg

 still effing sharp.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheChemist* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_edit oops lightroom sharpened it a little, hold up. 

 RAW>Lightroom>Crop>export

http://picturemonger.com/Images/IMG_6749-4.jpg

 still effing sharp._

 

Looks better than before, though.

 Does Lightroom have USM?


----------



## TheChemist

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Looks better than before, though.

 Does Lightroom have USM?_

 

lightroom's sharpening is pretty awful, to be honest. its really a big bummer, because other than that, LR is really spectacular. the library is awesome and the RAW processing is much more fluid than in photoshop. i still do all of my sharpening (USM) and resizing in photoshop though.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheChemist* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_edit oops lightroom sharpened it a little, hold up. 

 still effing sharp._

 

I've noticed on POTN that people say that the defaults for the Rebel are too sharp. Could be that you need to take down sharpness on the camera....

 Actually, Camera Raw in PS CS3 extended is pretty good: seems to have more usable controls.


----------



## TheChemist

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've noticed on POTN that people say that the defaults for the Rebel are too sharp. Could be that you need to take down sharpness on the camera...._

 

Uh I shoot in RAW, it's unprocessed on the camera.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheChemist* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Uh I shoot in RAW, it's unprocessed on the camera._

 

I don't use Lightroom, but almost all the RAW apps that I've used keep the exposure settings and set that as the default when you first open the image. RAW is actually processed (otherwise you wouldn't be able to see it at all)....it's just a larger format because its keeping all the capture data from the sensor. Are you sure it's not defaulting to the camera's sharpness setting?


----------



## TheChemist

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't use Lightroom, but almost all the RAW apps that I've used keep the exposure settings and set that as the default when you first open the image. RAW is actually processed (otherwise you wouldn't be able to see it at all)....it's just a larger format because its keeping all the capture data from the sensor. Are you sure it's not defaulting to the camera's sharpness setting?_

 

The sharpness setting on Lightroom is always moved to 0; and in any event, there's no place on the XT to change the RAW sharpness. I don't even know what the issue is, the images don't look oversharpened to me out of the camera.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheChemist* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The sharpness setting on Lightroom is always moved to 0; and in any event, there's no place on the XT to change the RAW sharpness._

 

RAW sharpness is the same as JPEG.....your camera's color profile effects the RAW image in the same manner as a JPEG: it's just that there's extra data in the RAW that lets you adjust the image afterwards. If it's not a Lightroom issue, I've found this review of the 350D....which says that the Rebel does apply more sharpness then other Canons, and that you can set "Parameter 2 (no out-of-the-camera enhancements)". So it's _possible_ that Lightroom is opening up the RAW to the defaults of the camera. Worth testing out at least
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...XT-Review.aspx


----------



## TheChemist

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_RAW sharpness is the same as JPEG.....your camera's color profile effects the RAW image in the same manner as a JPEG: it's just that there's extra data in the RAW that lets you adjust the image afterwards. If it's not a Lightroom issue, I've found this review of the 350D....which says that the Rebel does apply more sharpness then other Canons, and that you can set "Parameter 2 (no out-of-the-camera enhancements)". So it's possible that Lightroom is opening up the RAW to the defaults of the camera. Worth testing out at least
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...XT-Review.aspx_

 

whatever, my parameter is flat and i have no problems simply zeroing sharpness in lightroom then using USM in photoshop.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheChemist* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_lightroom's sharpening is pretty awful, to be honest. its really a big bummer, because other than that, LR is really spectacular. the library is awesome and the RAW processing is much more fluid than in photoshop. i still do all of my sharpening (USM) and resizing in photoshop though._

 

I haven't had a chance to use lightroom. the RAW processing of CS3 seems fine to me. Is there really more to the RAW workflow in lightroom that makes it better?

 I don't do resizing in Photoshop. Bicubic isn't the best resizer. Try using anything with Lanczos. It's just sharper and has more detail. I use just a tad little USM after.


----------



## lan

Sh0eBoX, congrats on the lens! It looks sharp enough. I wouldn't get too crazy about the sharpness. One thing about spending $ on some lenses is they perform well wide open. It takes time to master a lens... to see what it's limits are. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'll be looking forward to seeing your pics from this.


----------



## TheChemist

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I haven't had a chance to use lightroom. the RAW processing of CS3 seems fine to me. Is there really more to the RAW workflow in lightroom that makes it better?

 I don't do resizing in Photoshop. Bicubic isn't the best resizer. Try using anything with Lanczos. It's just sharper and has more detail. I use just a tad little USM after._

 

The integration of a fantastic library combined with the great RAW processing is what makes Lightroom stand out from Photoshop in the RAW category. Cycling through pictures and making adjustments is just easier in LR. The keyword tagging is awesome for organizational purposes, you've got the full set of RAW processing right there in one nice menu - really its a program that you should try out and see how it fits you. It fits me and I think its wonderful.


----------



## Mrvile

Ok, I ended up trading my 70-200/4L for the 70-300IS and I'm glad I did. I received the 7/3 today and so far everything looks good. Lens is SHARP and IS works great! Here are some 100% crops:

 300mm f/5.6:






 300mm f/8:





 And of course, being the smart consumer I made sure I tested portrait mode. 300mm f/5.6:





 f/5.6 is sharper than I expected, and though f/8 is noticeably sharper, f/5.6 is still very useable.

 The lens is built alright, about the same as my 100/2.8 macro, though it doesn't have the focusing panel (I don't know why, it's always a nice feature to have). I did notice that you can't turn the focusing wheel when the lens is set to AF, which is kind of a bummer, and the focusing wheel turns when it's AFing. The focusing wheel is rather small and discreet so it doesn't get in the way. I also noticed that the USM on this lens isn't as good as the USM on other Canon lenses I've owned, which is to be expected since this lens doesn't have full ring-type USM. The AF is still relatively fast, though it is quite noisy and will hunt in low light.

 Otherwise, the lens lives up to my expectations and it really fits my needs. Now I just need to pick up a lens hood for it (cmon Canon, let's get the message already!).


----------



## lan

Well that was quick. At least you got to mess with an L lense to see what it's all about. I seem to have this craze for image stabilization. I find it quite useful. Did you need the extra reach of the 70-300?

 I miss my canon cameras. Taking the minolta with me on my trip is affirmation I love a fast handling camera. The minolta is slower but the lense I'm using is slow focusing. I'm using the video camera in the car instead. Another thing I learned, holding the video camera without all that stuff around it is just a disaster. I get a good amount of stabilization from my bracket contraption. Glad I built it. One anoying thing about the HV20 is lack of wide angle. It's a bit ridiculous for a video camera. Good thing I got that wide angle adaptor BUT it is clearly distorting the image and there's no front rings in which I want to put a hood. HD video shows the dirtiness of the lense and well anything weird easier.


----------



## Mrvile

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well that was quick. At least you got to mess with an L lense to see what it's all about. I seem to have this craze for image stabilization. I find it quite useful. Did you need the extra reach of the 70-300?_

 

Well if you want to see me arguing with myself about what I was going to do, you can check out this thread.


----------



## Mrvile

Sorry bringing this thread back from the dead...

 Anyway I posted this over at POTN, some of you guys may be interested in reading: Canon 70-300 IS review

 Oh and this thread is probably going to be moved to Gear-Fi...


----------



## archosman

I was looking at this very lens yesterday. Thanks.


----------



## troymadison

yo dudes check out my canon camera


----------



## Kahuna

Presently I own the following:

 Canon 20D body
 17-40 f4L
 50 f1.4
 70-200 f2.8L I.S.
 400 f5.6L
 All glass has a Hoya Skylight 1B (S-HMC) Super Multi-Coated Glass Filter for glass protection, and I own a B+W 77 mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer Multi-Coated (MC) Glass Filter.

 I also have a Canon EF 1.4x II Extender.

 In addition I own a Gitzo 1410 tripod with a Markins M20 ball head mounted.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kahuna* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_50 f1.4
 70-200 f2.8L I.S._

 

I'm still trying to convince myself to keep the 50 1.4. The problem is once you're used to L colors, it's hard to go back even though this is a nice prime. I find it's autofocus too slow also.


----------



## bperboy

I've got Rebel XTi and 100mm Macro. I've put a bunch of photos in the Post your photography thread. Check it out and maybe tell what you think!


----------



## Kahuna

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm still trying to convince myself to keep the 50 1.4. The problem is once you're used to L colors, it's hard to go back even though this is a nice prime. I find it's autofocus too slow also._

 

I mainly use the 50 1.4 when I want the Boken (at 1.4) for a particular shot. I would love to get my hands on 50 1.2L, but simply do not use that focal range enough to justify the 1.2L's cost... 

 I'll 2nd the L's great color!


----------



## digitalmind

I'm still shooting with a 300D, kit lens, 50mm 1.8, and a 70-300mm Tamron. I'm looking to replace the kit lens and have roughly €500 to do this with. I know this question has been covered a heck of a lot of times on other boards -- but since there's a topic here: What would you / have you opt(ed) for? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm currently looking at the Canon EF-S 17-85 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM, but would like to hear some more recommendations. I would really like to keep the wide 18mm, since I shoot a lot at almost fully zoomed out. Also would like a 10-20mm lens, but then I'll still be stuck with the kit lens for anything past 20mm.


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *digitalmind* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm still shooting with a 300D, kit lens, 50mm 1.8, and a 70-300mm Tamron. I'm looking to replace the kit lens and have roughly €500 to do this with. I know this question has been covered a heck of a lot of times on other boards -- but since there's a topic here: What would you / have you opt(ed) for? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm currently looking at the Canon EF-S 17-85 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM, but would like to hear some more recommendations. I would really like to keep the wide 18mm, since I shoot a lot at almost fully zoomed out. Also would like a 10-20mm lens, but then I'll still be stuck with the kit lens for anything past 20mm._

 

I'm going to go ahead and vote against the 17-85, based on things i've heard about it. the barrel distortion on it is moderate, and it has CA problems. Sharpness is not bad in the center, but as you fall out toward the corners/edges it's not too hot. Also, it's a slow lens so it can't really be used well in anything other than daylight (unless you're shooting still subjects, in which case the IS will prove helpful). I think you would be better off getting the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 EX DC Macro (a very well-regarded lens at POTN, which many people love to have as a kit lens replacement for a relatively cheap budget). Besides not having IS and losing 15mm on the long end, I think this lens is better in all respects than the 17-85


----------



## digitalmind

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm going to go ahead and vote against the 17-85, based on things i've heard about it. the barrel distortion on it is moderate, and it has CA problems. Sharpness is not bad in the center, but as you fall out toward the corners/edges it's not too hot. Also, it's a slow lens so it can't really be used well in anything other than daylight (unless you're shooting still subjects, in which case the IS will prove helpful). I think you would be better off getting the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 EX DC Macro (a very well-regarded lens at POTN, which many people love to have as a kit lens replacement for a relatively cheap budget). Besides not having IS and losing 15mm on the long end, I think this lens is better in all respects than the 17-85_

 

Hey, thanks for the recommendation. This is also what I read in various topics. I initially disgarded it based on price, since it is pretty much a bit more than half of the Canon 17-85 (foolish, I know). However, if it performs as good as people say it does, that makes it a winner. I won't mind losing the 15mm on the long end, I hardly ever use more than 50mm anyhow (and in which case I move to the 50mm 1.8). The price especially helps, leaving me with less time spent saving for 30D body.


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *digitalmind* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey, thanks for the recommendation. This is also what I read in various topics. I initially disgarded it based on price, since it is pretty much a bit more than half of the Canon 17-85 (foolish, I know). However, if it performs as good as people say it does, that makes it a winner. I won't mind losing the 15mm on the long end, I hardly ever use more than 50mm anyhow (and in which case I move to the 50mm 1.8). The price especially helps, leaving me with less time spent saving for 30D body. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yeah, the 17-70 is definitely an outstanding lens, especially for the price. You can check out the photo archive for it on POTN and see what people have been able to do with it (IMO... there are some astounding photos reflecting what you can get out of this guy once you learn how to use it). If I had a tighter budget when I was replacing my kit lens, this would definitely have been in my bag. However, I was able to stretch out a little bit and grabbed myself a 17-55 f/2.8 IS and never looked back (boy do I love this lens 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## brotherlen

Would this come across as a fair and decent trade? 24-70L for a 24-105L? New they are roughly the same, I'm just wanting focal length overlap.


----------



## patalp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, the 17-70 is definitely an outstanding lens, especially for the price. You can check out the photo archive for it on POTN and see what people have been able to do with it (IMO... there are some astounding photos reflecting what you can get out of this guy once you learn how to use it). If I had a tighter budget when I was replacing my kit lens, this would definitely have been in my bag. However, I was able to stretch out a little bit and grabbed myself a 17-55 f/2.8 IS and never looked back (boy do I love this lens 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)_

 

Yeah I'd totally recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 IS or if your budget isn't that high, a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX. f/2.8 is VERY useful


----------



## digitalmind

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *patalp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah I'd totally recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 IS or if your budget isn't that high, a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX. f/2.8 is VERY useful_

 

Hmm, that Sigma 18-50 is pretty much the same price as the 17-70. Hmm indeed! Thanks for making my choice even harder.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *brotherlen* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Would this come across as a fair and decent trade? 24-70L for a 24-105L? New they are roughly the same, I'm just wanting focal length overlap._

 

They are both Ls and about the same price new so I'd say it's a fair trade.


----------



## EFN

Bump for the Canon team...


 In less than 2 hours I gonna win myself a 24-105L to mark my first entry into the world of DSLR


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *EFN* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In less than 2 hours I gonna win myself a 24-105L to mark my first entry into the world of DSLR
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 I hope you're going to get a DSLR for the lens


----------



## EFN

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Davesrose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hope you're going to get a DSLR for the lens
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	








_

 


 Oh really? I was thinking of mounting it to my iMod.....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	














 Now that I won the lens, another 7 hours for me to win the body 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 a Digital Rebel XTi 400D


----------



## Ichinichi

just got my parents an EOS REBEL T2. mom still likes film over digi. : oldschool :


----------



## digitalmind

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *EFN* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Bump for the Canon team...


 In less than 2 hours I gonna win myself a 24-105L to mark my first entry into the world of DSLR
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Starting with an L lens? Haha, now that's dedication to a good start!


----------



## EFN

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *digitalmind* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Starting with an L lens? Haha, now that's dedication to a good start! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yah, I decided to all the way on my first glass because I want to avoid costly upgraditis
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (something I learn from Head-Fi) LOL!

 Now I have to find a body to mount them thing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Since I didn't win the XTi I bid in eBay, I am looking to get a 20D instead for the same price of a used XTi. Why 20D?, well it has all the juicy internals of 30D with a lower price tag. And I loved the solid and sturdy feel of a 20D.

 I could have gone for a 40D, but not now specially after the LARGE hole in my pocket getting the L glass
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 , a 20D will do.....


----------



## bperboy

I've got a XTi, and I love it with my 100mm Macro; I just don't use it enough... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I want a wide angle, but I need to shoot more stuff to justify.


----------



## poo

Sensible purchasing EFN. 20D is very underrated, and the higher quality will make it shine - you will enjoy the results!


----------



## EFN

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *poo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sensible purchasing EFN. 20D is very underrated, and the higher quality will make it shine - you will enjoy the results!_

 

Underrated yes I agree. I am actually surprised that until today so many pro and semi-pro still use 20D. I was reading a local photog mag and I was surprised when I read that some of the stellar samples were actually shot using 20D.

 Update:
 I have found my 20D. This baby will be mine next week (for $499)


----------



## patalp

Yeah the 20D is definately underrated.
 Here's a link to a panorama I shot yesterday
http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/5...1largersr3.jpg
 It's pretty large even though I resized it. The original is 69 megapixels.
 <3 photoshop's stiching capabilities hehe


----------



## lan

Congrats on the 20D purchase.

 Coming from the 10D, I thought it would be logical to go with the 20D or 30D but I just didn't want to spend the money so I went XTi since it has same autofocus as 30D (which is improved from 20D) and it's lighter. For a person using only 1 camera a midrange body is where it's at. Sometimes I carry more things so any reduction of weight is good. It was smart to save on the body and spend it on the lense.


----------



## EFN

Canon SLR is simply amazing. These pics that I took with my 20D + 50mm 1.8 would have not been possible had I still use my Prosumer LUMIXs.







 ISO100 f4 1/160 Sec AWB Manual Mode (No Flash)





 ISO800 f1.8 1/250 Sec AWB Manual Mode (No Flash)

 SUPER Noise Free even at ISO800!!!! and that with a lowly 50mm lens. I can't wait how my pics will look with my L series 24-105.....still a few more days to go ETA.....


----------



## WiredMonk

If you want some advice from someone who rolls with people who have spent more than my life savings on canon gear, and does ALOT of lens testing and trading, take a listen:

 Dude, skip the 20d and at least grab a 30d- they've hit the most significant part of their price drop now that they're not the current model, and they're still otherwise far more current and in better conditions than most of the 20ds you're going to find. 20d is two generations out, and you lose alot of the improvement in interface, extra screensize, better autofocus, etc. etc.

 Treat it like an investment; for a couple hundred more you'll get improved pictures, or at least an easier time taking good pictures for as long as you keep it, which'll be longer by average manufacturing lifespan, and an increased value if you ever do decide to resell it.

 There's another thing to consider:

 Right now, with the 24mm on a crop body, that translates into give or take a 38mm, which won't allow you much flexibility in the way of interior photography or landscapes... you're going to suffer if every time you can't get everything in the shot if you don't have wide-angle.

 At bare minimum the cheapo 18-55 kit lens, but if you're using L-glass the rest of the time you'll want to chuck it off a cliff. Probably at least a 10-20 Sigma (equivelant to 15-30mm on crop body) for about $400 if you want decent quality... you could do 17-40 for about $600 if you really need to have L glass, but a 10-22 Canon for about $650 is going to be your best combo...

 I'm estimating here, of course, because I do all my trading in CAD and the market here is way different.

*Anyway*, the other option I was going to say is: skip all the hubub of needing an extra wide-angle lens later on and invest the money you're going to yearn to spend on it in a full-frame like the 5d instead, or wait until the new one is officially released and get an even better deal.... With the L lens, you'll get incomparable image detail and sharpness the 20d OR 30d can't touch, you'll get a true wide angle at 24mm, and most of all you'll be the envy of all your 20d/30d peers.


 Barring that, if you're still stuck on the 30d (hopefully you've been listening), sell the 24-105mm f4 IS and grab the 17-55 F2.8 IS... it's not L, but it's sharp as or sharper than the 24-105, a stop faster, a lot wider, and has awesome IS. 

 Here's my personal inkling, since I've given you so much mutually contradicting advice: If you see the wisdom in my words and are willing to scrimp a bit for the full frame upgrade, plan on playing around with the 20d right now until the 6D is announced, probably at the PMA this winter. Then, snatch up a 5d when all the trendsetters are getting rid of their old toys for the new one...

 However, if you want to get a body and stick with it till product death do you part, skip the 20d and go for a 30d, or else get a 5d right now. But there's no sense cheaping out for a measley two hundred on something you're hoping to spend at least a few years with and expand your capabilities with. I speak from experience.


----------



## martook

I'd have to say that putting money on a 30D instead of a 20D is a bad suggestion - the upgrades are minor at best, and putting the extra cash on a higher quality lens is a much better idea. Bodys come and go, but lenses are forever! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Basically, what you don't get is the bigger screen, spot metering and image parameters you shouldn't use much anyway, shooting RAW is a much better idea IMHO. Neither will improve image quality.


 When it comes to lenses, it's really hard to give suggestions, totally depends on what a person want to shoot, if you plan to buy a full frame body any time soon (if you buy second hand lenses though, you can always resell them without too much loss, if it's a good lens). So looking at reviews and asking questions before buying is always a good idea.

 The 24-105 is an awesome lens, but not very wide on a crop camera, so you'll probably want a 10-22 or equivalent lens to get the ultra wide shots. The 50 1.8 is a good lens for it's money, so definately a keeper. Not that impressed with the 1.4 version, if you want an ultrasharp 50 you should really look at getting a Contax Zeiss lens and an adapter instead. You loose the autofocus and auto stop down functions, but you get one of the sharpest lenses ever made for 35mm cameras for peanuts really... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Anyway... I could go on forever, but I'll get back to my lonely beer instead, work day is over!


----------



## kin0kin

If I was in the canon camp, I would get the:
 17-55mm IS, 24-70mm L, 85mm 1.2 L, and 135mm f2 L (most people would just get the 70-200mm 2.8 IS L though)

 But for a typical hobbyist, I'd say get the 17-55mm IS + 70-200 f4 IS + whatever macro lens just for fun is more than adequate.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *martook* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I
 The 24-105 is an awesome lens, but not very wide on a crop camera, so you'll probably want a 10-22 or equivalent lens to get the ultra wide shots. The 50 1.8 is a good lens for it's money, so definately a keeper. Not that impressed with the 1.4 version, if you want an ultrasharp 50 you should really look at getting a Contax Zeiss lens and an adapter instead. You loose the autofocus and auto stop down functions, but you get one of the sharpest lenses ever made for 35mm cameras for peanuts really... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Everything I've read indicates that the 50 1.4 is superior to the nifty fifty 1.8. Wonder if you got a bum 1.4. My 1.8 seems to have a hard time focusing and I'm leaning to the 1.4.

 Did not know about the Contax route. Sounds interesting...


----------



## WiredMonk

50mm 1.4 is in general superior, but opened up all the way you'd be better off just holding a magnifying glass in front of the sensor and hoping for the best. Seriously UGLY Ca and soft focus. Far better bang for buck with a 50mm f1.8 (mk 1 if you can get it, then you get the focal distance guage and metal construction)

 As for the 30D, IMHO improved autofocus algorithim, spotmetering, shooting both raw AND Jpeg, better buffer length for action shooting, etc. etc. are worth one or two hundred more if you're going to be using it for a while... but to each their own.


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Everything I've read indicates that the 50 1.4 is superior to the nifty fifty 1.8. Wonder if you got a bum 1.4. My 1.8 seems to have a hard time focusing and I'm leaning to the 1.4.

 Did not know about the Contax route. Sounds interesting..._

 

Well, the 1.4 is better than the nifty fifty, especially the feeling of it (not quite as plastic), but it's still not that great of a lens. Wide open performance isn't the best, and unless it's too long for you, a 85mm 1.8 is usually a better option.


 Using manual lenses is kinda funny, makes you think a bit more before you take a shot, although sometimes you really miss that autofocus 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Best thing with Canon is that you can adapt almost every other brand of lenses out there (except old Canon lenses, funny enough...), so when your Nikon pals brag about being able to use their 30 year old lenses, don't worry - so can you 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you want more information about it, a good forum is:
http://forum.manualfocus.org/


----------



## MfiveM

I am a big canon fan, have way too much money invested in L lenses and camera gear but I love photography so it makes up for it.


----------



## bperboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipacmm* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am a big canon fan, have way too much money invested in L lenses and camera gear but I love photography so it makes up for it._

 

You could send one of those L lenses up my way... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 17-40 would be awesome


----------



## leoftw

Canon G7


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *martook* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_although sometimes you really miss that autofocus 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yeah especially when the viewfinder sucks


----------



## WiredMonk

Biggest thing I miss about manual focus cameras - the visible ground glass focus screen.


----------



## MfiveM

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bperboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You could send one of those L lenses up my way... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 17-40 would be awesome 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I chose the 16-35 over the 17-40. Sure I can send it over since I run a Canon lens rental site.


----------



## bperboy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ipacmm* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I chose the 16-35 over the 17-40. Sure I can send it over since I run a Canon lens rental site._

 

Well, whats your website?


----------



## MfiveM

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bperboy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, whats your website?_

 

http://lensestorent.com/


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah especially when the viewfinder sucks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Hehe, that's quite true, but at least I've improved it a bit, by getting a split screen from katzeye...

http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/

 Another option is Haoda:

http://haodascreen.com/


 It makes focusing possible at least, although I'm definitely going to get a full frame camera when Canon has released the next version of the 5d (might get the old version, but I want to know what they have to offer at least).


----------



## WiredMonk

Martook, for the 5D (And 40D), you can actually get Canon branded focus screens... I don't know how the prices compare, but Haodas might void your warranty, I'm guessing. Plus OEM products tend to retain their value far more.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Focusing.../dp/B000BX61CW


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WiredMonk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Martook, for the 5D (And 40D), you can actually get Canon branded focus screens... I don't know how the prices compare, but Haodas might void your warranty, I'm guessing. Plus OEM products tend to retain their value far more.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Focusing.../dp/B000BX61CW_

 


 Thats true, but they don't have screens with split image, which I like a lot more than matte. Amusingly enough, the Canon original is a lot cheaper though


----------



## Mrvile

Some light news for those of us who have a little bit of money to throw around...

Canon working on two new superteles

 It's about time Canon revised the legendary 200/1.8L...the 200/2L IS looks like it's going to be an amazing lens for hopefully a decent price (probably $3500-$3900). The 800/5.6L IS is much more of a niche lens, since most people who need 800mm are just going to use a 600/4 + 1.4x combo. But for those who really need the reach and resolving power without the TC, or even need the 1120mm that a 1.4x would provide, the 800L is defintely going to be a beautiful lens that shouldn't cost more than the 600L.

 Good for Canon for at least attempting to dig itself out of its 1DmkIII fiasco/Nikon hole.


----------



## archosman

what was the 1DmkIII fiasco?


----------



## MfiveM

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_what was the 1DmkIII fiasco?_

 

AF issues....


----------



## Gabriel Possenti

Can they fix it with firmware or is it a design problem?


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Gabriel Possenti* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can they fix it with firmware or is it a design problem?_

 

From http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...8740-9068-9129

 Q. What is the fix that Canon has developed?

 A hardware fix. Specifically, a component in the camera called the sub-mirror must be adjusted. The sub-mirror - also called the secondary mirror - is a tiny mirror behind the main mirror that passes light down to the autofocus module in the base of the mirror box. The adjustment procedure may include the swapping of one or more parts that make up the sub-mirror mechanism, though the sub-mirror component itself will not be replaced.


----------



## leoftw

Canon G7 both shot by me:


----------



## EFN

I dunno if Placebo exist in PhotoG world
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 but methinks now I am more and more adept at taking stunning photos (to me eyes) than the first time I got my 40D. Almost all the pics I shot were keepers.

 PS:
 Yeah I traded my 20D for a 40D.....


----------



## leoftw

My G7 was left on the Metro . Jackpot!!


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leoftw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My G7 was left on the Metro . Jackpot!!_

 

If it didn't belong to you why didn't you turn it in? Did you not think the owner wanted it back? Not cool...


----------



## skyline889

.


----------



## lan

Ah yes the new 200 and 400mm. I saw them when I went to Photo Expo. I think the 200m is pretty portable and hand holdable 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The 800mm + converter should be cheaper than the $100,000 (or something insane) 1200mm 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 EFN, how are you liking the 40D? 

 I'm trying out the 35mm f/1.4L now. Last night was my first night with it. I decided against the 24mm because I heard it's not as good. So far I think it's pretty sweet as it's pretty sharp wide open. I find it a bit slow focusing though. I don't know what's up with that. I read it was supposed to be fast but fast compared to what?


----------



## PYROphonez

Well, being that this is the Canon thread, I thought I might ask a question regarding an older camcorder, the L2. I've been looking around for a nice quality camcorder, and although it's getting old, the L2 caught my eye. Is this a good choice for someone just looking for a camera with good quality at a low price?


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PYROphonez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, being that this is the Canon thread, I thought I might ask a question regarding an older camcorder, the L2. I've been looking around for a nice quality camcorder, and although it's getting old, the L2 caught my eye. Is this a good choice for someone just looking for a camera with good quality at a low price?_

 


 No...

 No firewire, Hi8 format, could swear I remember some reliability issues as well.

 It was a badazz camera when it came out, but since I'm in the biz I would steer way clear of it.

 You're better off going with MiniDV than anything else. Those DVD camcorders are much more compressed than MiniDV. Hi8 is about as popular as a MiniDisc. They tried to extend the life of 8mm by making a Digital Hi8 format, but there was such a huge penetration of the MiniDV format (as well as DVCam) that it fell off the face of the earth with the exception of consumers not doing their homework.

 Our Hi8 machine at work is unplugged since we needed the rack space for another BVW-75 BetaSP machine, so when I would get calls for dubs of the format depending on how I felt I would either unplug the BetaSP to do it or I would say we no longer had the ability to dub 8mm.

 That's a pretty old camera. If it has any internal problems it will be next to impossible to repair. If you can even find anyone who can repair it the cost of it would easily run the same price as a cheap DV one.

 Try and find a battery for it as well. Bet they're pricey...


----------



## archosman

Other thing to consider...

 We are on the verge of the HD revolution. There are more and more HD sets being sold now more than ever. Standard Definition is dying. I'm not trying to upsell you.. but it's something to consider since in about 2 years HD will be the norm. That standard definition camcorder is going to look like dogcrap on a HD set. Pretty soon it will be hard to find tape.


----------



## PYROphonez

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Other thing to consider...

 We are on the verge of the HD revolution. There are more and more HD sets being sold now more than ever. Standard Definition is dying. I'm not trying to upsell you.. but it's something to consider since in about 2 years HD will be the norm. That standard definition camcorder is going to look like dogcrap on a HD set. Pretty soon it will be hard to find tape._

 

Yeah, I thought about that as well. The only thing is that I don't want to spend a whole load of money at the time. The most reasonably priced I saw was an Aiptek A-HD for $140, but 2x zoom just won't cut it for me. I haven't seen much in the ways of around $300 price range. My uses simply aren't worth much more than that amount.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PYROphonez* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, I thought about that as well. The only thing is that I don't want to spend a whole load of money at the time. The most reasonably priced I saw was an Aiptek A-HD for $140, but 2x zoom just won't cut it for me. I haven't seen much in the ways of around $300 price range. My uses simply aren't worth much more than that amount._

 


 I know...

 In one way it's a bad time as well. Being on the bleeding edge of technology sucks. I really would stay away from an obsolete format though. About the only way I would do it is if you can get the camera for next to nothing...


----------



## lan

One problem with analog camera is your can't get footage onto computer easily or cheaply. If you get a minidv camera, some computer have firewire already built in or you can get a card for cheap compared to a card which does analog to digital conversion.


 MiniDV is the current popular standard and there are some deals to be had around even under your budget. I got me a Samsung used ome for like $80 just to do tape transfers.

 It'll be a while till HD camcorders get cheap so I wouldn't wait for that.

 Forget memory or DVD based camcorders since their compressions makes things worst.

 I'd skip the Canon L2.


----------



## leoftw

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If it didn't belong to you why didn't you turn it in? Did you not think the owner wanted it back? Not cool..._

 

Who am I going to turn it into ? The serial number on there was never registered so Canon doesn't even know who the original owner was .


----------



## warnsey

What is the general consensous on Tamron lenses?

 I like the look of the 28-300mm XR DI VC as an everyday travel lenses. 

 Are canon lenses that much better?


----------



## WiredMonk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leoftw* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Who am I going to turn it into ? The serial number on there was never registered so Canon doesn't even know who the original owner was ._

 

As far as I understand it, the police are a pretty good option. If a valid claim isn't made in x number of days, you get to keep it, instead of just making off with it and taking advantage of some poor soul's absent mindedness.

 Or at least leave some contact info with the transit lost and found, or a notice on a few of the major stops where the owner is probable to have gotten on/off.

 Anything's better than just keeping it. Who knows what kind of importance it might have had? Maybe it was the last present from a dying grandparent. Maybe it accompanied them on a trip through Africa. Who knows? All I know is what I would want, and can only assume you would want, the finder to do, if something valuable was left behind.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *warnsey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What is the general consensous on Tamron lenses?

 I like the look of the 28-300mm XR DI VC as an everyday travel lenses. 

 Are canon lenses that much better?_

 

Tamron makes some great lenses optically and nicely priced.

 Any lens with such a large zoom factor 28-300 is nearly about 11 times is a quality tradeoff though. You probably have a 1.6x crop camera? If so, 28mm isn't really wide. So you have to ask yourself is that the range you really want? 

 IMO f/6.3 at the long end like that isn't really useable unless it's the daytime but it's up to how you use it.

 For consumer lenses and budget, I prefer Tamron but I'd say Canon makes ultimately the higher quality lenses but that's in the pro range.


----------



## warnsey

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Tamron makes some great lenses optically and nicely priced.

 Any lens with such a large zoom factor 28-300 is nearly about 11 times is a quality tradeoff though. You probably have a 1.6x crop camera? If so, 28mm isn't really wide. So you have to ask yourself is that the range you really want? 

 IMO f/6.3 at the long end like that isn't really useable unless it's the daytime but it's up to how you use it.

 For consumer lenses and budget, I prefer Tamron but I'd say Canon makes ultimately the higher quality lenses but that's in the pro range._

 

Thanks for the reply, I was looking at the Canon ES 17-18 IS USM. However, I have been reading that it has some problems. 

 Any suggestions for a lens that has a similar zoom range that is decent quality for a Canon EOS 40D?


----------



## lan

17-18? That's a typo.

 ------------

 Updating my own experimentations. I picked up 580EXII last week and 18-55 IS right now. We'll see how they are.


----------



## warnsey

Yes, sorry- 17-85


----------



## WiredMonk

17-55 f 2.8 IS is one of the best mid-range lenses out there for the Canon crop bodies, which translates to about 28-80 on a standard scale. Tamron and sigma both have very decent budget priced versions. 

 there ARE decent 18-2xxs out there, which would give you that wide angle and super-telephoto, but you have to realize that these 'one-lense wonders' have drawbacks in terms of Image quality and distortion. A recent entry by tamron that gets decent reviews is this one, which also comes with macro functionality.


----------



## send

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *martook* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thats true, but they don't have screens with split image, which I like a lot more than matte. Amusingly enough, the Canon original is a lot cheaper though 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

It is very difficult to manually focus by just looking through a croped-sensor dslr's viewfinder, esp. in critical situations, when the deprth of field is just a few mm. Since I regularly use mf, I replaced the screen of my 350D, with a split-image chinese one. Didn't take more than 5 minutes to install and works just fine. With large aperture lenses, mf isn't that difficult after all!


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *warnsey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, sorry- 17-85_

 

Nearly about 1 stop faster in that range is Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5. If you want much better quality in less range, there's Tamron 17-50 2.8 if you like more wide angle or 28-75 2.8 if you prefer more telephoto. If you want another lense for more telephoto, I recommend Canon 70-200 f4L.

 Please tell me you're not going to put a cheap lens on the 40D.


----------



## warnsey

Thanks for the recommendations. I do mainly landscape work so a wideish 17-50 could be the go. How is the Tamron better quality than the the Sigma or the Canon? 

 There's just to much to choose from.


----------



## lan

The way I understand most landscape shots are they use wider angle and they are stopped down.

 Maybe a priority for you:
 - colors
 - edge sharpness
 - distortion
 - chromatic aberation

 Maybe not a priority
 - f/2.8 / wide open performance

 The Tamron lenses I mentioned have nice colors and good resolution. I'd just go to a photo forum and look at photos taken by various people with certain lenses to get a general idea of the kind of images you could possibly get. Specs are specs but images are more important.

 ---------------

 On another note, I'm returning this 18-55 IS. Wide angle is doo-doo 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I only cared about it's performance 18-24mm and that's where it was worst. Well at least my copy.


----------



## warnsey

What are you going to get as an alternative?


----------



## lan

There is no replacement functionally for me for the 18-55 IS. It's the only cheap wide angle with IS. It's only for special case slow motion effects. I won't use it from 24mm on up because I have other lenses which are better which cover that already. I already have Tamron 17-35 also.

 Maybe this copy was bad and I'll try and hunt for another one.


----------



## lowmagnet

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WiredMonk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Or at least leave some contact info with the transit lost and found, or a notice on a few of the major stops where the owner is probable to have gotten on/off._

 

Just wanted to add this: their proof of ownership is the number stamped on the Canon warranty card at the factory.


----------



## essasin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is no replacement functionally for me for the 18-55 IS. It's the only cheap wide angle with IS. It's only for special case slow motion effects. I won't use it from 24mm on up because I have other lenses which are better which cover that already. I already have Tamron 17-35 also.

 Maybe this copy was bad and I'll try and hunt for another one._

 

The 18-55 IS is an ok piece of glass if you know it's limitations. It still has soft corners even at f8 where it is at it's best and noticed a bit of purple fringing especially in landscape shots. To me the lens falls short overall in IQ. The IS is silent and comes in handy for an extra stop. But if you are shooting long exposures for the slow motion blur you would need a tripod anyways. But, for the price I could def relate how this could be functionally imperative. 

 The tammy 17-35 on the other hand is a great piece of glass. Sharp throughout the focal range, decent build quality, and a good performer overall. How do you like it?


----------



## essasin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *warnsey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the recommendations. I do mainly landscape work so a wideish 17-50 could be the go. How is the Tamron better quality than the the Sigma or the Canon? 

 There's just to much to choose from._

 

What body are you shooting with? I assume you are on a 1.6x cropped body(xt, xti, 20d, 30d, 40d?) I would highly recommend Sig 10-20 (which at times gets favorable reviews over the canon) or the Canon EF-S 10-22. Both are optically excellent glass. It does suffer from some fringing and flare but that's the nature of wides .and you just have to adjust accordingly These two lenses where made for landscapes and they also make for some extremely creative shots.

 The general consensus is to get the canon if you have money to blow and the sig if you are on a budget. Both are said to be optically the same.


----------



## coolshot

is it worth it to spend the extra $150 bucks to get an xti over a regualar xt? i plan on keeping the body for a long time like +3 years and maybe upgrading to whatever is next up at the time like x0D body. Right now i think new a new xt can be had under $500 and the xti is like $680 with their kit lens.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *essasin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The tammy 17-35 on the other hand is a great piece of glass. Sharp throughout the focal range, decent build quality, and a good performer overall. How do you like it?_

 

Yeah I like this lens. I think the Tamron 28-75 is a bit better with colors though.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *coolshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_is it worth it to spend the extra $150 bucks to get an xti over a regualar xt?_

 

I'd say yes. It's autofocus is better and it has larger memory buffers and the screen is larger.


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *coolshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_is it worth it to spend the extra $150 bucks to get an xti over a regualar xt? i plan on keeping the body for a long time like +3 years and maybe upgrading to whatever is next up at the time like x0D body. Right now i think new a new xt can be had under $500 and the xti is like $680 with their kit lens._

 

Sorta depends... If you put that extra $150 on a better lens instead, you will get better pics for the money, for sure... but if you plan on keeping it (yeah right, like any gear-fi nut can keep the same stuff for 3+ years when there's something better out there!? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) and get better lenses later, you might be happier with the xti. Canons kit lens isn't very good (although not quite as bad as some seems to think) so getting a xt without lens and buying an alternative from Sigma or Tamron, second hand, would deliver higher quality pics.


----------



## coolshot

i plan on getting 50mm prime lens the cheap one for like 80 bucks and one telephoto in the $700 early 08'. I have other hobbies like head-fi where my money will be going so im not really concerned about the lastest and greatest in photography, its way down on the list.


----------



## raptor84

I've been using a 350d (rebel xt) for around 18 months+ now and its serving me well. I think the biggest improvemtn in image qulity most of the time comes when you upgrade the optics rather than the body 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I unfortunately got bitten hard by the L bug. 

 For third party lenses be sure to test for lemons before you buy so find a shop that has an exchange policy or best if you can go down to test the samples yourself..


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've been using a 350d (rebel xt) for around 18 months+ now and its serving me well. I think the biggest improvemtn in image qulity most of the time comes when you upgrade the optics rather than the body 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I unfortunately got bitten hard by the L bug. 

 For third party lenses be sure to test for lemons before you buy so find a shop that has an exchange policy or best if you can go down to test the samples yourself.._

 

Agreed, the image quality rests mostly on the lens but the body's handling will affect how you shoot. XTi has larger memory buffer, it's AF is better, and it has faster processing. For me this is important as I have confidence in the camera.

 It's still possible to get L lemons. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I've had quite a few of them and it's not cool to spend that much for something not sharp.


----------



## raptor84

Yea I've heard of L lemons before too. So far I've been lucky... and yes after the announcement of the 40D I was tempted to upgrade my body but I shall hold out and jump straight to a 1 series once I graduate and can afford it..


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's still possible to get L lemons. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I've had quite a few of them and it's not cool to spend that much for something not sharp._

 

Yeah, for sure... I've got a 35L in my closet that I can't use. Reason for that is that the AF is slightly off on my body (20D), so I get tons of CA at inifinity focus if I use autofocus - if I do it manually it's a great lens. Although I could send it in and get it fixed, that might just break when I change to a new body, so I hope 5dmk2 will get the AF microadjustment thingy from the the 1dmk3, then I wont have to 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I would get it fixed if I needed it, but I have a sharp Tamron 28-75 that I use a lot, and 35mm on a crop camera is no favorite anyway - got it because it'll shine on a full frame cam


----------



## granodemostasa

hi. 
Amazon.com: Profile For A. Aljabri: Reviews
Amazon.com: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Electronics
Amazon.com: Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

 These are the lenses i'm considering right now. My basic use is short range pictures of people... so it needs to be fast. I would have bought the 17-40 by now if it were not for concerns i've read about it's speed. What's your opinion of these lenses? (indoor mostly)


----------



## raptor84

Indoor without flash? f/4 will be hard to avoid handshake and the other one has IS to boot. Unless you dont mind shooting at ISO 800-3200 most of the time.

 The only draw back for the 17-55 IS is that it only works for crop sensor cams and if you intend to get a 1.3 or FF cam in the future you cant carry it over to the new body. Thats the one thing stopping me form getting ef-s lenes right now...


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *martook* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hope 5dmk2 will get the AF microadjustment thingy from the the 1dmk3, then I wont have to 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I would get it fixed if I needed it, but I have a sharp Tamron 28-75 that I use a lot, and 35mm on a crop camera is no favorite anyway - got it because it'll shine on a full frame cam 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I hope 5DMK2 also gets that microadjustment thing. That would be great!

 I sort of miss my Tamron 28-75 and it's colors. I think 35mm on crop is fine as it's sort of normal but I guess that's bland for some people.




 granodemostasa, I would get 17-55 2.8IS. 2.8 isn't that fast for indoors already and IS helps a bit.

 I personally wouldn't invest in EFS lenses since I'm interested in larger than APS-C sensor cameras.


----------



## Bob_McBob

[size=large]NOTE: Some of these codes no longer work (they display the regular price without rebates), and some of the items are actually cheaper without the code now. Always check the regular price before using a B&H discount code![/size]


 The latest B&H trade show discount codes have been up for a couple of weeks now. Some very good deals like the 70-200. As always, make sure the regular price plus rebates and such isn't lower than the discount code price.

Canon Speedlite 580EX II Flash, coupon code: PS1107ETGUL, price: *$329.95*
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Autofocus Lens, coupon code: PS11072DHTY, price: *$1184.00*
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens, coupon code: PS1107WPEJX, price: *$984.00*
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Autofocus Lens, coupon code: PS1107GZA1T, price: *$1589.00*
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Autofocus Lens, coupon code: PS110768KOB, price: *$1474.00*
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Autofocus Lens, coupon code: PS1107VOIVM, price: *$944.95*
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus Lens, coupon code: PS1107G0L0G, price: *$609.00*
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Autofocus Lens, coupon code: PS1107SE5K4, price: *$854.00*
Canon EOS Rebel XT Body (Black), coupon code: PS1107C7OC2, price: *$384.95*
Canon EOS Rebel XT Body (Silver), coupon code: PS11073TPNL, price: *$414.95*
Canon EOS Rebel XT Kit (Black), coupon code: PS1107KLP9E, price: *$464.95*
Canon EOS Rebel XT Kit (Silver), coupon code: PS110791DDQ, price: *$454.95*
Canon EOS Rebel XTi Body (Black), coupon code: PS1107DJSYE, price: *$524.95*
Canon EOS Rebel XTi Body (Silver), coupon code: PS1107I8BHA, price: *$519.95*
Canon EOS Rebel XTi Kit (Black), coupon code: PS1107L74WK, price: *$594.95*
Canon EOS Rebel XTi Kit (Silver), coupon code: PS1107TSXII, price: *$599.95*
Canon EOS 30D Body, coupon code: PS11071HXTU, price: *$874.95*
Canon EOS 40D Body, coupon code: PS1107BNGU5, price: *$1269.95*
Canon EOS 5D Body, coupon code: PS1107QZIZF, price: *$2169.95*
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM Autofocus Lens for Canon DSLRs, coupon code: PS1107LWKDW, price: *$389.00*
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Autofocus Lens for Canon DSLRs, coupon code: PS1107TDYWC, price: *$349.00*
Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS Lens for Canon DSLRs, coupon code: PS1107BCOZS, price: *$509.00*
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Autofocus Lens for Canon DSLRs, coupon code: PS1107PVEQV, price: *$789.00*
Tokina 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 AT-X 107 DX Autofocus Fisheye Lens for Canon DSLRs, coupon code: PS1107Y45HP, price: *$529.95*
Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 AT-X 535 PRO DX Autofocus Lens for Canon DSLRs, coupon code: PS1107QGWRT, price: *$669.95*
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF Autofocus Lens for Canon DSLRs, coupon code: PS1107ZZ3VS, price: *$419.00*
Tamron 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD IF Autofocus Lens for Canon DSLRs, coupon code: PS11076NA0R, price: *$469.00*


----------



## yellafella321

f4 is not fast enough for indoors, even at iso 3200. Definitely get the f/2.8. Canon's 17-55 is fantastic, and optically is even better than my Nikon 17-55 DX, plus you get image stabilization, that is, if you can live with the non-professional build quality and potential for dust issues. That being said, if you're on a budget, don't rule out Tamron's 17-50 f/2.8, its phenomenal, is better(optically) than Nikon or Canon's offerings in a lot of situations, but too suffers from some build quality and quality control issues, but if you can get a good one, its hard to beat, especially for the price. Also, if 28mm is wide enough for you, I can also strongly suggest the 28-75. I currently have it on my f100, and used it on my digitals until I got my 17-55 and its one heckuva lens.


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *coolshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_is it worth it to spend the extra $150 bucks to get an xti over a regualar xt? i plan on keeping the body for a long time like +3 years and maybe upgrading to whatever is next up at the time like x0D body. Right now i think new a new xt can be had under $500 and the xti is like $680 with their kit lens._

 


 I had an XT for about 9 months before upgrading to a 40D about a month ago. The XT was great for me to learn on, but the AF on it left me wanting better. After trying my friend's 30D and anotehr friend's XTi, I couldn't help but upgrading.

 Heh, I own lan's Tamron 28-75 now and it's been a great performer for me. With the XT, I always felt the AF was a bit slow, with the XT being the slower of the two, but with the 40D, it's basically AF's as fast as the Tamron will allow. The only way for me to get a faster AF would be to get a USM/HSM lens, but I'm not ready to drop big bucks on a new daily walkaround yet since the Tammy does so well. 

 I'm dabbing my feet in primes right now and just picked up a 50 f1.4 and just used it for a wedding this past weekend. It left me wanting a bit more reach, so I might pick up an 85 f1.8 soon. I've had some time with a friend's 35 f2 and it's just not my flavor (and the AF sounds like a bee floating around your head!). 

 Like lan has said, I personally don't want to invest in the EF-S system as you never know if you'll go FF, so why lock yourself into the system. But if you know the chances of you going FF is very low, get the 17-55 f2.8 IS (though I've read about it being a dust pump). I did get a chance to play with a friend's and it's a very nice lense, definitely bigger than I expected! For me, I'm not much of a wide shoots, so I'd probably get the 24-70 f2.8L or 24-105 f4L IS and use primes for low light indoor shots.


----------



## nickknutson

I'm looking for a good Canon forum for a buddy of mine, any suggestions?


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nickknutson* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm looking for a good Canon forum for a buddy of mine, any suggestions?_

 

Canon Digital Photography Forums - Powered by vBulletin

 The bestest one!


----------



## nickknutson

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *martook* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Canon Digital Photography Forums - Powered by vBulletin

 The bestest one! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Great, thanks!


----------



## Dominat0r

newb to photography here....thinking about making the move to a DSLR and love reading your guys thread =) 

 I just started myself..but got a A570 IS as a present this year, so been reading alot about it and learning M mode =) 

 For sure going to be a canon xti as my first DSLR, love them to death. 

 Mind you im still very newb and learning, but here is some of my pics with my new canon.

Flickr: Photos from Dominic-Chin


----------



## Dork Knight

I've just noticed this thread, I received a Canon EOS 400D for Christmas - Which I believe is also know as the Digital Rebel XTi.

 I've no real clue to this world as of yet so I've ordered the following books to try to help (lets hope they can help);

 Digital SLR Cameras & Photography For Dummies,

 Understanding Exposure: How to Shoot Great Photographs with a Film or Digital Camera,

 Adobe Photoshop CS3 for Photographers: A Professional Image Editor's Guide to the Creative Use of Photoshop for the Macintosh and PC

 I've got some shots here and here if anyone's bored enough to look.

 I like the statue outside your house HighLife, I wish I had nice things to shoot outside my house.


----------



## Dominat0r

Try "The Digital Photography" from Scott Kelby...really nice for newbs to learn all aspects of photos, not just taking them either =)

 Friend loaned me the book and ive read it about 5 times since then. Its not like a normal book, its broken down into sections and tips, also shows how he took the shots that pictured in the book and some really really nice shots there. 

 I just got my camera and it makes me want a DSLR sooo badly...however, it teaches you alot more then normal books, also that good photos doesnt mean you have to have a 1000$ camera. However, im drooling over your new 400D, the exact camera im going to purchase one day.


----------



## Dork Knight

I'm on my way to the book store in the morning so I'll have a search for it.

 Thank You


----------



## Dominat0r

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dork Knight* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm on my way to the book store in the morning so I'll have a search for it.

 Thank You_

 

just cause im bored and like to take pics =)


----------



## Dork Knight

I believe I saw a copy of that last night at Borders, I didn't purchase anything from there as they seem overpriced IMO.

 I seem to recall that people seem to hold Scott Kelby and Martin Evening as some of the better authors in this field.

 At least I know what that one looks like so it should catch my eye if they have it in stock.


----------



## Dork Knight

Well that was a wasted journey, Borders in the City didn't have a Photography section (I couldn't believe it at first) and the selection in Waterstones was extremely poor.

 I'm sure many years ago there used to be huge sections on Photography, mind you, there are next to no book stores left in my area these days.


----------



## azt33

I joined the Canon camp too, I got a 350D kit with a 50mm f/1.8 II, 2 extra batteries and 2 4GB CF cards. I also found a relative cheap 70-200mm f/4 USM that I just paid for, should be here next week 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I just need to get a bag now and practice a lot.


----------



## raptor84

Congrats on stepping into another wallet unfriendly( or can be friendly in the long term) hobby. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 THe 70-200 f/4 is a very fine lens for the price and once you use that you will get hooked on the L bug for sure hehe..


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Congrats on stepping into another wallet unfriendly( or can be friendly in the long term) hobby. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 THe 70-200 f/4 is a very fine lens for the price and once you use that you will get hooked on the L bug for sure hehe.._

 

Congrats new 350D and 400D users. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 azt33, what a way to start. 70-200 f4. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 With something more wide angle you could be set for all occasions.


----------



## Dork Knight

Cheers Ian,

 Has anyone used or have thoughts on the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro, and if so what do you think (Good & Bad)?

 The reason I ask is that I was not all that impressed with the kit lens (EF-S 18-55) which came with the 400D, so after some investigation I ended up purchasing the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM (this purchase has definitely delayed my source upgrade).

 Unfortunately I now need an all-purpose carry around lens to fill the gap, many of the images I look at (on pbase) are just not as good as the 70-200mm f/4L IS (even the L series in the same price range IMO) but I'm only looking in the price range of the Sigma at the moment (I really want to upgrade my source and the 70-200mm f/4L IS is the only major money I want to spend on the camera for the time being).

 IS would be a benefit but I believe the Sigma to be better than the similar priced Canon.

 Thank You,

 Jason


----------



## azt33

Raptor84 and Ian, thanks for the kind words 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I guess I am a sucker for wallet-unfriendly hobbies, can't help myself!

 Unfortunately I sprained my ankle a few days ago, so I haven't been able to get out there and start shooting. I am just playing around with the camera and trying to understand it better. 

 Ian, next on my list is the Canon EF-S 10-22mm. Although that might be a few months away and for the time being, I should be set. In the long run, I would like to replace the kitlens with something better too, like the EF-S 17-85mm. But that is probably going to happen after the summer. 

 Does anyone have tips for a bag BTW? I have been looking at the Crumpler bags, as I used to have one for my laptop and really liked it. Do you think all my gear (which is not much right now) would fit in something like the Pretty Boy L?

 My gear:
 350D, kit lens, 50mm f/1.8 II, 70-200mm f/4, spare batteries, some cleaning tools and some other small items.


----------



## Dork Knight

I have a Lowepro Micro Trekker 100, it's a great little back pack with removable Velcro pads so that you can change the configuration.

 I recently bought a 70-200mm Lens, it fits in the Micro Trekker but it's not ideal IMO - I looked at the Crumpler Daily XL yesterday which looks fantastic.

 I'll probably opt for the Crumpler when I wish to take everything with me, and probably keep the Micro Trekker for when I just need to carry the basics - Although Lowepro offer a wide range of very good bags.

 So from what I've seen and used, I would check out Lowepro along with Crumpler.


----------



## nytryder7

Hello, does anyone have any experience with / opinions on Sandisk's Extreme series cf cards? I am thinking about upgrading to the 4g extreme III or maybe the extreme IV card. Thanks.


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dork Knight* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Cheers Ian,

 Has anyone used or have thoughts on the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro, and if so what do you think (Good & Bad)?

 The reason I ask is that I was not all that impressed with the kit lens (EF-S 18-55) which came with the 400D, so after some investigation I ended up purchasing the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM (this purchase has definitely delayed my source upgrade).

 Unfortunately I now need an all-purpose carry around lens to fill the gap, many of the images I look at (on pbase) are just not as good as the 70-200mm f/4L IS (even the L series in the same price range IMO) but I'm only looking in the price range of the Sigma at the moment (I really want to upgrade my source and the 70-200mm f/4L IS is the only major money I want to spend on the camera for the time being).

 IS would be a benefit but I believe the Sigma to be better than the similar priced Canon.

 Thank You,

 Jason_

 


 There's a lot of options to choose from in this spectrum of lenses. The king of the hill is the Canon 17-55mm f2.8IS, but then again, that costs an arm and a leg as well... but if you want to match that 70-200, your probably have to get this. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 The Canon 17-85mm is not that highly regarded, but it's of course a lot better than the kit lens. Another option if you think 24mm (x1.6) is wide enough for you (or you plan to get something like the 10-22 later anyway), is the 24-105mm f4 L IS.
 All third party lens producers make good and fast (f2.8) lenses that are 18-50mm or close to it, worth checking out as well.

 Check out these sites for reviews:
Lens Tests by LightRules Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com
FM Reviews - Main Index


----------



## Dork Knight

Thanks martook - I'll investigate those lenses and have a scan of the sites.


----------



## GTRacer

17-40 f/4L
 Sigma 18-50 2.8
 Tamron 17-55 2.8

 My suggestions.


----------



## raptor84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nytryder7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hello, does anyone have any experience with / opinions on Sandisk's Extreme series cf cards? I am thinking about upgrading to the 4g extreme III or maybe the extreme IV card. Thanks._

 

Depends on the kind of shooting and camera you use. If you use an entry level camera like a rebel xt or d40x and currently use a 80x card like an Ultra 2, you might not notice much of a difference when the buffer is being cleared. The only difference you might notice is when transferring form camera to PC using a good card reader. 

 If you frequently shoot sports of wildlife action with a 40D or D200 then it might be a good udea to invest in those. Not too sure about how much more speed a extreme 3 vs 4 would give though as I only have experience with the extreme 3 range..


----------



## lan

70-200 f4L IS is generally thought as the sharpest Canon zoom. It's unfortunate to start with that one because everything else will not be as good for one reason or another.

 I think you should get the Tamron 17-50. It's also pretty sharp. I'm not sure you'd notice a gap from 50-70.


----------



## Dork Knight

Thank You Ian - Would the Tamron be the following Lens?
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Asp IF Lens Sample Photos and Specifications

 The 70-200mm f/4L IS is definitely a fantastic lens, I looked at many samples and I was always drawn back to the 70-200mm f/4L IS - It seemed like nothing (within a reasonable price difference) could compare.


----------



## lan

Yes that would be the lens.

 I prefer the speed and look of the images of the 2.8 version of the 70-200 but it's not a lens you want to carry around all the time since it's heavy.


----------



## Dork Knight

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *martook* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's a lot of options to choose from in this spectrum of lenses. The king of the hill is the Canon 17-55mm f2.8IS, but then again, that costs an arm and a leg as well... but if you want to match that 70-200, your probably have to get this. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 The Canon 17-85mm is not that highly regarded, but it's of course a lot better than the kit lens. Another option if you think 24mm (x1.6) is wide enough for you (or you plan to get something like the 10-22 later anyway), is the 24-105mm f4 L IS.
 All third party lens producers make good and fast (f2.8) lenses that are 18-50mm or close to it, worth checking out as well.

 Check out these sites for reviews:
Lens Tests by LightRules Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com
FM Reviews - Main Index_

 

I've been looking at images and lenses all day, my eyes are burning and my neck is in agony.

 After looking at so many images and on a range on lenses it looks as if I'll be bitterly disappointed if I stick with my original budget, so it looks like my source upgrade will be delayed again - Oh well.

 It looks like it's between the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM as you've mentioned martook, and the moment I'm leaning towards the 24-105.

 I need a break form the computer for an hour or two before I continue the search.


----------



## lan

azt33, bag are hard... I guess that's why I have about 6 of them for various configurations. You'll have to try a bunch out to see what you like that fits all your gear.

 nytryder7, I have some SanDisk Extreme III and IV cards. I have no complaints. They are reliable and fast.

 Dork Knight, what exactly are you looking for in these lenses? I can say one of the things I don't like about 17-55 2.8 IS and 24-105 4 IS is the colors. They are a bit boring to me. I prefer the Tamron 17-50 and Canon 24-70. But this is a matter of personal choice. Usually people chose things for the range and function only but I look at colors, distortion, and sharpness.


----------



## Dork Knight

I posted similar yesterday on another forum, so I'll just do a Copy & Paste;

  Quote:


 At this time I'll be using the lens for what I suppose you could call the main stream, Family, Functions, Nature, Buildings, Events - Lets say Waterfront events, parades etc.

 I've previously owned a Pentax Optio 5Si but this didn't get much use and of course this is at a different level, so this is my first real venture into this world - So far I've yet to find my feet and I'll start to have to get a feel for what I'll enjoying photographing in the future, everything at this point is appealing. 
 

Not too much help I know, but I suppose if someone offered you one lens which you had to use for a year (along with the EF 70-200) in the $0 to $1,400 range, which would you choose?

 The thing that's struck me is nothing seems to compare in sharpness/detail to the 70-200mm, that's to say in the sample and lenses I've looked at on pbase - Of course, as you've stated, it's a matter of personal choice.

 It would be nice to see a lens with the sharpness of the 70-200, with something that can bring up vibrant colours - bright and striking.

 I've ordered a couple of books on photography, one for CS3 and two others (one for Exposure which should be interesting) - However, I would like to keep the pictures as natural as possible at this time, so to reiterate; a lens with the sharpness of the 70-200 with something that can bring up vibrant colours.

 Image Stabilising would be a very nice benefit.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dork Knight* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The thing that's struck me is nothing seems to compare in sharpness/detail to the 70-200mm, that's to say in the sample and lenses I've looked at on pbase - Of course, as you've stated, it's a matter of personal choice._

 

Have you looked at the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L? It's not IS, but since it's a faster lens, it still would be pretty versatile. It would also give you a full range from 24-200mm. The only other way to get a really sharp lens is to look at primes, I'm afraid.


----------



## Dork Knight

I've taken a look at the 24-70 but I thought I favoured the 24-105 instead, however, I've just taken another look and I may have been wrong.

 It's crazy the amount of pictures I've looked at these past few days, I'll definably have to take another good look at the 24-70.

 I don't want to purchase a lens and then think a couple of weeks later; Why O Why didn't I purchase the other one instead.


----------



## lan

Unless you yourself have taken photos with the lenses and tried a few samples variations, it's impossible to come up with a real conclusion. So I suggest going to a photo store to try them or buy all of them and return/sell the ones you don't like. BUT since you're just starting it doesn't really make much sense to spend all that time and money IMO. I wouldn't worry about it and just get any of them. You need a place to start and a reference point. Sharpness and color saturation you can add in post processing to a certain point. In my taste, 24-105 maybe lacking a little in color but that is in relation to 24-70 not in an absolute sense. It's still a good lense.

 You also have to realize 70-200 f4 starts at f4 and people will use that or 5.6. Other photos with 2.8 lenses maybe at 2.8 which isn't as sharp. Did you make sure to see only photos of those other lenses @ f4 or 5.6 also?

 I suggest going with a 2.8 lens. You autofocus will be better. Background blue has potential of being better also. f4 doesn't look good IMO unless it's on full frame 5D. So my suggestion is either

 Canon 17-55 2.8IS
 Tamron 17-50 2.8

 I would just go with the Tamron and with the $ saving get a flash and a low light prime.


----------



## nytryder7

Thanks raptor84 and lan. 

 I have a xti. I'll be shooting some amature sports but mostly auto racing once the season kicks off.


----------



## Dork Knight

Thanks Ian;

 I've been randomly selecting images through pbase, any that have grabbed my attention and have exif info I've been paying attention to.


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dork Knight* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've taken a look at the 24-70 but I thought I favoured the 24-105 instead, however, I've just taken another look and I may have been wrong.

 It's crazy the amount of pictures I've looked at these past few days, I'll definably have to take another good look at the 24-70.

 I don't want to purchase a lens and then think a couple of weeks later; Why O Why didn't I purchase the other one instead._

 


 Oh, I forgot this link! I KNOW you want to watch a bunch more pics... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



-=Lens Sample Images Archive=- (work in progress) - Canon Digital Photography Forums

 You probably have to sign up to see all photos, but all Canon owners should be there anyway, if nothing else just for the great Glamour & Nude forum... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 Choosing lens is hard, for sure...

 17-55 f2.8IS
 Great range, fast and IS. If you have no plans of going full frame any time soon and think 17mm is wide enough (no plans on getting the 10-22mm), this is the lens to get I think.

 24-70L f2.8
 I know I've read some mixed reviews on this lens... noone saying it's a bad lens, but not as good as it's expensive. And heavy. Still a very good lens of course, but can't help but wonder if Canon will re-release it with IS, which will make second hand value drop a bit.
 This lens just don't attract me much, so I have a hard time recommending it to someone else 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 24-105L f4IS
 Great range for a walk around zoom and it has IS. f4 is a bit too slow though, you pretty much have to have a fast prime lens in your camera bag as well if you choose this one. 85mm f1.8 would be the natural choice.



 Oh, and Ian... boring colors on 17-55 and 24-105? Naw, I don't agree, seen tons of shots with both of them that have great colors. But everyone are allowed to have their own opinion obviously 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 I should add my planned setup, might shed some light on things I recommend.

 I'm waiting to see what the next incarnation of the 5D has to offer, I'd really like a full frame camera, but I think the 5D lacks a few things I want, especially for that kind of money... if the prices keep going down though, I'll probably get one anyway.

 So, if I do get a full frame camera, this is the lens setup I'd have (eventually, in a couple of years perhaps):
 * Canon 24-105L IS
 + Canon 70-300 DO IS
 + Olympus Zuiko 21mm f3.5 (With adapter. Tiny UWA, since the 24-105L isn't that great at the widest setting)
 + Canon 35L f1.4
 * Canon 85mm f1.8
 * Canon 135L f2
 + Canon 300L f4

 + lenses I have, * is on my wishlist


 But... if the 5D mk2 doesn't have what I want or is too expensive, I can actually imagine staying with crop cameras for one simple reason - the 17-55mm IS lens.
 So, if I end up staying at crop camp, I'll keep my 20D for a while longer, until the next 40D arrives. I'll sell my 35L, because it's not a lens I find that interesting on crop cameras, and I'll get this setup instead:

 * Canon 17-55 IS
 + Canon 70-300 DO IS
 + Olympus Zuiko 21mm f3.5 (with adapter)
 * Canon 85mm f1.8
 * Canon 135L f2
 + Canon 300L f4


 ... that is, unless I skip the 17-55 and get the 10-22 and 24-105 instead, you never know. Damn, it IS hard to decide!


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *azt33* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does anyone have tips for a bag BTW? I have been looking at the Crumpler bags, as I used to have one for my laptop and really liked it. Do you think all my gear (which is not much right now) would fit in something like the Pretty Boy L?

 My gear:
 350D, kit lens, 50mm f/1.8 II, 70-200mm f/4, spare batteries, some cleaning tools and some other small items._

 


 You should check out this site, it's really weird to navigate it, but you'll get a good idea on how much a lot of bags can hold:

CamBags.com - Camera Bags Review Resource for D-Slr cameras. OVER 400 REVIEWS AND 1700 PHOTOS OF CAMERA BAGS FOR CANON & NIKON DIGITAL AND OTHER SLR CAMERAS


----------



## raptor84

Actually depending on your subject distance to the background and distance to the lens you can get quite decent blur at f/4.5 or even at f/4 

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2326/...f94d736c_o.jpg

 But man I've tried the 85/1.2 on a 5D and the bokeh was just...


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *martook* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh, and Ian... boring colors on 17-55 and 24-105? Naw, I don't agree, seen tons of shots with both of them that have great colors. But everyone are allowed to have their own opinion obviously 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Like I said post processing wise, you can change things. So maybe in the end result for some people there's no difference.

 Straight out of the camera, the colors are flatter (read more boring to me). I have to process the images' colors to greater extent in those lenses than compared to 24-70 or 35/1.4.


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Like I said post processing wise, you can change things. So maybe in the end result for some people there's no difference.

 Straight out of the camera, the colors are flatter (read more boring to me). I have to process the images' colors to greater extent in those lenses than compared to 24-70 or 35/1.4._

 

True, you can do a lot with PP of course, I haven't shot with any of the lenses, so I can't say how they look straight from the camera. But I do know I've never seen colors from any Canon lens that can beat the best Contax Zeiss and Leica lenses, some of those are just amazing. Dream setup would be a full frame camera with zeiss 21mm f2.8... that is one crazy wide angle lens. Crazy expensive too...


----------



## Dork Knight

Thanks for the info and link martook.

 I couldn't stop thinking about this investment last night and this morning while drifting in and out of sleep.

 The upgrade path I've been considering after the next purchase would be;

 Flashgun; Metz 58 AF-1 C Digital, Speedlite 430EX or Speedlite 580EX II,
 Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM

 Further down the line depending on how everything turns out;

 Prime Lens, possibly save towards the EF 14mm,
 Possible body upgrade

 I think I'll go for the EF 24-70mm or EF 24-105mm to be honest, the only things which keep running through my mind are:

 EF 24-70mm;
 Larger and heavier than the 24-105 (probably nearly all hand held use),
 No IS,
 Faster at 2.8

 EF 24-105;
 f/4 same as my 70-200, so I have no 2.8 in my current line up,
 Lighter and smaller than the 24-105,
 Already own the 70-200,
 IS

 Time to look at more reviews and samples.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *martook* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But I do know I've never seen colors from any Canon lens that can beat the best Contax Zeiss and Leica lenses, some of those are just amazing. Dream setup would be a full frame camera with zeiss 21mm f2.8... that is one crazy wide angle lens. Crazy expensive too... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I"ve never tried any of those Zeiss or Leica lenses but one things for sure, I could have a lot more toys and fun for their big prices.

 Try the Tamron 28-75 also if you're interested in that range. It's f/2.8, it's cheap and will allow you to get flash and 10-22 NOW.


----------



## Towert7

This thread was an interesting read....... well the first 20 or so pages until I started to see too many patterns repeating.

 I wanted to see what the Canon kit has to offer. It seems Canon's biggest plus, is also it's biggest negative: their lenses. It seems they make some nice lenses, but boy...... they are expensive (and very specific)! It would be interesting to see if Canon put out a few cheaper lenses targeted to the budget DSLR audience. Nikon makes a whole slew of budget lenses which are quite nice..... but aside from the 18-55 kit lens, Canon has very few cheap lenses with zoom (not including 3'rd party brands), if any at all. That's gotta be rough for those buying into the Canon kit on a budget. I know I would be pulling my hair out! ^_^

 The one thing that does interest me is the Canon 5D, though I assume that will be superseded by another rather soon. That seems to be where the magic of Canon lies, full frame. Boy does that thing take some nice pictures! I'm going to keep my eyes posted to see how Canon deals with Full Frame Digital, though it would be nice to see them put out some new glass with more flexibility since they already have enough specific glass, if you know what I mean.
 Too bad I'm dirt poor.


----------



## Dork Knight

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It seems they make some nice lenses, but boy...... they are expensive (and very specific)!_

 

Like this beast 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Look at the size of it;
Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM Lens Sample Photos and Specifications


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dork Knight* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Like this beast 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Look at the size of it;
Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM Lens Sample Photos and Specifications_

 

Haha, nice find.
 I meant lenses like this: Canon | Telephoto EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Autofocus Lens | 2520A004


----------



## lan

I think Nikon lenses are more expensive when it comes to their professional primes and zooms.

 They do have cheaper primes but is that because they don't have motors?

 Doesn't Nikon have a few more DX lenses since they were really into DX format? These lenses require less materials and should be cheaper but 17-55 2.8 is still expensive compared to the Canon one and the Canon one has IS.

 The other Canon zooms have IS and are full frame thus making them expensive ~$500.

 You're right though there is no cheap good zoom lens from Canon. I tried 18-55IS. It sucked.


----------



## Dork Knight

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wanted to see what the Canon kit has to offer._

 

I received the EOS 400D / Digital Rebel XTi for Christmas, the kit lens included was the EF-S 18-55.

 I've just uploaded four samples which were taken on Christmas Day with the 18-55 if you're interested, by the way, I've not done anything (post processing wise) with these images;

Sample 1,
Sample 2,
Sample 3,
Sample 4


----------



## Towert7

I know there are a lot of canon lenses that fall in the range of 70-200+, and a lot that fall in the range of ~25-100. If you expected to take pictures within both, you would want 2 lenses. I know the main reason I wanted to upgrade over my basic 18-55mm kit lens was for (1), longer zoom and (2) IS. I was lucky that the nikon had the 18-200VR (albeit a DX). Canon could do well to create a nice zoom that covered both of these ranges, ~20-200mm (other than their Canon | Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-200mm | 6470A006 | B&H. ) For most people with a budget DSLR this is plenty enough coverage so that changing the lens is reduced to a minimum (well, until they get the urge to try primes). I expect they are working on one now, just not released yet.

 Thanks Dork Knight. Yea, there's no question in my mind that the Canon's take beautiful pictures. They do.


----------



## Dork Knight

I know Canon do a 28-300 L, I've not investigate to see what the quality, cost, weight etc are like but you're right - Looking at the line up a 20-200 L IS USM would be nice.

 I just looked at the 28-300 on B&H which is $2,099.95, the same lens would cost $3,000 if bought from a UK retailer;
http://www.jessops.com/Store/s28768/...index=1&comp=n

 A $1,000 difference - That's bloody bonkers.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I know there are a lot of canon lenses that fall in the range of 70-200+, and a lot that fall in the range of ~25-100. If you expected to shoot within both, you would want 2 lenses. I know the main reason I wanted to upgrade over my basic 18-55mm kit lens was for (1), longer zoom and (2) IS. I was lucky that the nikon had the 18-200VR (albeit a DX). Canon could do well to create a nice zoom that covered both of these ranges, ~20-200mm (other than their Canon | Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-200mm | 6470A006 | B&H. ) For most people with a budget DSLR this is plenty enough coverage so that changing the lens is reduced to a minimum (well, until they get the urge to try primes). I expect they are working on one now, just not released yet.
 ._

 

I wouldn't think that Canon is taking a lot of stock in lenses that are 20-200mm. They could market it towards hobbyists, but all zooms are hampered by sharpness....and there's lot of potential problems having a zoom that goes from wide to telephoto. You'll see the longest popular L is 24-105mm, but most are smaller for better optics. The 28-200mm is popular because it's an EF-S that's light. The L version would be very heavy and not quite as high quality as a prime or zoom that's smaller (ie just like the 28-300L).

Canon Zoom Lens Reviews

 RE: 5D.....yep, I enjoy mine! It was the best transition from 35mm film. The 35L, 50mm, 85L, and 135L look very good on it to boot too.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Canon could do well to create a nice zoom that covered both of these ranges, ~20-200mm_

 

Such a lens isn't really budget though. 18-200VR is nearly 800 which costs more than the camera. It's just more about convenience. If you never change lenses it would be great though!


----------



## Towert7

It retails for about 700$us... and if you divide that up into 2 lenses it's about 350$ per lens. You're right Ian, it is more costly than 2 budget lenses, but for some people buying the XT and XTi the convenience is worth the extra price.

 The sharpness concern is as always, too. It's been a popular option for nikon owners though, even with this concern. I think with the people with the Rebel XT and XTi would be the target audience for an all purpose lens (those that fit in between P&S, and full blown photographers). Someone looking for a balance, that can sacrifice sharpness for convenience.

 Should be interesting to see if Canon does introduce a step up from their 28-200mm, but lower than that 2100$ one, with IS to compete with the nikon 18-200mm within the next year.

 Yea, I noticed you had the 5D Davesrose. Glad to hear you are liking it! If I had more money to spend in this hobby, I think I would get the 5D with a few nice lenses. Doesn't even look like the D3 can compete with it in terms of image sharpness, which is saying a lot.


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This thread was an interesting read....... well the first 20 or so pages until I started to see too many patterns repeating.

 I wanted to see what the Canon kit has to offer. It seems Canon's biggest plus, is also it's biggest negative: their lenses. It seems they make some nice lenses, but boy...... they are expensive (and very specific)! It would be interesting to see if Canon put out a few cheaper lenses targeted to the budget DSLR audience. Nikon makes a whole slew of budget lenses which are quite nice..... but aside from the 18-55 kit lens, Canon has very few cheap lenses with zoom (not including 3'rd party brands), if any at all. That's gotta be rough for those buying into the Canon kit on a budget. I know I would be pulling my hair out! ^_^

 The one thing that does interest me is the Canon 5D, though I assume that will be superseded by another rather soon. That seems to be where the magic of Canon lies, full frame. Boy does that thing take some nice pictures! I'm going to keep my eyes posted to see how Canon deals with Full Frame Digital, though it would be nice to see them put out some new glass with more flexibility since they already have enough specific glass, if you know what I mean.
 Too bad I'm dirt poor._

 



 I had a look at both Nikons and Canons offerings and I've got to ask, what exactly do you think that Nikon has but Canon doesn't? 


 Don't know what you'd call a slew, but... basically, 3 lenses, 2 of them with VR option.

 Nikon AF-S DX 18-55/3,5-5,6G ED II
 Nikon AF-S DX 18-55/3,5-5,6G ED II VR
 Nikon AF-S DX 18-70/3,5-4,5G IF-ED
 Nikon AF-S DX 55-200/4-5,6G ED
 Nikon AF-S DX 55-200/4-5,6G ED VR


 While Canon has these:

 Canon EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 USM
 Canon EF-S 18-55/3,5-5,6 IS
 Canon EF 28-90/4-5,6 DC III
 Canon EF 28-105/4-5,6 USM
 Canon EF 28-105/3,5-4,5 II USM
 Canon EF 55-200/4,5-5,6 II USM
 Canon EF-S 55-250/4-5,6 IS
 Canon EF 75-300/4-5,6 III DC
 Canon EF 75-300/4-5,6 III USM
 Canon EF 100-300/4,5-5,6 USM


 I guess they should make a version of the Canon EF-S 17-85mm without the IS to match the 18-70DX, but that's pretty much it?







  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It retails for about 700$us... and if you divide that up into 2 lenses it's about 350$ per lens. You're right Ian, it is more costly than 2 budget lenses, but for some people buying the XT and XTi the convenience is worth the extra price.

 The sharpness concern is as always, too. It's been a popular option for nikon owners though, even with this concern. I think with the people with the Rebel XT and XTi would be the target audience for an all purpose lens (those that fit in between P&S, and full blown photographers). Someone looking for a balance, that can sacrifice sharpness for convenience.

 Should be interesting to see if Canon does introduce a step up from their 28-200mm, but lower than that 2100$ one, with IS to compete with the nikon 18-200mm within the next year._

 


 Let's just say that I wouldn't be surprised if Canon starts selling a 18-200 IS some time,
 but it's not like this is a problem, the Sigma 18-200 OS is cheaper then the Nikon version,
 and not too much worse.

 Personally though, I think that most people that wants a 18-200mm lens should stick to
 P&S super zoom cameras, you get good enough picture quality, for a lot less money.
 The point of having a DSLR is to be able to use different lenses for different needs, so
 why only have a pretty "bad" one?


----------



## lan

Let's not forget Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM also 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But look it's another EF lens not EF-S. It's just more expensive to make since it's bigger.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *martook* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Personally though, I think that most people that wants a 18-200mm lens should stick to
 P&S super zoom cameras, you get good enough picture quality, for a lot less money.
 The point of having a DSLR is to be able to use different lenses for different needs, so
 why only have a pretty "bad" one?_

 

That's awful! I'm offended........ 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	









 I have a 18-200mm, love it..... and so I should have stuck to a super zoom P&S? 










 That makes me soo sad martook.


----------



## lan

Naaah! DSLR still have lower noise than P&S, autofocus is faster, and continuous shooting rate is better.


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's awful! I'm offended........ 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	









 I have a 18-200mm, love it..... and so I should have stuck to a super zoom P&S? 










 That makes me soo sad martook._

 


 Uh... are you serious? If you're that easily offended, it's probably a good idea for you to stay off Internet altogether, there's a lot of mean ol' people like me out there... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 If you really are offended, please accept my apologies, that was not at all my intention of course.


 I did say "most people", not everyone. What I mean with this statement is that a lot of the people that gets a DSLR and a super zoom wont have much use for the extra features they are paying for, and actually end up getting worse pictures while paying a lot more. I'm not saying that a DSLR doesn't have a lot of things going for it compared to the P&S super zooms, but there's also good reasons to stay with a P&S instead. It all depends on the person buying it.

 Example: My boss wanted to buy a DSLR to his son and needed recommendations. Reason? "He had played around with one and it was big and cool". Uhm, ok. Since I want to keep my job I didn't say anything, but I really wanted to tell him that it was a really stupid idea 
 Since he had no real interest in learning photography, he would have been better off with a P&S and my boss would have saved money but that's not my problem. I told him to get a Nikon D40 and keep it on automatic.

 This is a good listing of good / bad with both sort of setup:
Should you buy a DSLR or Point and Shoot Digital Camera?


 Also, read this:
Canon XT and Sony H2 - Newbie Help - Digicam Help - Steves-digicams.com Forums
 especially what peripatetic and JohnG wrote. I think they make good points.


 If you're never going to use manual controls, if you don't want to do post processing, if you only want one super zoom lens, if you have no interest in learning more about photography than just point, zoom and click, if you want to be able to bring it with you as much as possible (a bad camera in the pocket takes a lot better pictures then the good one in your closet), and you want to save money. Then, you should stay with P&S. In my opinion.


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I"ve never tried any of those Zeiss or Leica lenses but one things for sure, I could have a lot more toys and fun for their big prices.

 Try the Tamron 28-75 also if you're interested in that range. It's f/2.8, it's cheap and will allow you to get flash and 10-22 NOW. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 


 Well, some of them are cheap and you get a lot better lens compared to what Canon offers, for less money. But you do offer the auto focus and automatic stop down, so you have to be interested in shooting manually.


 Oh yeah, I forgot to write that. I have the Tamron 28-75mm, and it's a great lens. Another reason I would much rather get the 24-105L over the 24-70L, I already have a fast lens with pretty much the same coverage... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 10-22 and the tammy is not a bad setup, for sure... have you seen the pigeon shot? Eric Cotter [the OcularStasis FotoBlog]:


----------



## lan

So are the Zeisses on Canon body manual focusing OR that and manual metering also? I don't mind manual focusing. But on something less than 5D or 1D the viewfinder just isn't that great.

 Yeah I used to have the Tamron 28-75 before the 24-105. Since they overlapped, I got rid of the 28-75. I don't think there's much difference between 2.8 and 4 since they're both not that great with low light for my uses. Primes are better for low light.

 That's a pretty cool pigeon shot.


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So are the Zeisses on Canon body manual focusing OR that and manual metering also? I don't mind manual focusing. But on something less than 5D or 1D the viewfinder just isn't that great.

 Yeah I used to have the Tamron 28-75 before the 24-105. Since they overlapped, I got rid of the 28-75. I don't think there's much difference between 2.8 and 4 since they're both not that great with low light for my uses. Primes are better for low light._

 

They are manual everything really... so yeah, it's a bit tricky to use them on crop cameras, but things can be improved by getting a split image focus screen and/or a lens adapter with focus confirmation.
 See:
Home
Canon DSLRs - Katz Eye Optics
16-9: Lens Test Archive and Reviews

16-9: Lens Test Archive and Reviews


 Primes are better for everything except convenience!


----------



## Cankin




----------



## raptor84

Nope =p My next upgrade will either be a FF sensor or 1 series


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nope =p My next upgrade will either be a FF sensor or 1 series 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

x2

 I figure if I'm going to upgrade, it's going to be a Big upgrade.


----------



## Cankin

Clearly different market
 450D/XSi is a D40x or D80 competitor


----------



## Dominat0r

Just got my Canon 20D , having a great time snappin pics =)

 Now, new lens or flash for my first addition =)


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HighLife* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just got my Canon 20D , having a great time snappin pics =)

 Now, new lens or flash for my first addition =)_

 

Make sure to post some pics in the _Show your pictures_ thread, I'd be interested to see them!


 In other news, I just went to the local camera shop and held a 5D in my hand. Wow, it's big! From the pics I thought it was going to be much smaller. 1500$ for a used one.... :sigh:

 I seriously think a canon FF will be my next upgrade path (plus 2-3 L lenses), unless nikon can put out a FF that can compete. Guy at the store said Canon doesn't usually release products in the spring/summer, so the 5D successor may come out around fall/winter. Yikes.
 The quicker focusing of the canon's is really a nice feature. BANG, it's focused, Bang, focused again. ^_^


----------



## Dominat0r

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Make sure to post some pics in the Show your pictures thread, I'd be interested to see them!


 In other news, I just went to the local camera shop and held a 5D in my hand. Wow, it's big! From the pics I thought it was going to be much smaller. 1500$ for a used one.... :sigh:

 I seriously think a canon FF will be my next upgrade path (plus 2-3 L lenses), unless nikon can put out a FF that can compete. Guy at the store said Canon doesn't release products in the spring/summer, so the 5D successor may come out around fall/winter.
 The quicker focusing of the canon's is really a nice feature. BANG, it's focused, Bang, focused again. ^_^_

 

Will do, reading about the functions before i get some serious shots in. However, i did take it to work with me last night and took some shots of the people there, just to test it out. Ill go through one and post. 

 The 5d is a tad bigger then the 20-30-40D, however the feel and the access (knobs and dials) are pretty much the same. It feels very solid in your hand, kinda like a nice protective metal. If you have a big hand you will LOVE the 10/20/30/40D, the 350D/400D were waaaaay to small for my hand. 

 My 20D focus works extremely quickly....i played with a 350D and 400D and they were not even half as fast as the 20D to focus. I believe the Rebel series was the beginner camera to get you into SLR. The 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D where the photographer/novice photographer models, and the 1d Mark ?? were the professional model. Their functions and form is shown when you hold the camera in your hand. 

 I bought my 20D 2nd hand of course...was a great deal and i had to take it. However, i was trying really hard to decide between the Nikon D70 and the 20D. I like Canon, always used Canon cameras...however, since i had no lenses, i wanted to do alot of research as to which would fit my shooting style. The Canon has MUCH MUCH better low light performance....ability to shoot in 3200 ISO and still keep a good picture is tough. Canon ISO ranges from 100-3200, the Nikon is 200-1600.


----------



## Dominat0r

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Make sure to post some pics in the Show your pictures thread, I'd be interested to see them!_

 

Where is the show pic thread? i did a search for it, but found like 10 pages of stuff eheh


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HighLife* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Where is the show pic thread? i did a search for it, but found like 10 pages of stuff eheh_

 

Dom ... click here ...


----------



## Dominat0r

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *agile_one* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dom ... click here ..._

 


 Thanks Gene =)


----------



## Towert7

Yea, up until now I've only ever taken photos for pleasure. I may start up a little business and take pictures of people. When that happens I'm going to go out and get some serious gear. At the moment I dont' really have any pro zoom lenses with nikon, so it'll be a tough choice between FF nikon or FF canon. 
 Should be interesting to see what I end up doing.


----------



## robojack

That's the inherent benefit of Canon DSLRs, since they all use CMOS sensors, where most low-mid end Nikons use CCD sensors (which suck at low light).


----------



## Dominat0r

I have the kit lens only atm...going to pick up a 50mm 1.8 i think ...people say its a great lens. 

 I really want a 28-105 IS that comes with the new EOS line of cameras, heard that a nice sharp lens. 

 Still need a good EX flash too....BAH sooo expensive hehe.


----------



## laxx

50 1.8 is pretty sweet for it's price. I'm not a fan of how it feels or the focus ring, but you can't complain at ~$70.

 I personally figured if I like it, I'd end up selling it to get a 50 f1.4, so I just went ahead and got one of those.

 I use flash pretty often, so I bought a 580EX pretty early, I think it was my third purchase, first being my XT, then lan's Tamron 28-75. No matter how much I like the 580EX, I always wonder how much better the Nikon SB flashes are. Everywhere I read I see how the Nikon flash setup is far superior. If anyone can inform me, I'd appreciate it alot.

 As for lenses, I also own a 70-200 f4, and I'm looking to upgrade to the 70-200 f2.8 IS before Spring. My friend has one and showed me the pics he took handheld indoors in a not so well lit area (Seaport Market). That alone had me sold.


----------



## Towert7

HighLife, the 50mm's are wonderful for what they do, but with a fixed focal length you are limited to the framing of certain pictures (which can be a PAIN... especially when a fleeting landscape shot is upon you).

 I don't know. Personally I would start off with a budget mid range zoom and a budget tele zoom assuming I was strapped for money. For the midrange, preferably something that could focus close.

 As for the nikon flashes, they are simply amazing! I have the cheapest SB400, and for what it does it's amazing! Incredibly small, beautiful colors when WB is set to auto (I can not stress how nice the colors are!), and it couldn't be any easier to use (all it's got is an on/off switch).
 My only gripe is when I flip the camera 90º, the flash can't rotate to bounce off the ceiling. I think the SB600 and SB800 can do that.

 That's one thing that worries me about the Canon system, the flash systems, simply because I hear everyone rave about how much better the flashes are on the Nikons.............. I have no idea though.


----------



## pretzelb

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_HighLife, the 50mm's are wonderful for what they do, but with a fixed focal length you are limited to the framing of certain pictures (which can be a PAIN... especially when a fleeting landscape shot is upon you).

 I don't know. Personally I would start off with a budget mid range zoom and a budget tele zoom assuming I was strapped for money. For the midrange, preferably something that could focus close._

 

I would disagree with this advice. I didn't read up on HighLife's interests but the nifty fifty is hard to pass for the price of around $75. 

 My new philosophy on this topic is unless you have a specific need for a zoom lens, you should look at prime lenses first. Not only do you save money but in many cases you get better image quality. So if you're not trying to take pictures of your child playing sports while you sit on the sidelines, the limits of focusing with your feet or not having a super zoom are really not that big a deal imo. Of course tons of people get cameras JUST to shoot their children so a zoom does suit many people. But I think people try to talk themself into the need for a zoom and then pay the price in the wallet and in the results.

 I think the bottom line is education. If you know what you're doing and the basics of photography then you can shoot with anything. I've seen some people do amazing things with the worst lenses, just because they knew how to do it. But if you're like me and sometimes have trouble keeping all the figures in your head, using a faster prime lens will save you tons of shots in the long run.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *pretzelb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would disagree with this advice. I didn't read up on HighLife's interests but the nifty fifty is hard to pass for the price of around $75. 

 My new philosophy on this topic is unless you have a specific need for a zoom lens, you should look at prime lenses first. Not only do you save money but in many cases you get better image quality. So if you're not trying to take pictures of your child playing sports while you sit on the sidelines, the limits of focusing with your feet or not having a super zoom are really not that big a deal imo. Of course tons of people get cameras JUST to shoot their children so a zoom does suit many people. But I think people try to talk themself into the need for a zoom and then pay the price in the wallet and in the results.
 ._

 

I would disagree with this advice.

 For me, I would hate to have only primes! Goodness, that would limit me so much.
 See, I go out photographing for a whole day at a time. I'm a college student. I'll put my 18-200mm zoom on my camera in the morning, and that'll last me the whole day. It means I take a MUCH smaller camera bag, and it's much lighter! Also looks more inconspicuous! It should be noted that I walk around a large campus, I don't drive, so carrying the least amount of gear is a priority !

 Once in a blue moon i'll feel inspired to attach my 50mm on the camera, but throughout the day I'm usually feeling like I missed a few photo ops that would have been real nice.

 Also, with a large zoom, I'm not missing photos while changing between fixed focal length lenses. 
 "Ok, i'm taking a picture of this nice flower...... oh but wait, what a lovely sunset. :sigh:, let me dig around in my bag, change my 200mm for my 20mm, then put everything away... and .... oh no, the wonderful colors are gone!!!"
 Instead, I'll take the convience of: "what a nice flower, oh look at that sunset!!! *Drew moves the focal length ring*, Click!"
 Ya know? Who cares if the image is a little bit softer, if it means I get the image, that's the important thing!

 Yup, I'd start off with a mid range zoom, and a tele zoom. I would also consider the off brand ultra zoom too, if it was any good.


----------



## brotherlen

50mm is a great lens, the large aperture gives a little more freedom shooting low light. Do you have to purchase a Canon brand flash? Photography can be equally as expensive to if not more than audio products.(factor in indirect costs of travel, etc..) Sorry about your wallet.
 As far as prime or zoom? I think that you should consider if you need to change lenses often, or are you going to be able to move around your subject. Sometimes I'll just shoot the 50mm for a project I'm working on. 

 I have two "L" lenses, they are worth every penny! Resale is high, built like a tanks. My only complaint is it's not very subtle, and draws attention.


----------



## Towert7

If I was on a college student's budget, I would seriously consider a combo like:
Canon | Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-105mm | 6469A005 | B&H
Canon | 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Lens | 6472A002
 420$ gives you 2 lenses that cover the majority of what I would use.

 I'd also *seriously* consider (moreso than the above) an ultra zoom like:
Tamron | 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di Autofocus Lens | AF061C700
Tamron | AF 28-200mm Super Zoom f/3.8-5.6 XR Di Lens | AF031C700
 300-380$, wow!

 That's if I was strapped for money. That way you can at least have the flexibility to take a wide range of pictures, from up close to far away. And it's darn light and compact to boot! 

 After that, _then_ I would start investing in some L lenses when I felt the need to upgrade, but only then.

 Now if I had money to spare, heck, just ploop down for the L's to begin with!


----------



## raptor84

Actually skip canon;s 75-300 as the image quality leaves MUCH to be desired. If you want a cheap telezoom try the SIgma 70-300 . Much better image quality for the same of not lesser price.

 As for me i saved and jumped form kit to L's right away hehe..


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually skip canon;s 75-300 as the image quality leaves MUCH to be desired. If you want a cheap telezoom try the SIgma 70-300 . Much better image quality for the same of not lesser price.

 As for me i saved and jumped form kit to L's right away hehe.._

 

That's good info!

 And lucky you!


----------



## Dominat0r

How about the 28-105mm 3.5-5.6? anyone have that lens? I was looking at that and maybe a nifty fifty. Also, looking at a 420EX for my flash.


----------



## raptor84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HighLife* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How about the 28-105mm 3.5-5.6? anyone have that lens? I was looking at that and maybe a nifty fifty. Also, looking at a 420EX for my flash._

 

the 28-105 is pretty neat but on a 1.6 crop body you might find it lacking in the wide end as its roughly a 45mm equiv so you will find your self backing up alot when taking group shots. Hard to go wrong withthe 50/1.8 for the price but I'm one of the few people that dont own that lens simply because I dont shoot in that focal length.

 Flash wise the 420 is pretty outdated so stretch the budget a little further and go for a 430 which gives you better battery life, faster recycle times and manual flash control. Remember to budget for a set of AA rechargeables and a charger as flash sucks alkalines FAST. Due to the voltage curve of alkaline's the recycle times also get longer and longer. Best if you can really hold off and just jump straight to a 580ex mk1 or mk2 as the extra 15 meteres in guide number does help..


----------



## ecommerce813

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HighLife* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How about the 28-105mm 3.5-5.6? anyone have that lens? I was looking at that and maybe a nifty fifty. Also, looking at a 420EX for my flash._

 

You could also consider buying a Nikon SB24. Main advantages would be the low cost vs. Canon models (probably under $100) and the inclusion of a PC port, main disadvantage would be lack of ETTL. Of course this might be a good thing for a thinking photographer.


----------



## Towert7

HOLY COW ecommerce813......... you created your account in May of 2004 and you first post was to help HighLife
 Amazing!


----------



## ecommerce813

My apologies to HeadFi for lurking so long. Actually, I started reading in 2004; then I realized my wallet wouldn't survive if I hung out too long. After a 3 year hiatus, I'd like to get back into things. Of course, not being qualified to speak on anything audio related, I think I'd best relegate my comments to something I'm more familiar with.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 DTKan


----------



## I'm broke

What's your favorite lens? Other than the 70-200 f2.8 IS.. this is my favorite:

 17-55 IS


----------



## Dominat0r

I cant wait till my nifty fifty gets here....also picked up a 75-300 (cheap) just to get some taste of some range. 

 I would love to see some pics with that 17-55 IS, there is one for sale on the forums right now.


----------



## I'm broke

Some pictures with that lens:


----------



## ecommerce813

Nice pics I'm Broke. Personally I prefer the 70-200IS, but I've been playing with a 24TSE and Lee filter system recently.


----------



## I'm broke

Post tilt-shift pics! Is a tripod a must?


----------



## ecommerce813

Don't know if I have any particularly decent "tilt" pictures (still trying to get a handle on how to use this to good effect). I mainly use the shift to keep perspective normal on buildings and get "more sky" in landscape photos. I'm not sure it will be very intersting, but I think I have a TSE photo from San Diego I could dig up (be patient with me, since this weekend will be pretty busy).

 About a tripod, I know I've shot a few pictures without (just for kicks), but I think it's pretty hard to hold the camera, manipulate the tilt +/- shift, manual focus, set manual exposure, check the viewfinder, and (then, finally) think about composition. Plus, on a crop camera, I think it's hard to see most of the effects of the tilt/shift in the viewfinder. Honestly, I'm not sure how anyone could do it looking through a 1.6x Canon or 1.5x Nikon.


----------



## azt33

I am thinking of getting rid of the 70-200mm f/4 L that I have and get a 10-22mm instead. I noticed on my last trip, that I have not even used the 70-200mm *once*. I did notice that my kitlens (I know, I know, I want to replace it) was not wide enough at times.

 Do you guys/gals think that, for a person who apparently is not very interested in shooting tele, the 10-22mm and 24-105 L lenses would be sufficient?


----------



## I'm broke

I'm in San Diego! It'd be nice to see..


----------



## I'm broke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *azt33* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am thinking of getting rid of the 70-200mm f/4 L that I have and get a 10-22mm instead. I noticed on my last trip, that I have not even used the 70-200mm *once*. I did notice that my kitlens (I know, I know, I want to replace it) was not wide enough at times.

 Do you guys/gals think that, for a person who apparently is not very interested in shooting tele, the 10-22mm and 24-105 L lenses would be sufficient?_

 

My cousin has the 10-22 and it rarely leaves his camera.


----------



## ecommerce813

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *azt33* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am thinking of getting rid of the 70-200mm f/4 L that I have and get a 10-22mm instead. I noticed on my last trip, that I have not even used the 70-200mm *once*. I did notice that my kitlens (I know, I know, I want to replace it) was not wide enough at times.

 Do you guys/gals think that, for a person who apparently is not very interested in shooting tele, the 10-22mm and 24-105 L lenses would be sufficient?_

 

What camera body are you using?


----------



## azt33

I am using the 350D (Rebel XT in the US, I think). I might be upgrading to the 30D/40D, I want to get the hang of shooting first 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But I am staying with crop cameras, if you want to know that.


----------



## ecommerce813

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *azt33* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am using the 350D (Rebel XT in the US, I think). I might be upgrading to the 30D/40D, I want to get the hang of shooting first 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But I am staying with crop cameras, if you want to know that._

 

On a 1.6x crop camera the 10-22 translates into a 16-35 equivalent, which, I think is a very useful (perhaps even required) focal length to cover. Certainly if you choose to continue photography long-term, you will definitely find use of it (at least for family stuff, even if you don't ever do any landscape or people photography).

 I don't have any personal experience with this lens since I can't use the EFS series, but I think it is decently regarded. I like the reviews from Digital Picture and Fred Miranda. I think there's another site called 16.9 that reviews lenses too, but I haven't fully checked them out yet. The classic dpreview site is also starting lens reviews, but I don't think they have yet looked at the 10-22.

 My only concern about this lens is the viability of the EFS lens line. I know some would disagree, but I think market forces will eventually allow digital full frame to become the norm. If that happens, Canon may "drop support" for the EFS line (think FD mount). But that's all speculation. Probably, for the next 5 years or so, you'd be very happy with the 10-22 (especially considering the current $50 rebate on the lens).


 DTKan


----------



## azt33

I actually plan to use it for landscapes and such, I have a planned trip to HK in April and this would be a great addition. So finding a use will not be a problem 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Thanks for the websites, I am already a member of Fred Miranda and have used Digital Picture before. The reviews on FM are very favourable and I think it would be one of my favourite lenses when I get it. I love the effect the fisheye gives, I think it would be nice to play around with it (I just need to get the hang of PS Elements, so much to learn in so little time...).

 TBH, I am not very worried about that. The cost of FF is just too high for the beginner photographer I think, the FF is more for the experienced amateur photographer IMO. It would be nice if FF did become the norm, I guess we'll find out.


----------



## ecommerce813

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *I'm broke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Post tilt-shift pics! Is a tripod a must?_

 

You know, I just remembered that my avatar was done with a TSE 24. You can tell, that even with the shift function, the church is still too tall to be fully pespective corrected. I think the lens was set to near-maximum tilt (like 10mm), and I still had to do some (fast) alterations in CS2. Sorry if the colors or saturation are all off; I haven't calibrated my new monitor yet (hangs, head shamefully). Also, I'm still not sure what the requirements are for posting pictures, so I hope a medium JPG (sorry, not lossless) is good enough.






 I'll still check those San Diego pics, but I think I used my 24-70 more than the 24 TSE.

 DTKan


----------



## ecommerce813

Arghh--

 does anyone know how to put the picture (full size) into the post, and not just as an attached file? Thanks


----------



## I'm broke

Use the image tags [ i m g ] image.url [ / i m g]

 ^Remove the spaces


----------



## ecommerce813

Got it--thanks I'm broke!


----------



## laxx

I think 10-22 + 24-105 would be great if that's the type of shooting you do.

 I myself would rarely shoot anything below 20, so I plan to get the 17-55 IS lense sometime in the near future. I usually have the 28-75 on and use the 70-200 whenever the weather outside permits.

 I don't know what to buy myself though, I want a few more lenses, but at the same time I want to get into speakers. Oh where should my money go...


----------



## lan

If you don't shoot telephoto, 24-105 is the perfect next lens after 10-22 to fill in the range. The question is do you need low light or portrait stuff (or something with more bokeh). Then the 50 1.8 is a nice cheap choice.

 My favorite lenses are 70-200 f/2.8 and 35mm f/1.4. I hear the 10-22 and 17-55 IS are nice but I won't commit to use EFS lenses.


----------



## azt33

Thanks everyone, I am more or less settled on the 10-22 and 24-105 combo, if I feel it doesn't cover enough I can always get a 70-200 again. And Ian, I already have the nifty fifty (50 f/1.8), it's a fun lens for the price


----------



## brotherlen

Favorite lens would have to be the 24-70L 2.8 , I'll probably get something wider in the coming year. Haven't gotten up to try and trade it for the 24-105L IS yet, maybe I should?


----------



## lan

I think the 24-70 has more contrast and has better colors. If you need the IS or more range or greater depth of field or weather sealing, 24-105 is a good choice. Being 2.8, your autofocus is also better.


----------



## ecommerce813

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *I'm broke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm in San Diego! It'd be nice to see.._

 

Here you go I'm broke. Turns out I didn't use my 24 TSE all that much in San Diego. This one is taken with the 24-70. Sorry about the dirty sensor, but I didn't feel like "healing brush" the entire sky.


----------



## I'm broke

^Can't see it. You may have to upload it to a hosting site like imageshack or flickr instead of uploading using head-fi's server.


----------



## azt33

OK, I am starting to doubt again. I just sold my 70-200mm because it didn't get any use at all. I was pretty set on getting the 10-22mm, because I wanted to get a UWA. But the person that bought the 70-200mm, had a 17-40mm with him, and I was able to take a few shots. They are amazingly sharp! Pricewise, they are almost equal. This is where the doubting starts. The 17-40mm is a very nice lens, plus it is an 'L'-lens. With an eye on the future (EF vs. EF-S), I would say the 17-40 mm would be better, but because of the crop factor, I am not 100% sure yet.

 So again, I am asking your advice 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Is the 17-40mm wide enough to shoot landscapes? Or should I stop looking at other lenses and just pick up the 10-22mm right now? Argh, so many choices!


----------



## raptor84

My 17-40 has been my kit replacement (i didnt get the kit anyway) due to its pretty useful focal range on a crop body. If you do upgrade to a FF sensor in future I'd invest in EF lenses now so you wont have to change out your ef-s when you do. 

 I rarely take landscapes though and use this lens for ym walkabout/events coverage. I do mount it on my film body from time to time though.


----------



## I'm broke

When looking for a kit replacement, I bought the 17-40 L and kept it for a month. 

 The f/4 is not wide enough of an aperture for me. If I had an external flash, I may have used it more. I exchanged it and put out a little more $$ for the 17-55 IS. The f/2.8 + IS is great! I'm not planning on upgrading to FF.. and even if I do, I don't see myself getting rid of my XTi. It would make a great back up and good for telephoto considering the crop factor. 

 That being said, the 10-22 is a great lens and sometimes I wish I would have sprung for it instead of the 17-55 IS simply because it's been touted as a "must have" lens.

 Rent one and try it out! I've rented from lensrentals a few times and my experiences have been great!


----------



## azt33

Could someone help me in understanding the APS-C sensor and the cropfactor that comes with it? I always thought that *both* EF and EF-S lenses were multiplied by 1.6, but now I read on another forum that this is only for EF lenses, not for EF-S lenses. Is this true? 

 (Can I just say that this is getting a bit confusing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )


----------



## AdamP88

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *azt33* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Could someone help me in understanding the APS-C sensor and the cropfactor that comes with it? I always thought that *both* EF and EF-S lenses were multiplied by 1.6, but now I read on another forum that this is only for EF lenses, not for EF-S lenses. Is this true? 

 (Can I just say that this is getting a bit confusing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )_

 

Nope, it's for both. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Otherwise the 10-22mm would be a 6.25-13.75mm lens in actuality with a field of view so wide you wouldn't be able to take a shot that didn't end up having you in it.


----------



## ecommerce813

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *azt33* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Could someone help me in understanding the APS-C sensor and the cropfactor that comes with it? I always thought that *both* EF and EF-S lenses were multiplied by 1.6, but now I read on another forum that this is only for EF lenses, not for EF-S lenses. Is this true? 

 (Can I just say that this is getting a bit confusing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )_

 

Crop factor is dependent on the sensor and is independent of the lens. EFS lenses differ from EF lenses in that they can only be used on the 1.6x crop factor camera bodies (without modding that is). I think they would cause vignetting on a 1.3x or FF camera and/or might have problems with the mirror assembly hitting the lens (can't remember though).


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ecommerce813* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Crop factor is dependent on the sensor and is independent of the lens. EFS lenses differ from EF lenses in that they can only be used on the 1.6x crop factor camera bodies (without modding that is). I think they would cause vignetting on a 1.3x or FF camera and/or might have problems with the mirror assembly hitting the lens (can't remember though)._

 

Yes, this is my understanding as well - that the Crop factor is derived from the physical size of the image sensor (smaller vs full frame), and that the EF S lens line has both smaller diameter glass, and that the mirror assembly in a FF camera *would* hit the rear lens elements because they are closer to the mount then in EF lenses.

Wikipedia actually has a decent article.

 I have a 40D body, and recently added the 10-22mm EF S. The 10-22 is an outstanding lens, and once it is mounted, it stays on my camera for a long time, as I consistently find more use for it. It is great for people and groups (just don't get too close 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ), does beautifull landscapes and scenes, and produces sharp images with beautiful color saturation.


----------



## Joshatdot

I've been using my PowerShot A570 IS casually, and its a awesome point-n-shoot cam! You can adjust, basically everything, in Program or Manual mode, and many options in other modes.

 But I am wanting more and more Optical Zoom, so I've been looking at the PowerShot S5 IS.


----------



## Dominat0r

Powershot 570IS is a great camera. I had it for a month before i decided on a DSLR (Canon 20D). You should get the CHDK hack for it. If you havent seen it....just search for CHDK on google. Will let you shoot RAW, give you live Histograms and DoF Calculator also gives you live blinkies (when a part of the shot is blown out). Best part is its on your memory card...you dont have to flash the firmware on the camera at all. So you have no problems ruining your warranty or anything. I sold mine with the flashware on the mem card and the person who bought it from me LOVES IT.


----------



## Dominat0r

Hey canon users, what flash are you using and what type of diffuser are you using? 

 Im thinking about getting a diffuser for my 430ex (just got it today) and thinking about which to get when i cant bounce light. 

 Is there a real difference in between the cheap ones from ebay?

 I was thinking of either one of those plastic ones that cover the whole front of the flash(Sto-Fen). Like here - 







 or maybe one of the bag type ones that are easy to store in a pocket or whatever. Like the one here-


----------



## raptor84

Those omni bounce or lightpshere type diffusers scatter light everywhere and are more useful for portraits shot near the subject as you will lose alot of flash power. 

 My personal preference is for those bounce cards like ABetterBounceCard.com Can be done for very little $ and some time 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Its more directional and useful IMO.


----------



## vii_haven

I would recommend the Whaletail from Gary Fong. Wonderful device though a little bulky. Go google it. I think its Welcome to Gary Fong's e-Store! or something


----------



## Dominat0r

ya, way to bulky and way to much money hehe....im a cheap person....also need it to be small and compact...something i can fit in a pocket.


----------



## Mrvile

Depends on what you're shooting. If you shoot a lot of macro, lumiquest pocket bouncer and pocket diffusers are great for softening direct light. The stofen is nice only for indoor use...once you get outdoors where you can't bounce any light, it has almost no effect.


----------



## nytryder7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mrvile* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Depends on what you're shooting. If you shoot a lot of macro, lumiquest pocket bouncer and pocket diffusers are great for softening direct light. The stofen is nice only for indoor use...once you get outdoors where you can't bounce any light, it has almost no effect._

 

I'm smiling here. I just got the 580ex II and have been searching ebay and everywhere else trying to decide the same thing. I forgot about my lumiquest bouncers hidden away in my old film cam bag, LOL. Thanks for the reminder!


----------



## Dominat0r

well, i ordered one of those bag types diffuser, the 2nd pic in my post above and they ended up sending me a inflatable softbox hehe....not that im mad, cause its a better item...and i believe they going to send me the one i really ordered. I like it honestly, i mean its cheap...its not made for my flash size (its for the 580, i have a 430ex) however it does throw alot of soft light. Im losing alittle overall light, but its MUCH MUCH less harsh...

 Here is what mine looks like, pretty much exactly..


----------



## red sox 7327

Just got my power shot sd870. I am having a blast with it!


----------



## lan

Wow an inflatable softbox. Do you actually blow air into it? That's quite a bit of work.

 I have a mini softbox also, Westcott Micro Apollo. It's flat and velcros on.


----------



## coolshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *red sox 7327* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just got my power shot sd870. I am having a blast with it!_

 

how is that wide angle lens working out for you? I was thinking about upgrading my sd600 for times when i cant carry my XT around. BTW you should go here
Canon Digital Photography Forums - Powered by vBulletin

 head-fi but for canons.


----------



## Dominat0r

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow an inflatable softbox. Do you actually blow air into it? That's quite a bit of work.

 I have a mini softbox also, Westcott Micro Apollo. It's flat and velcros on._

 

Very easy to blow up actually...if you feeling lazy you can push the nozzle to a rocket blower in there and few puffs and youre on your way. 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *coolshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_how is that wide angle lens working out for you? I was thinking about upgrading my sd600 for times when i cant carry my XT around. BTW you should go here
Canon Digital Photography Forums - Powered by vBulletin

 head-fi but for canons._

 

Ohh god i love that board also....however, just like here...be careful with your wallet hahahaha...

 PS- Im HighLife also on the canon forums =)


----------



## coolshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HighLife* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 PS- Im HighLife also on the canon forums =)_

 

i am also coolshot on the canon forums


----------



## raptor84

So many forums so little time...


----------



## cantsleep

whats about the best alternative to Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens?
 i cant afford to spend 1k+ on lens for now..


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cantsleep* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_whats about the best alternative to Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens?
 i cant afford to spend 1k+ on lens for now.._

 

Maybe have a look around for the predecessor to the 24-70L, the EF 28-70 f/2.8 L USM? I have one and love it - my main user. Some feel it superior to the 24-80 in the middle (4.0, 5.6, 8.0) apertures, but I have no clue, never being able to compare.

 There's one on fleabay right now that should close well under $1k, perhaps in the low 700s.


----------



## laxx

Best affordable competitor to the 24-70 L is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I have one and it's great.


----------



## laxx

Anyone else interested in the upcoming Sigma 50mm f1.4?


----------



## raptor84

Nope.. still very happy with my 85/1.8 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Never really liked the 50mm perspective...


----------



## Dominat0r

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone else interested in the upcoming Sigma 50mm f1.4?_

 

Im interested to see how this performs compared to the 50mm 1.4 Canon.


----------



## lan

I'm selling my Canon 50 1.4. I prefer 35 1.4 and 85 1.8


----------



## nytryder7

Hello all,

 After delving into the digital field for a while now, I find myself missing and wanting to go back to tubes, er I mean film. I have an XTi (soon to be sold) and the 40D and was thinking bout picking up the Elan 7NE to compliment my digi side. Does anyone have any experience with the 7NE? I'll be shooting a lot with black and white, with urban and landscapes getting most of the attention.

 Thanks for any help!


----------



## lan

So... I sold my 50 f/1.4. I'm not missing it either. I totally disliked that thing.

 nytryder7, I never used that cam before. What are you missing about film?


----------



## SuperNothing

I am picking up an AE-1 Program soon for a general use film camera. (I grew up using my moms and I just love the feel.) Anyway, does anyone have any recommendations for good FD mount lenses?


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So... I sold my 50 f/1.4. I'm not missing it either. I totally disliked that thing.

 nytryder7, I never used that cam before. What are you missing about film?_

 

Seriously, I sold my 50 1.4 a few months back and never regretted it. I'm waiting for UPS to deliver my 85 1.8 tomorrow. =]


----------



## alan_g

i got a 30d for xmas, boy there is a lot to learn


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *alan_g* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i got a 30d for xmas, boy there is a lot to learn_

 

Oh, you must be so excited. Learning photography is, to me, as much fun as taking pictures!


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SuperNothing* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am picking up an AE-1 Program soon for a general use film camera. (I grew up using my moms and I just love the feel.) Anyway, does anyone have any recommendations for good FD mount lenses?_

 

You could always get L glass for FD mount but depending on the cost, it may not be worth it. I'd stick with primes. The 50mm for sure.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Seriously, I sold my 50 1.4 a few months back and never regretted it. I'm waiting for UPS to deliver my 85 1.8 tomorrow. =]_

 

The 85 should be sweet. I've replace my 50 with the 35 1.4. Love that lens.


----------



## vo328

I have a Rebel XTi and found that the 50mm 1.8/II lens is pretty decent, though won't serve me well as my goto lens for general walkaround usage, due to the 1.6x crop factor. I'm thinking about going with the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 lens. Any thoughts on this lens/camera combination?


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 85 should be sweet. I've replace my 50 with the 35 1.4. Love that lens._

 

I'd love to have a 35 f1.4 as well, but it's not on my top priority of lenses. With Summer around the corner, I'm looking to get a 70-200 f2.8 (IS is a maybe) for better subject isolation of my friends playing sports and what not. =T


----------



## laxx

Well, the 85 1.8 landed on Friday and it's been fun playing with it. I brought it out to Beer Garden in Astoria on Saturday and then in the backyard yesterday with the dogs.


----------



## raptor84

Gotta love the 85/1.8


----------



## laxx

Indeed.


----------



## coolshot

just got my sigma 18-50 macro. Here it is mounted on my XT body.


----------



## laxx

Is that a 488RC2 ballhead? I'm thinking of getting one, how do you like it?


----------



## coolshot

nope its a 725B head/tripod combo. I plan on getting a BH-1 and Gitzo combo later down the line.


----------



## laxx

I don't think I'll ever use a tripod enough to warrant a Gitzo.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

After playing around with aglie_one's rig at Can Jam, I've got some lust for that Canon 35 F1.4. As much as I love my Nikkor 35 F2, the 1.4 is just in another galaxy. Too bad there is no Nikkor equivalent, and the Sigma 30 1.4 really isn't the same, with its' vignetting, corner softness, and rather lame minimum focusing distance.


----------



## roastpuff

I'm waiting to get my hands on my 450D kit. My dad's friend bought it for me in Asia through his company's Canon dealer, so I got a discount. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Squeee! My first DSLR! I'll be searching this thread for lens information soon.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_After playing around with aglie_one's rig at Can Jam, I've got some lust for that Canon 35 F1.4. As much as I love my Nikkor 35 F2, the 1.4 is just in another galaxy. Too bad there is no Nikkor equivalent, and the Sigma 30 1.4 really isn't the same, with its' vignetting, corner softness, and rather lame minimum focusing distance._

 

What makes you say the 35 1.4 is in another galaxy? You mean it's size? Sure it's quite a bit larger. I think your lens and use of it was pretty good.

 You're going to have to win the lottery and strike gold to find the Nikon 28 1.4.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As much as I love my Nikkor 35 F2, the 1.4 is just in another galaxy._

 

Why's that?
 My 35mm F/2 is one of the sharpest lenses I have with amazing color reproduction and little to no CA. What did the canon offer you, aside from a tighter DOF and faster speed?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Hmm, the focus speed was out of this world, and the images I shot with it, just playing around, had a certain nice quality. Much like my 180, it just had a niceness about people pictures, that I've not gotten from any others I've used for that purpose. Perhaps it was the nature of the bokeh, or perhaps I was being seduced by full-frame as much as I was the lens itself.

 Hah, there is no way in h3ll I'd pay the going rate ($4k) for a 28 1.4. I'd just get the Canon lens and the appropriate body with the leftovers. I think if I did a lot of low-light photography, particularly with action, like at clubs or concerts, I'd do just that, as a stop can be huge in such situations. The 28 was an older design, with no USM/AFS. Sure, I've seen great pics from it, but there are so many more productive ways to use $4k, IMO.


----------



## coolshot

looks like peter has 'L' fever. Also i think its unfair to compare a $400 sigma lens to $1200 'L' canon lens


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Hahaha, I don't know about that. I'd take a lot for me to put up with Canon body ergonomics. And the 50 1.2 and 70-200IS that wmcmanus unpacked at the meet didn't give me quite the same level of excitement.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmm, the focus speed was out of this world, and the images I shot with it, just playing around, had a certain nice quality. Much like my 180, it just had a niceness about people pictures, that I've not gotten from any others I've used for that purpose. Perhaps it was the nature of the bokeh, or perhaps I was being seduced by full-frame as much as I was the lens itself._

 

Hm, thanks for the info.

 The Full Frame is a big difference. I've seen pictures taken with a budget lens on a FF canon that look better than those taken on a crop sensor with a good lens.


 2x on the ergonomics. ^_^


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmm, the focus speed was out of this world, and the images I shot with it, just playing around, had a certain nice quality. 

 Hah, there is no way in h3ll I'd pay the going rate ($4k) for a 28 1.4._

 

Did you take photos with your memory card to check out later?

 I don't think the 35 1.4 is the type of lens that needs fast focus. Actually this is one of the slower focusing lenses but it depends where you're coming from . 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Yeah no kidding about the Nikon 28 1.4. I rather have the 200 2.0.


----------



## laxx

Ergonomics is somthing you can adjust to over time. Sure it's uncomfortable at first, but you become accustomed to it.


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmm, the focus speed was out of this world, and the images I shot with it, just playing around, had a certain nice quality. Much like my 180, it just had a niceness about people pictures, that I've not gotten from any others I've used for that purpose. Perhaps it was the nature of the bokeh, or perhaps I was being seduced by full-frame as much as I was the lens itself.

 ~~~ snip ~~~_

 

The 35 1.4L is a terrific lens, Peter. I am totally with you on this one, just ignore lan's attempts to put it down. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It is terrific on crop bodies, acting like a 56mm "normal" lens. These are taken with the 40D:

 A severe crop of a bird, indicating sharpness ..





 Couple of flowers ...





 Three in low light inside a bar ... 





 Focus was on the bartender, *not* the boobies, lol.










 Great colors ...





 Here's one with the 5D ...





 Note that all of them are just snapshots with no care to lighting, etc, and no PP except for the crop on the bird.

 This lens is on my camera the most, and I know it gives me the best chance for a great image.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *agile_one* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 35 1.4L is a terrific lens, Peter. I am totally with you on this one, just ignore lan's attempts to put it down. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Not to be contrarian, but I couldn't tell if that was taken with a nikon + nikkor prime or a Canon + L prime lens. The 2 pink flowers reminds me of the pictures my 18-200VR produce.


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* 
_Not to be contrarian, but I couldn't tell if that was taken with a nikon + nikkor prime or a Canon + L prime lens. The 2 pink flowers reminds me of the pictures my 18-200VR produce._

 

All shots were with the Canon 35 1.4L. The first 6 on a Canon 40D, the last on a Canon 5D. As mentioned, they were just random snaps, but wanted to show my enthusiasm for that piece of glass. Totally agree that any of them, except perhaps the low natural light ones, could have been shot with many other lenses. Not offered as any kind of proof of superiority, just sharing a few examples.

 Good images, in my experience, usually depend more on the photographer than the gear. It *is* nice to have gear that you like and have confidence in, however.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *agile_one* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 35 1.4L is a terrific lens, Peter. I am totally with you on this one, just ignore lan's attempts to put it down. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Hey I own this lense too ya know 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you don't play to a lens' strength it'll be harder to tell what it is vs. any other lens.


----------



## vibin247

Just shot a wedding on Saturday with the EOS 5D (which is a wonderful camera, as all of you already know), and a Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 XR IF Macro, and I thought it's critical to have that extra stop at f/2.8 or two stops at f/1.4 for available light. For available light, I was mostly shooting at ISO 1600-3200, and while the noise seemed tolerable, less of it at ISO 800 would be much better for post processing. Here's one that I thought it turned out pretty well. I was bounce flashing off the ceiling with the 580EX, which was powered by a Quantum Turbo 2X2 battery pack.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *agile_one* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All shots were with the Canon 35 1.4L._

 

Glad you like it. I'm sure it is very nice.
 On a totally unrelated note, I love how much effort people put by making sure the L is red. I get a kick out of that. ^_^


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Glad you like it. I'm sure it is very nice.
 On a totally unrelated note, I love how much effort people put by making sure the L is red. I get a kick out of that. ^_^_

 

Aw, shucks ... it ain't no thang, but glad you like it.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


 Originally Posted by *agile_one* 


  Quote:


 Originally Posted by *Towert7* 


_Glad you like it. I'm sure it is very nice.
 On a totally unrelated note, I love how much effort people put by making sure the L is red. I get a kick out of that. ^_^_ 
 

_Aw, shucks ... it ain't no thang, but glad you like it._




 

Missed out a couple


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Missed out a couple 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	











_

 

ummmmm ... it was a test, yeah, a test, see ... wanted to see if people noticed ...


----------



## Towert7

It's a sickness!!!!!!!!
 Haha.


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vibin247* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just shot a wedding on Saturday with the EOS 5D (which is a wonderful camera, as all of you already know), and a Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 XR IF Macro, and I thought it's critical to have that extra stop at f/2.8 or two stops at f/1.4 for available light. For available light, I was mostly shooting at ISO 1600-3200, and while the noise seemed tolerable, less of it at ISO 800 would be much better for post processing. Here's one that I thought it turned out pretty well. I was bounce flashing off the ceiling with the 580EX, which was powered by a Quantum Turbo 2X2 battery pack.

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/4...gforwebqj7.jpg_

 

Need faster lense to expose more ambient light!


----------



## RedLeader

Hey guys, I just grabbed a Canon 30D for super cheap with no lenses. I have a Canon A710IS already. Will it be significantly better in terms of PQ, given the much smaller sensor and age (3.3/7.1) and what should I look at in terms of a cheap starter lens or 2? I like people, macro nature and architecture photography and do a bunch with my A710IS.


----------



## Davesrose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Need faster lense to expose more ambient light!_

 

Or more importantly, with a FF 5D, a faster lens is *generally* easier for less vignetting and diffusion. I will be holding on to my 5D for quite awhile.....the only time I might ever upgrade is if Canon comes out with a replacement 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Since I was used to manual film cameras before....I just like the versatility that you get with a larger sensor. It's not a crux when it comes to telephoto or vignetting if you know how to compensate.


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RedLeader* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey guys, I just grabbed a Canon 30D for super cheap with no lenses. I have a Canon A710IS already. Will it be significantly better in terms of PQ, given the much smaller sensor and age (3.3/7.1) and what should I look at in terms of a cheap starter lens or 2? I like people, macro nature and architecture photography and do a bunch with my A710IS._

 

With *cheap* as the operative word, my suggestions would be:

Two primes - Canon EF 28mm 2.8 and Sigma 50mm 2.8 DG Macro. The 28 gives you slightly wide on the 30D crop for architecture, and the siggy is an extremely sharp macro that can double as portrait in the crop body. These will set you back about $450 - 500. For $100 more, go for the Canon EF 24mm 2.8 for wider view.
One zoom - Tamron 28-75 2.8 XR for $349. Great starter lens that can focus to 13", so some macro-like ability, but nothing like a real macro. You can go far with this, then figure out what you like as you see what focal lengths you actually shoot.

 Good luck, and have fun.


----------



## laxx

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 would sort of cover all 3 for you.


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Tamron 17-50 f2.8 would sort of cover all 3 for you._

 

Yup ... another excellent choice with advantage on the wide end for those architectural shots.


----------



## RedLeader

Thanks guys! You seem to be echoing what I was leaning to from the reading I was doing. I've never had to worry about lenses before, so it's a bit of a new world for me. It seems like from what I've read and from what you guys are saying that if I wanted to do a 2-lens that a 50mm prime and a 17-84 (or thereabouts) would probably work well. If I wanted to perhaps make it easy on myself, something more like a 17-50. I've found a RebelXT kit lens to borrow for a bit while I decide on a lens, but I've noticed that lenses seem to be more of an investment, as they hold their value quite well. Bodies seem to be the upgradeable "as they're released" sort of thing, if yours has some limitation or the new one has some feature you really want. With that in mind, perhaps I'll look at borrowing another lens or two and try out some focal lengths and see what works best for me before I put in the money for better glass. And that way, I've got more time to research and find deals.


----------



## laxx

One thing is after all your research and actually buying a lense, if you end up not liking it, you'll only lose a little bit of money. Or if you buy used, sometimes you won't lose any money at all.


----------



## ssplit

Hello all.

 I've never been into photography before, but after I saw some really cool pics a friend of mine had taken I found myself being very interested.

 I do have some "free" money, but of course there's a lot more I could spend that money on. So my budget will be around 1000, 1200 euros. Depends also how much money I get when I graduate, or perhaps I could ask for an objective as a gift.

 I'm strongly considering buying the EOS 40D body, because you know how it is. That's what I really want, and with 450D/Rebel XSi I'd only find myself thinking if the 40D would've been better. That's my impression now though, I'll have to try them both before I buy anything. 

 I'm not at all sure if used bodies can be found here.


 The 40D can be had for 900euros (from Germany), so that leaves 300euros for lenses, probably for one lense. Maybe even 400e, but here we go again. Money->.

 Suggestions for lenses and attempts for getting my mind right about the body are welcome.

 edit: There's also Canon cash back campaign for Finland, 150e for the 40D body. But then I'd have to buy it here, so it'd be 1000e-150e=850e. You get some money back from Canon objectives, too.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ssplit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm strongly considering buying the EOS 40D body, because you know how it is. That's what I really want, and with 450D/Rebel XSi I'd only find myself thinking if the 40D would've been better. That's my impression now though, I'll have to try them both before I buy anything._

 

You should be worried about how to take a better photos as opposed to thinking if the 40D is better than 450D if you bought the 450D. They are about equivalent in functionality and image quality. See if you like how the 40D feels though.

 Look for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for general purpose lens. That's pretty much about it for now until you have more money.



 ----------------


 On another note. Finally the 200 2.0 came out. It's about $6000. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I wonder what makes it $2000 more than Nikon's lens. Usually it's the Nikon lenses which are more expensive....


----------



## analogbox

I just saw this yesterday from Gizmodo. Basically, from May 18 to July 19, you could get an instant rebate up to $300 on Canon DSLRs and lenses. Seems like a good deal if you're thinkin' about picking up a 5D.


----------



## ssplit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You should be worried about how to take a better photos as opposed to thinking if the 40D is better than 450D if you bought the 450D. They are about equivalent in functionality and image quality. See if you like how the 40D feels though.

 Look for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for general purpose lens. That's pretty much about it for now until you have more money._

 

Ok, I tried both cameras today. The 450D is a much more compact camera, and also considerably lighter. It'd be noticiably easier to carry around, which increases it's attractiveness. Can be had for 700e.

 The 40D is sturdier, heavier camera. It fits better in my hand though: I have big hands for such a small guy. Can be had for 850e, with the cash-back.
 I have not made the decision yet.


 About the lenses: 40D with Canon EF-S 17-85 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM can be had for 1100e with cash-back, so the price for the objective would be 350e. Reviews say it's "ok" product, with better performance on the wide end.

 The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 would cost 400e, but it's getting better reviews.


 On a totally different note, I must say I feel that there are less talented art photographers than there are talented poets, for example. It seems everyone with extra money is into photography, and so there's massive amounts of "ok" or even "great" photos with no real flair, no style.

 Style is not the real word for it, but I mean photos that can make you stop and that change the way you look at world. It's a personal thing, but I feel finding a photographer who can do that are very hard to find.


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ssplit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 On a totally different note, I must say I feel that there are less talented art photographers than there are talented poets, for example. It seems everyone with extra money is into photography, and so there's massive amounts of "ok" or even "great" photos with no real flair, no style.

 Style is not the real word for it, but I mean photos that can make you stop and that change the way you look at world. It's a personal thing, but I feel finding a photographer who can do that are very hard to find._

 

The same can be said for any form of art to be honest. It's just that too many people spend too much time worrying about their gear instead of thinking of ways to use it creatively.


----------



## ssplit

I spend the night thinking about this, and have come to the conclusion that the 40D/450D is purely matter of preference. Price difference is 120e, so that doesn't actually matter. 

 If anyone has the 450D and has comments about it, they would be very welcome and helpful.

 I'm also leaning away from the (40D) kit lens, the Canon 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM. It seem's there are similarly priced lenses that perform better, at least in the 17-55 range.

 Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC MACRO
 Tamron 17-50/2.8 SP XR LD Di-II

 Both costing 400e, and the Sigma one seems actually better liked on the internet.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ssplit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I spend the night thinking about this, and have come to the conclusion that the 40D/450D is purely matter of preference. Price difference is 120e, so that doesn't actually matter. 

 If anyone has the 450D and has comments about it, they would be very welcome and helpful.

 I'm also leaning away from the (40D) kit lens, the Canon 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM. It seem's there are similarly priced lenses that perform better, at least in the 17-55 range.

 Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC MACRO
 Tamron 17-50/2.8 SP XR LD Di-II

 Both costing 400e, and the Sigma one seems actually better liked on the internet._

 



 Go with the 40D. The 450D is the same as the Rebel XTi... which I own the previous version. The 40D has a much larger viewfinder. Go to a store where you can put your hands on both and look through each viewfinder.

 I'm pretty sure the 40D also handles higher isos with less noise.


----------



## raptor84

Man the prices of the bodies overseas really tempts me to get one as I can save a good SG$400+ :\ Canon over heere really jacks up the prices...


----------



## RedLeader

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ssplit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Style is not the real word for it, but I mean photos that can make you stop and that change the way you look at world. It's a personal thing, but I feel finding a photographer who can do that are very hard to find._

 

Change the way you look at the world? What do you want, 10,000 people that take pictures everyday that change your outlook on life? Especially since you say it's such a personal thing, expecting lots of people to have the same style and design sensibilities as you but just different enough to change the way you look at the world is an utterly absurd proposition


----------



## ssplit

Of course that was an overstatement. I understand your confusion though, since it might be I seemed to make a mini-rant there.

 I still think that photography is an art form that's over-infested with people with no skill, or at least I can't filter it out the same way I can avoid amateur writing for example.

 I think the point here might be the same that's has been said before in this thread, too. Having great equipment doesn't make you a great photographer. I don't have a problem with people shooting photos for their own enjoyment, I just feel the (art) photography field has more amateurs producing meaningless pieces of work than any other field of culture.


----------



## RedLeader

Alright, I agree to that. Thats why I got myself a nice P&S to learn first. With the lowering price of DSLR there are alot of people who really shouldn't have them, leaving them on auto and taking the same shots they could get with a P&S, that every other tourist is taking.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RedLeader* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Alright, I agree to that. Thats why I got myself a nice P&S to learn first. With the lowering price of DSLR there are alot of people who really shouldn't have them, leaving them on auto and taking the same shots they could get with a P&S, that every other tourist is taking._

 

A nice DSLR on auto will take a better image than a P&S on auto. 
 I claim there is no such thing as a person who 'really shouldn't have them'.


----------



## RedLeader

I don't know, I really don't think that spending the money on capabilities you aren't going to use really makes sense. I also don't think people should drive SUVs or Jeeps that never go offroad, that a 61" HDTV is a good idea when all you're watching is SD cable or that you should buy an Xbox360 when all you really want to play is ikaruga and contra. But as always, thats simply IMO.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RedLeader* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't know, I really don't think that spending the money on capabilities you aren't going to use really makes sense. I also don't think people should drive SUVs or Jeeps that never go offroad, that a 61" HDTV is a good idea when all you're watching is SD cable or that you should buy an Xbox360 when all you really want to play is ikaruga and contra. But as always, thats simply IMO._

 

If it makes them happy, that's all that matters.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RedLeader* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't know, I really don't think that spending the money on capabilities you aren't going to use really makes sense. I also don't think people should drive SUVs or Jeeps that never go offroad, that a 61" HDTV is a good idea when all you're watching is SD cable or that you should buy an Xbox360 when all you really want to play is ikaruga and contra. But as always, thats simply IMO._

 

You make valid points, but your examples aren't quite the same:

 A SUV or Jeep will not drive better on tarmac than any other four door saloon.
 A 61" 1080p HDTV will not show SDTV better than a 480p TV. If anything, it'll look worse.
 [size=xx-small](I don't really know what ikaruga and contra is so can't argue that point 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)[/size]

 However, a DSLR in Program or Auto will nearly always deliver better results than a P&S regardless of subject. I can get lower noise performance, more vivid colours, less barrel/pincushion distortion, sharper edges and less camera shake shooting "P&S" (aka auto everything) with a D300 and VR2 lens than my Panasonic P&S. Overkill for your average Joe? Maybe... but in the hands of even the least experienced but mildly enthusiastic shooter, the DSLR will still come out on top.

 Unless you really need an ultra-portable, cheap and/or discrete solution (eg black-tie events, weddings, clubbing, etc), I can think of no other reasons why one shouldn't go for a basic DSLR kit.


----------



## vibin247

I admit, as photofinisher, sometimes I do question why customers would want a certain picture to be printed, especially if the lighting is poor/overly bright, composition is off, out of focus, elements that are important to making a solid photograph. I have to remind myself of the reason why people take photographs in the first place: to enjoy a certain moment of life by preserving it as much as possible. While I'm a gear nut myself, it is more important to capture things than to worry about what you have in your hand/bag (Although those who shoot for a living have to do both.)


----------



## RedLeader

Having shot with both a high-end P&S and a DSLR I can honestly say that for the vast majority of picture usages, it's overkill. Joe Schmoe who shares pictures on facebook and prints out the occasional 8x10 glossy isn't going to notice that 4x $ difference in any of the things you mentioned. But hey, I'm glad you enjoy yours and can appreciate the difference. Perhaps you have much different non-technical friends than I do.


----------



## lan

ISO400 and up is quite a difference regarding P&S vs. DSLRs though. Less shutter lag is another reason why I'd use DSLR.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ISO400 and up is quite a difference regarding P&S vs. DSLRs though. Less shutter lag is another reason why I'd use DSLR._

 

Not to mention that your standard kit lens is going to let in more light than most of the P&S cameras out there today.

 There is no comparison, your standard DSLR is going to trounce the P&S. I have not seen a P&S that I would rather have over my old D50 and kit lens. 

 To say that some people do not deserve it is, in my opinion, just ignorance. It goes against the whole idea of free choice!


----------



## milkpowder

@RedLeader

 Ah yes. I never said the user would necessarily notice the difference, but the differences are there, some very obvious too! eg. most point and shoots have very obvious barrel distortion at the wide end but I guess the average person wouldn't care about or notice it. If you're only going to be posting candids on facebook, then I wouldn't even suggest shelling out a few hundred for a DSLR.


----------



## RedLeader

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To say that some people do not deserve it is, in my opinion, just ignorance. It goes against the whole idea of free choice!_

 

Please don't make things up and then insult me. Thank you.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RedLeader* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Please don't make things up and then insult me. Thank you._

 

Sorry friend, but your comment is what I call: a statement from ignorance.
 Don't worry, lots of people make ignorant remarks...... the real trick is to learn from it and try and see things form a different perspective before making similar comments in the future. Good luck with that.


----------



## RedLeader

Which part was ignorance? When did I say people don't "deserve" to own them. When did I say I don't believe in free choice? 

 Don't worry, lots of people misread things.... the real trick is to learn from it and not make things up.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RedLeader* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Don't worry, lots of people misread things.... the real trick is to learn from it and not make things up._

 

Haha! I can't deny, that was good.
 ^_^


----------



## RedLeader

We now return you to our regularily scheduled non-arguing Canon thread!

 Got a Canon 35-70mm f3.5 w/macro on the way! Huzzah for cheap lenses.


----------



## Punnisher

Sounds cool. Post some pics when you get it.


 Ok new topic.....


 What's a very nice (very slim, pocket size) point and shoot that can shoot RAW (hack or mod, whatever)?

 I just need something to carry around everyday when I can't lug my slr around. Even with my tamron 17-50 it's a bit bulky. I'd prefer canon, as I like the quality and features. I'd also like to pack as much optical zoom in as possible, but it's not a necessity. 

 Actually a fast lens that would be decent in low-light would be much more important than zoom.

 So features need to be:
 1. Compact as possible.
 2. fast lens that's good in low light. Zoom not a necessity, but would be nice.
 3. Can shoot RAW. I read about hacks that can enable this.

 What do you think?


----------



## milkpowder

Give the Panasonic DMC-LX2 a test-drive if possible. It's near identical to the Leica D-Lux 3, but much cheaper. I've played around with my brother's and the noise performance is a step up from the previous generation of Panasonic Lumix cameras.


----------



## raptor84

Actually there third party firmware that can allow most A and S series power shots to write RAW files in DNG format.. doa google for CHDK 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think you might wanna look into the A series especially the 500 and 700 series of compacts.


----------



## darkninja67

Returning to the thread here. Used a Canon 10D and Rebel XT in the past and thinking of grabbing a 40D with the rebates. 

 Also planning on going with the body alone then adding a Tammy 17-50, Canon 85 1.8 (owned and loved it in the past) and then a Canon 70-200L f4 IS. I should be pretty covered with that set up right??

 My areas to shoot would be portraits, landscapes and daylight sports for the most part. Maybe some macros later on. 

 Thanks for any advice.


----------



## lan

Do you still own the 10D and XT or are they sold or are you selling them?

 40D sounds like a good plan. Those 3 focal lengths and lenses you chose would work well. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 One thing though, why do you want f4 IS vs. 2.8 though? For sports, you may want a faster shutter speed.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you still own the 10D and XT or are they sold or are you selling them?

 40D sounds like a good plan. Those 3 focal lengths and lenses you chose would work well. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 One thing though, why do you want f4 IS vs. 2.8 though? For sports, you may want a faster shutter speed._

 

I have nothing now. Sold all my Canon stuff. Wish I had kept my Tamron 28-75mm XR Di as well as my Canon 85mm f1.8.

 Yeah I am thinking the 2.8 would be better for all sports but the size and weight may matter. I will probably take a trip to NYC to handle the gear at B&H Photo. The shots I have seen coming from the 70-200mm f4 IS have been incredible. I have not seen such color and richness.


----------



## lan

Wow. Going all the way to B&H. That's pretty hardcore. I cannot handle the 5 hours train ride from Boston though. It's a bit too much for me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you're going to go to B&H, it's closed early on Friday, closed on Saturday, and Sunday is a madhouse. Weekdays is probably best. Are you going to make a day excursion out of it? If so I might be able to meet up with you and we could actually shoot with these lenses as I have both 70-200s. I hang out at B&H often.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow. Going all the way to B&H. That's pretty hardcore. I cannot handle the 5 hours train ride from Boston though. It's a bit too much for me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you're going to go to B&H, it's closed early on Friday, closed on Saturday, and Sunday is a madhouse. Weekdays is probably best. Are you going to make a day excursion out of it? If so I might be able to meet up with you and we could actually shoot with these lenses as I have both 70-200s. I hang out at B&H often. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I did not notice you were from NYC. I would probably take a bus early on a weekday since I usually have those off. I have not been to the city in some time and would love to hit some sites. Thanks for the invite dude.

 EDIT: Aren't you in the Nikon camp though?? or shoot both systems which is kind of odd?


----------



## JadeEast

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Punnisher* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So features need to be:

 1. Compact as possible.
 2. fast lens that's good in low light. Zoom not a necessity, but would be nice.
 3. Can shoot RAW. I read about hacks that can enable this.

 What do you think?_

 

Sd1000 with cdhk works for 1&3 for myself, but there is a version of the sd1000 that can't use the hack. As for 2 I don't think low light sensitivity and portability travel in the same circles.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JadeEast* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sd1000 with cdhk works for 1&3 for myself, but there is a version of the sd1000 that can't use the hack. As for 2 I don't think low light sensitivity and portability travel in the same circles._

 

I think Fuji has the low light/high ISO thing down pat when it comes to P&S cams.

 EDIT: The Fujifilm FinePix F50d looks to be pretty solid. I forgot this was a Canon thread. No RAW with this camera and it is not a Canon. My bad.

 EDIT 2: That Fuji is pretty impressive. 12MP and it is pretty fast in operation, with pretty low noise levels at elevated ISOs. Not bad for a $200 camera.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I did not notice you were from NYC. I would probably take a bus early on a weekday since I usually have those off. I have not been to the city in some time and would love to hit some sites. Thanks for the invite dude.

 EDIT: Aren't you in the Nikon camp though?? or shoot both systems which is kind of odd?_

 

Yeah. New Yawk. Couldn't you tell by the accent? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Weekdays (except Friday) are definitely less hectic at B&H.

 I have no brand loyality. I'm in 3 camps 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I just use whatever is unique and has special look to it. I'll also give you an unbiased opinion about each.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah. New Yawk. Couldn't you tell by the accent? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Weekdays (except Friday) are definitely less hectic at B&H.

 I have no brand loyality. I'm in 3 camps 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I just use whatever is unique and has special look to it. I'll also give you an unbiased opinion about each. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Which brand for the 3rd camp? Olympus or Pentax?


----------



## lan

3rd brand is Minolta. I like them and Fuji also.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hang out at B&H often. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

LOL I get the feeling I would also, these days, if I happened to be in NYC. B&H sounds like the Yosemite of camera stores!


----------



## agile_one

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LOL I get the feeling I would also, these days, if I happened to be in NYC. B&H sounds like the Yosemite of camera stores! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Yup ... if you close your eyes a bit and squint, they look the same ...


----------



## laxx

Lol. Let me know if you decide to come too. I'll take some time off as I'm not too far from B&H.


----------



## lan

LOL let's all raid B&H.

 I wonder how long it would take to try everything out in the DSLR section.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LOL let's all raid B&H.

 I wonder how long it would take to try everything out in the DSLR section. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I would just take that glorious 200mm f2 L.


----------



## devotee101

I love the Canon flip-out screens on their digital cameras. I wouldn't be without it.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would just take that glorious 200mm f2 L. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It's pretty heavy. I never tried it yet though. I don't like annoying the guys just to talk and not buy 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I did try the Nikon version a while back.


----------



## laxx

I missed out yesterday. I spoke with a guy selling a 70-200 f2.8 with a broken AF motor for $325. =T That would have been a good deal even after sending it in to get fixed (~$200).

 Oh well.


----------



## darkninja67

Anyone here use the Canon EF 100mm f2 USM?? Supposedly it is even better than the 85mm f1.8 in terms of image quality, which is saying something.


----------



## lan

I've registered for 3 events at B&H. Maybe those might be good days to meet? 

Event Space | B&H Photo Video

 Monday, June 2, 2008
 Professional Looking Headshots - Business and Techniques 
 Time: 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM

 The following looks like a good one. This is limited to 40 people so you should register! I also have something at the Bronx Zoo to do but will do that another day as this is colliding with this event.
 Thursday, June 19, 2008
 Hands-on Advanced Lighting Workshop with a Live Photo Shoot
 Time: 11-5PM

 June 24
 Sound Design for Picture Editors
 3-5PM


----------



## laxx

What are you doing at the zoo? I want to go again.


----------



## lan

Madagascar! will open at the Bronx Zoo. I can go to that anytime though but this opening might be a private tour not sure. Well you can't do everything at once.


----------



## laxx

Private. =[


----------



## lan

Well I'm going to B&H so it doesn't matter LOL. We can hit up the Bronx Zoo anytime.


----------



## jude

Having only owned point-and-shoot in the last several years, seeing all the very fancy SLR's at Can Jam '08 (and the photos that the owners took with them) gave me inadequacy issues. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I decided to start slowly, and pick up the new entry-level Canon EOS Rebel XSi, and a few other pieces to go along with it. I almost went with a Nikon D80, but decided to instead go with the Canon, because I've pretty much owned only Canon point-and-shoots in recent years, and have been very pleased with all of them.

 I've been practicing with it a lot since it arrived a few days ago, but still have much to learn. Here's a photo of the camera with the flash attached, and what I've so far found to be a very fun lens to play around with (Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro USM):




*[size=xx-small]Click on the photo for a larger version.[/size]*

 I'll post some photos I've taken with this setup soon. Again, I still have _much_ to learn.


----------



## lan

Welcome to the Canon DSLR club.

 Any reason why you didn't pony up just a little more money for the 40D?

 Are you going to primarily shoot macro stuff?


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Welcome to the Canon DSLR club.

 Any reason why you didn't pony up just a little more money for the 40D?

 Are you going to primarily shoot macro stuff?_

 

It actually was a toss-up between the two (and the Nikon D80) for me.

 In reading quite a bit leading up to a decision, I reached a turning point when I got to looking at the online portfolios of many folks on the web (paying attention to their gear, when specified and/or in EXIF), realizing even more clearly than when I dedicated myself to doing that that the photographer trumps the equipment every time. I've seen some pretty crappy shots from some _very_ expensive gear.

 So, to me, between the two Canons (and the Nikon D80), it came down to realizing that _I'll_ almost certainly be the biggest variable in all this, so I should pick based on the most practical differences that would reasonably impact me from a _living-and-learning-with-it_ standpoint. That being said, it came down to two very key practical points in favor of the XSi over others (given that the D80, 40D, and XSi all were in the price range, whereas, say, the D300 was not):
 The XSi uses SD versus CF. Though I know some consider this a disadvantage, I am not invested in either format too heavily. (One of my two current point-and-shoots uses CF, the other SD.) Why is SD an advantage for me? Copying files from SD to my laptop (my primary computer)--or to an external drive connected to my laptop--is as effortless and non-taxing on my computer as copying from one hard drive to another. Copying from CF to my laptop (even using fast CF cards), however, bogs my computer down for the duration of the copy--I essentially have to wait for the copy to finish, lest I work through a stop-motion version of my laptop. I don't know if this is common with other laptops, but I'm not planning on updating my laptop for another year. (It's a Dell Inspiron 9300.)

 Weight and size. The XSi isn't built as ruggedly as the 40D, but it's also far lighter and smaller. While this won't matter much in a backpack, it does when I carry the camera with a carry-around lens fitted and nothing else (when carrying more of the kit isn't practical) in a shoulder tote (read: man purse) or small messenger bag. As such, I'll likely carry it around more than I would something heavier and larger, as opposed to grabbing one of my point-and-shoots for everyday on-the-go.
To answer your macro question: Yes, macro shooting is something I am _very_ interested in.

 Long story short, stuartr, jamato, agile_one, you, and many of the other more experienced photographers here would be able to create far more satisfying, beautiful photos with my Canon G5 point-and-shoot than I currently could with even an EOS-1D Mark III and all L glass.

 So now I work on me (and pick up more glass in the process). And so potentially another passion begins.


----------



## darkninja67

Congrats on the new Canon Jude. Use good glass with it and you should get excellent results. That sensor demands to be pushed.

 I was (am) looking at the Nikon D80 as well but is seems it is kind of long in the tooth and should receive an update soon. Probably going with my original choice though: 40D. I had a Rebel XT and liked it a lot but always yearned for a XXD model.

 Anyway, good luck and get to shooting.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It actually was a toss-up between the two (and the Nikon D80) for me.

 In reading quite a bit leading up to a decision, I reached a turning point when I got to looking at the online portfolios of many folks on the web (paying attention to their gear, when specified and/or in EXIF), realizing even more clearly than when I dedicated myself to doing that that the photographer trumps the equipment every time. I've seen some pretty crappy shots from some very expensive gear.

 So, to me, between the two Canons (and the Nikon D80), it came down to realizing that I'll almost certainly be the biggest variable in all this, so I should pick based on the most practical differences that would reasonably impact me from a living-and-learning-with-it standpoint. That being said, it came down to two very key practical points in favor of the XSi over others (given that the D80, 40D, and XSi all were in the price range, whereas, say, the D300 was not):
 The XSi uses SD versus CF. Though I know some consider this a disadvantage, I am not invested in either format too heavily. (One of my two current point-and-shoots uses CF, the other SD.) Why is SD an advantage for me? Copying files from SD to my laptop (my primary computer)--or to an external drive connected to my laptop--is as effortless and non-taxing on my computer as copying from one hard drive to another. Copying from CF to my laptop (even using fast CF cards), however, bogs my computer down for the duration of the copy--I essentially have to wait for the copy to finish, lest I work through a stop-motion version of my laptop. I don't know if this is common with other laptops, but I'm not planning on updating my laptop for another year. (It's a Dell Inspiron 9300.)

 Weight and size. The XSi isn't built as ruggedly as the 40D, but it's also far lighter and smaller. While this won't matter much in a backpack, it does when I carry the camera with a carry-around lens fitted and nothing else (when carrying more of the kit isn't practical) in a shoulder tote (read: man purse) or small messenger bag. As such, I'll likely carry it around more than I would something heavier and larger, as opposed to grabbing one of my point-and-shoots for everyday on-the-go.
To answer your macro question: Yes, macro shooting is something I am very interested in.

 Long story short, stuartr, jamato, agile_one, you, and many of the other more experienced photographers here would be able to create far more satisfying, beautiful photos with my Canon G5 point-and-shoot than I currently could with even an EOS-1D Mark III and all L glass.

 So now I work on me (and pick up more glass in the process). And so potentially another passion begins. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Good call on the 60mm lens, Jude. Most first-time SLR buyers spring straight for the standard 18-55, but a prime lens (especially a macro) will almost always outperform a zoom lens in terms of sharpness, chromatic abberations, and often build quality. Plus, the 50-60mm range is pretty close to the perspective of the human eye, so I don't think you'll have trouble composing images despite the lack of a convenience factor offered by a zoom. 

 Be sure to post some sample images as soon as you can play around a bit.


----------



## Towert7

Ah, I remember when I first started out. Boy it was a lot of fun learning along the way! 

 I guess if you can get over the ergonomics of the canon's (or if you prefer them vs. nikon), then it will be a very nice kit. Canon certainly has a lot of lenses!

 I'll be watching for your pictures in:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f11/po...iendly-256063/


----------



## RYCeT

congrats on your new canon Jude, I started this hobby with rebel xt and canon 50 1.8 
 It won't restrict your learning to be a better photographer. I recommend 50 1.8 for the fun of it, it's cheap and sharp. It will take the best picture of your son as I did with mine. I upgrade myself to D300 and I found my d300 as a big p&s cameras 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Some of my best images from Rebel XT and 50 1.8, These images are straight from cameras, no photo processing.


----------



## darkninja67

Welcome me back to the Canon family. Just ordered a 40D with the 28-135mm kit lens and a Sandisk Extreme III 4GB card. Wanted to get the Tamron 17-50mm but will hold off for now. Also will grab the vertical grip as I always like to take portraits.

 Will probably add the 70-200mm f4L IS, the Canon 85mm f1.8 and the Tamron 28-74mm f2.8.

 Also any thoughts on a good wide angle zoom? Thinking the Tokina 116.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the photographer trumps the equipment every time. I've seen some pretty crappy shots from some very expensive gear.

 Copying from CF to my laptop (even using fast CF cards), however, bogs my computer down for the duration of the copy

 The XSi isn't built as ruggedly as the 40D, but it's also far lighter and smaller. 

 So now I work on me (and pick up more glass in the process). And so potentially another passion begins. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yeah the operator of the equipment is a great factor on the quality.

 Could be the CF card and/or read is not DMA capable. You've got a fair amount of computer experience right? So you know how non-DMA drive access is.

 I agree that bigger isn't always better. I like the smaller XTi also because I can carry it anywhere and not look like I'm getting into trouble. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Can your wallet handle this other hobby or do you even have enough time? 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Welcome me back to the Canon family. Just ordered a 40D with the 28-135mm kit lens and a Sandisk Extreme III 4GB card. 

 Will probably add the 70-200mm f4L IS, the Canon 85mm f1.8 and the Tamron 28-74mm f2.8.

 Also any thoughts on a good wide angle zoom? Thinking the Tokina 116._

 

That's a lot of lenses you're considering rather rapidly. Do you have a favorite focal length?

 That tokina 11-16 2.8 is fairly new. I read some good things about it. 

 Are you still going to come down to the city one day?


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's a lot of lenses you're considering rather rapidly. Do you have a favorite focal length?

 That tokina 11-16 2.8 is fairly new. I read some good things about it. 

 Are you still going to come down to the city one day?_

 

I will probably be shooting all over the place. No specific range or area. I am not getting them all at once, I still have to pay off some other toys. 

 It seems the Tokina looks to be a pretty good choice from what I have read. Will do more research before the purchase though.


----------



## analogbox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I will probably be shooting all over the place. No specific range or area. I am not getting them all at once, I still have to pay off some other toys. 

 It seems the Tokina looks to be a pretty good choice from what I have read. Will do more research before the purchase though._

 

28-135m is a great all around lens. That what I started this hobby with and it did everything pretty good. One gripe that I had with this lens was that it doesn't go as wide on x1.6 focal cameras. But I think if you get 17-40 L lens, it would compliment 28-135m nicely.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *analogbox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_28-135m is a great all around lens. That what I started this hobby with and it did everything pretty good. One gripe that I had with this lens was that it doesn't go as wide on x6 focal cameras. But I think if you get 17-40 L lens, it would compliment 28-135m nicely._

 

I thought of the 17-40mm f4L but the Tamron 17-50mm is killer plus it is f2.8 throughout, cannot justify the price of the Canon over that glass.


----------



## analogbox

I do miss having a faster lens since all my lenses are F4 and up (except 50 1.8 which I rarely use). Tamron 17-50 looks pretty good for the price. I know how annoying it is when you have dust inside the lens so I usually go for L lens but this Tamron looks like a sweet lens. I'm going to have to check it out myself.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *analogbox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I do miss having a faster lens since all my lenses are F4 and up (except 50 1.8 which I rarely use). Tamron 17-50 looks pretty good for the price. I know how annoying it is when you have dust inside the lens so I usually go for L lens but this Tamron looks like a sweet lens. I'm going to have to check it out myself. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yeah I had an excellent copy of the Tammy 28-75mm and the 17-50mm has gotten excellent reviews at FMs and other sites. Plus i am not planning on a full frame dSLR anytime soon. I liked the bonus of teles getting extra reach on the cropped cams.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *analogbox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I do miss having a faster lens since all my lenses are F4 and up (except 50 1.8 which I rarely use). Tamron 17-50 looks pretty good for the price. I know how annoying it is when you have dust inside the lens so I usually go for L lens but this Tamron looks like a sweet lens. I'm going to have to check it out myself. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Some Ls aren't sealed. Do you really believe dust inside the lens affects your photos?


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some Ls aren't sealed._

 

Plus the body needs to have a sealed mount and a filter needs to be used to properly seal an L lens IIRC. The 1D series are the only Canon bodies that offer that I believe.


----------



## analogbox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Some Ls aren't sealed. Do you really believe dust inside the lens affects your photos?_

 

I've had a few dust problems in the past so I don't believe it affects the photos, I know it affects the photos. It's PITA to fix those dust spots in the photoshop, though manageable.

 Edit: 

 Well, I should say if affects my time rather than photos since it's fixable.


----------



## lan

Are you sure that wasn't dust on the sensor? Dust inside of a lens is not even in focus and not really visible so is a big deal IMO.


----------



## analogbox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you sure that wasn't dust on the sensor? Dust inside of a lens is not even in focus and not really visible so is a big deal IMO._

 

You're right. Most of my problems were due to sensor dusts, not in the lens. But dusts in lens *are *visible thru photos, though very subtle. It's highly visible on bright areas but not so on the darker areas.

 I said it's annoying because once you have that problem, you'll have to post process every single time you find dust spots on photos until you send it over to canon to get it fixed which takes about a month and a couple hundred bucks if you're out of warranty.


----------



## lan

Do you have any examples of the effect of this dust in your lens in your photos? I'd like to see it because I've never seen it myself.


----------



## analogbox

The photo will look exactly like the ones with dusts outside the lens since it's only a glass away. It will be hard to notice it if you have tiny particles on the lens but if you have a dust that bigger than a millimeter I'd say it will be very much visible.

 This is the lens with dusts inside. Just horrible. This lens costs a grand.


----------



## lan

I meant do you have any example photos with the lens not of the lens.

 I want to see what you think is an issue in the actual photographs you take.


----------



## analogbox

Well, all my photos with either sensor dusts/lens dusts are already processed so I don't have any examples right now. I could put dusts on my lens and take a picture but I'm sure you can do that and see for yourself.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *analogbox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I could put dusts on my lens and take a picture but I'm sure you can do that and see for yourself._

 

Well that's the thing, I've never seen the issue much in real life usage. If I could stop down a lot and focus a couple inches away from me, I'm sure I could probably get annoyed with it. I've done something like that with my HD video camera and it was quite disturbing but as soon as it focused further out, it became a non critical issue. I guess this depends also on your tolerance and usage. It may pop up as issue on white or dark or solid color subjects.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ I guess this depends also on your tolerance and usage. It may pop up as issue on white or dark or solid color subjects._

 

Skies are the big one for me. That is when I will usually notice it. Or other solid color things like walls, etc.


----------



## jude

It was a humid day yesterday, and Joe's Red Bull looked like this:






 (Photo taken by joe, using Canon EOS Rebel XSi with Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro lens; 800 ISO, f/2.8, 1/60.)


----------



## lan

That's humid!

 BTW who's Joe?

 -------------------

 I stopped by Canon NJ service center and dropped off 2 cameras and 3 lenses. It's a nice place. Let's hope they work some good magic on my stuff.


----------



## darkninja67

Looking for some advice. Played with a ton of glass at Ritz last night. I got to try the Tammy 17-50mm (going to buy) and several of the Canon L glass. The fast EF-S stuff seems overpriced compared to what you get with Tamron, Sigma and Tokina.

 Anyway, the 70-200mm Ls were not as big or heavy as I thought. I am not a small 140lb teenager. 

 So I am basically going with the 70-200mm f4L IS or the 70-200mm f2.8 L )non IS) since they are close in price. 

 My thinking is that if I am using a 70-200mm I will probably be trying to stop action in sporting event and nature so I will be using a high shutter speed which negates IS. Also the bokeh seems to be smoother with the 2.8.

 The f4L IS is smaller, lighter and has a 4 stop IS system and it is very good optically. 

 Kind of torn between these two. All of my other glass will be around the f2.8 or faster area too. I have read that the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 lenses are better on full frame bodies. No idea if that is true though. 

 any advice would be appreciated.


----------



## analogbox

If you'll be taking sport events and such, I'd suggest getting a faster 2.8 lens since you'll get more shutter speeds which is critical when shooting moving objects. IS is only useful when your object is not moving such as lanscapes and portraits. On moving objects, it's just as bad as not having it.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *analogbox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you'll be taking sport events and such, I'd suggest getting a faster 2.8 lens since you'll get more shutter speeds which is critical when shooting moving objects. IS is only useful when your object is not moving such as lanscapes and portraits. On moving objects, it's just as bad as not having it._

 

Yeah that is what I thought. I am still really curious as to how great that 70-200mm f4L IS really is. Thinking I can rent it oneday. thanks though.


----------



## analogbox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah that is what I thought. I am still really curious as to how great that 70-200mm f4L IS really is. Thinking I can rent it oneday. thanks though._

 

I have the non-IS version and all I can say is that it's great. It's very sharp and gives you a great contrast. I don't really have to do a lot of post processing because everything comes out so good. I think you won't go wrong with either of them. But for sports I'd go with extra speeds though.


----------



## joe

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's humid!

 BTW who's Joe?_

 

*waves*


----------



## Naga

is full frame recommendable for a first dSLR?


----------



## laxx

If you have the money. =T


----------



## analogbox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you have the money. =T_

 

x2 

 Although, you could be overwhelmed at all the high end features which could be a good thing and a bad thing.


----------



## Naga

Is it very advantageous to go with FF for the wide variety of photography? Or rather, what are the major disadvantages to using Croped Sensor? (aside from the obvious dimension shift) Currently i only have a canon A610; and i find p/s thresholds very restrictive (granted i have never taken it's manual settings seriously). 

 I am simply shopping around for whats out there, deciding what to set my sights on before aspiring towards it.


----------



## lan

You are better off getting education and better lenses than using a full frame camera if you're starting off.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *analogbox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Although, you could be overwhelmed at all the high end features which could be a good thing and a bad thing._

 

There's nothing to be overwhelmed about unless it's a Nikon D3. Canon camera's are fairly simple IMO.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Naga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is it very advantageous to go with FF for the wide variety of photography? Or rather, what are the major disadvantages to using Croped Sensor? (aside from the obvious dimension shift) Currently i only have a canon A610; and i find p/s thresholds very restrictive (granted i have never taken it's manual settings seriously). _

 

Either camera can do the job fine.

 Cropped sensor camera has less vignetting with full frame lens, less distortion with that same lens vs mounted on full frame, it has higher pixel density, and depth of field is more at same f-stop. Generally speaking most cropped sensors have smaller/darker viewfinders. High ISO is also not as good on cropped cameras.

 There's no dimension shift between FF and crop. The are still 2x3.

 EDIT: Had a typo oops 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Meant to say crop cameras have MORE depth of field than full frame at same f/stop and same lens.


----------



## darkninja67

Full frame cameras typically demand good glass (read expensive) for the reasons Ian described. You do not get the benefit of taking advantage of the more distortion free center of a lens.


----------



## Punnisher

I'd just get a Rebel and some superb lenses. You'll get a lot for your money. I'm very happy with the images I'm getting with my XTi and Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon 70-200mm f/4L, and Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro.

 This way I'll know that my lenses are good enough to be used with a nicer ff camera, if I ever decide to get one in the future.


----------



## analogbox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's nothing to be overwhelmed about unless it's a Nikon D3. Canon camera's are fairly simple IMO._

 

True. There used to be a big gap between high-end and low-end SLR cameras. But nowadays you can get pretty good features on the low models, too.


----------



## laxx

Well, first question for yourself would be whether you like wider shots or tighter shots. I personally prefer tighter shots, so a cropped sensor with my Tamron 28-75 is good for me (with my 40D, it's the "equivalent of 44.8-120). I rarely feel the need for something below 28 on a cropped sensor.

 So if you enjoy FF 24/28, then you would have to get a one of the ultra wides for cropped cameras, which most of the time, aren't compatible with FF bodies. So what I'm trying to say is, what kind of pictures do you want to take?


----------



## darkninja67

What are you guys using for camera support? I used to have a Feisol CF tripod with a Manfrotto head and liked it. Looking for something that will hold some good weight without breaking the bank.


----------



## analogbox

I got a classic Manfrotto tripod and a Markins M10 ball head. Both combined, it's quite heavy so I usually don't carry them.


----------



## vibin247

Been using Manfrotto for a couple of years, and I typically use a 3021 Pro and though heavy, it's pretty stable. In the future, I'm looking at the Induro brand of tripods and heads. They use the same, if not similar leg locking technology at a lower price. Gitzo is nice, but pretty pricey, and I want to try something different from Manfrotto.

 I'm actually excited because in a few weeks, I'll be a proud owner of a 40D w/ vertical grip, 24mm f/1.4L, and a 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS). I'm also planning on getting at least one 580EX II flash, 32GB of CompactFlash memory, and some Heliopan lens filters. Figure it's going to run $5000 altogether, which is what I have saved up.


----------



## Wil

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vibin247* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Been using Manfrotto for a couple of years, and I typically use a 3021 Pro and though heavy, it's pretty stable. In the future, I'm looking at the Induro brand of tripods and heads. They use the same, if not similar leg locking technology at a lower price. Gitzo is nice, but pretty pricey, and I want to try something different from Manfrotto.

 I'm actually excited because in a few weeks, I'll be a proud owner of a 40D w/ vertical grip, 24mm f/1.4L, and a 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS). I'm also planning on getting at least one 580EX II flash, 32GB of CompactFlash memory, and some Heliopan lens filters. Figure it's going to run $5000 altogether, which is what I have saved up._

 

Wow. That's a lot of nice kit! I'm a new owner of the 450D ( also known as the Rebel Xsi over in the states ) and i love it. 

 I'm lucky my dad already has the 17-40 F4/L usm lens and i'm looking to add at least 2 more lens in the near future, one of it being the Sigma 105mm Macro.

 I'm looking at filters but they're just too darn costly for me at the very moment.


----------



## vibin247

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wil* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow. That's a lot of nice kit! I'm a new owner of the 450D ( also known as the Rebel Xsi over in the states ) and i love it. 

 I'm lucky my dad already has the 17-40 F4/L usm lens and i'm looking to add at least 2 more lens in the near future, one of it being the Sigma 105mm Macro.

 I'm looking at filters but they're just too darn costly for me at the very moment._

 

It took a lot of saving (and sacrifice for headphone gear), but its' worth it. Photographing is the one thing that makes me aligned. Everything seems fine when I photograph, unless you're the subject


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vibin247* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Been using Manfrotto for a couple of years, and I typically use a 3021 Pro and though heavy, it's pretty stable. In the future, I'm looking at the Induro brand of tripods and heads. They use the same, if not similar leg locking technology at a lower price. Gitzo is nice, but pretty pricey, and I want to try something different from Manfrotto.

 I'm actually excited because in a few weeks, I'll be a proud owner of a 40D w/ vertical grip, 24mm f/1.4L, and a 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS). I'm also planning on getting at least one 580EX II flash, 32GB of CompactFlash memory, and some Heliopan lens filters. Figure it's going to run $5000 altogether, which is what I have saved up._

 

Nice system. I just got my 40D and love it. Will probably go with the 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS as well. Let me know how that lens works out for you.


----------



## vibin247

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice system. I just got my 40D and love it. Will probably go with the 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS as well. Let me know how that lens works out for you._

 

I was thinking about the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, but when I photographed a wedding with the ceremony indoors and nothing but natural lighting, f/4 seemed lacking especially for those tight shots. I think an extra stop would've made a great difference.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wil* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 I'm looking at filters but they're just too darn costly for me at the very moment._

 

B & W Multi Coated FTW. Wonder if I can link to another forum where a filter saved some dudes 70-200mm f2.8L IS when it jumped from his bag.

 EDIT: see if this works: Props to Canon's L glass - General [M]ayhem (works for me in FF)


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vibin247* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was thinking about the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, but when I photographed a wedding with the ceremony indoors and nothing but natural lighting, f/4 seemed lacking especially for those tight shots. I think an extra stop would've made a great difference._

 

What do you think about this combo:
 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS for sports
 85mm f1.8 for no flash indoor stuff and portraits
 17-40mm f4L for outside walk around duties (in daylight)
 Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for wide duties
 Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro for macro, short tele, portraits, etc

 I originally wanted the Tamron 17-50mm and may still go with that but that L is pretty decent too.


----------



## vibin247

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What do you think about this combo:
 70-200mm f2.8L non-IS for sports
 85mm f1.8 for no flash indoor stuff and portraits
 17-40mm f4L for outside walk around duties (in daylight)
 Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for wide duties
 Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro for macro, short tele, portraits, etc

 I originally wanted the Tamron 17-50mm and may still go with that but that L is pretty decent too._

 

You can't go wrong with Canon lenses, but 3rd party lenses are a good bang for the buck. I've used a Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6, and it was a decent lens for everyday shooting. If you don't mind the loss of an extra f-stop, the 17-40 f/4 has the added length for when you don't want to get too close, and I would choose that over the Tokina. You could use an extension tube with the Canon 85mm f/1.8 and essentially get a macro lens. I'm for a lighter bag, so at the most, I would carry 3-4 lenses. But otherwise, your setup should cover you for pretty much everything. In the future, a 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM and a 85mm f/1.2L is what I'm after, but another body is more important. I'm itching for a 1D Mark III, but that'll probably be another year or two, and perhaps a full frame sensor will be integrated (or so I've heard from a sports photographer).


----------



## raptor84

Do you see yourself shooting that many genres of photography that often? I'l just stick with a 17-50 or 17-40 and the 85/1.8 as a good starter combo 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I use the 17-40 and 85/1.8 myself on a 350D. The only reason why i never got the 17-50 is because i intend to upgrade to full frame or 1.3 crop


----------



## lan

Some other arguments over f4 lenses is that the viewfinder is dimmer and the auto focus isn't as good.


----------



## Bob_McBob

Someone tell me why I crave the Nikon D3 even though I'm about to buy a 1D mark III. It's bad.


----------



## lan

I know the D3 is a beast of a camera. Do you even care about the difference?


----------



## Bob_McBob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I know the D3 is a beast of a camera. Do you even care about the difference?_

 

The D3 is everything I want in a camera from Canon. Except it's a ****ing Nikon. I am pretty entrenched in the Canon system, so it's unlikely I'll switch, but damn...


----------



## rapier84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Bob_McBob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Someone tell me why I crave the Nikon D3 even though I'm about to buy a 1D mark III. It's bad._

 








 Because the D3 is full frame and goes up to ISO 25600?

 heh, but I still love my Canon. Love the many many outstanding lenses and accessories available


----------



## GTRacer

Don't worry... Canon will eventually come up with a full-frame, high ISO, high FPS beast like the D3.


----------



## wquiles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vibin247* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was thinking about the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, but when I photographed a wedding with the ceremony indoors and nothing but natural lighting, f/4 seemed lacking especially for those tight shots. I think an extra stop would've made a great difference._

 

I have a Canon Rebel XT with the 24-105/F4 L lens (great all-around lens for me) but I have the same problem you state here: for most all indoor shots, I really need the 2.8 !!!

 I did try a 70-200/f2.8 with IS and I took indoor/outdoor pics with the IS enabled and disabled, and I became a believer in the IS version of the 700-200/F2.8 - it simply works awesome, whether you are shotting moving stuff or not. It just makes everything more stable/sharp - specially indoors 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Will


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Bob_McBob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Someone tell me why I crave the Nikon D3 even though I'm about to buy a 1D mark III. It's bad._

 

Do you already own Canon glass? if not then the D3 is a decent camera.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Bob_McBob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The D3 is everything I want in a camera from Canon. Except it's a ****ing Nikon. I am pretty entrenched in the Canon system, so it's unlikely I'll switch, but damn..._

 

Don't switch. Just use both.


----------



## RedLeader

My 35-70 showed up today. Proof that on eBay you CAN get into DSLR for under $200.


----------



## lan

Wow that's a classic camera and classic lens! Vintage. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Be sure to post some pics. I'm interested in seeing how that thing is.


----------



## RedLeader

Vintage 2000. Aww yea. Go team College-Debt-Fi! 

 I'm very interested to see how the D30 stacks up against my A710IS. Very different cameras from different eras, even just playing around a bit today I'm noticing some better colour handling, barrel distortion and chromatic abberation. Can't wait to bust it out on a weekend. Also picked up a 55-200 for $40 with broken AF. Can't wait for that to show up.


----------



## lan

Looks like the 1000D just came out.

Canon Australia - EOS 1000D Body


----------



## darkninja67

Well I am going to rent a 70-200mm f4L IS this week. It should be here in two days. I will probably get this one and get some primes for low light stuff.


----------



## raptor84

Heh if you've never used any of the 70-200 family before then you'll be in for a treat 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I use the non-IS variant and its my workhorse lens.


----------



## lan

2.8, 2.8, 2.8! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You should rent the 2.8 also.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_2.8, 2.8, 2.8! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You should rent the 2.8 also._

 

Yeah I am going to once they get them in stock. I use LensRentals.com - Rent Canon, Nikon, or Sony Lenses and Cameras

 I just wanted to see what all the hype was about with this f4L IS lens.


----------



## RedLeader

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow that's a classic camera and classic lens! Vintage. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Be sure to post some pics. I'm interested in seeing how that thing is._

 

Check out the photography thread!


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just wanted to see what all the hype was about with this f4L IS lens._

 

Don't built too much expectation 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I find it's technically very good but I'm not a fan of f4 lenses on APS-C cameras the subject/background separation isn't enough.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RedLeader* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Check out the photography thread!_

 

Yeah saw them there. The stuff looks pretty good. I think you scored a good deal. These older/lower megapixel cameras do well in great light. Sometimes I think even better than the modern cameras.


----------



## Wil

I've had been having a blast with my Canon 450D/Rebel Xsi and 14-40mm F4.0/L.

 Taken a few shots that i personally love. 

 I never knew photography could be this addictive. 

 Feel free to comment on the shots!

Flickr: merelyok's Photostream


----------



## analogbox

Another entry level DSLR just came out. It's called Rebel XS and I suppose it's a little brother of XSi. It's hard to hold up on upgrading with all this new cameras coming out. My 10D is getting VERY VERY old.


----------



## lan

Nice stuff Wil. You mean the 17-40 though. 14-40 would be a cool range
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.

 analogbox, I would just get a used 40D. The price difference between XSi is too small really.


----------



## Wil

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice stuff Wil. You mean the 17-40 though. 14-40 would be a cool range
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.

 analogbox, I would just get a used 40D. The price difference between XSi is too small really._

 

lol. thanks for pointing that out. i do mean the 17-40. But yea, you have to admit 14-40 sounds extremely good!


----------



## lan

The XSi looks great! I think I may sell my XTi.

 Let me put up an interest check.


----------



## lan

Did any of you guys sign up for the B&H thing on the 19th?


----------



## Wil

Yummy


----------



## brotherlen

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *analogbox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Another entry level DSLR just came out. It's called Rebel XS and I suppose it's a little brother of XSi. It's hard to hold up on upgrading with all this new cameras coming out. My 10D is getting VERY VERY old._

 

I understand, I had a 10d when I upgraded to the 5d. Awesome camera though. Sort of wish I kept it and converted it to a IR camera.


----------



## analogbox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *brotherlen* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I understand, I had a 10d when I upgraded to the 5d. Awesome camera though. Sort of wish I kept it and converted it to a IR camera._

 

Yeah, at this point, resale value isn't that great so I might just end up keeping it and get an entry level canon as my new main gun. Now days, even the entry levels beat my 10D to the ground in terms of features.


----------



## vibin247

So heading towards my door this Thursday and Friday:

 1x Canon 40D DSLR
 1x EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Zoom Telephoto Lens
 1x EF 24mm f/1.4L USM Ultra-Wide Angle Lens
 1x 580EX II Hot Shoe Flash
 1x Vertical Battery Grip
 4x Battery Packs (5 total)
 1x Battery Charger (2 total)
 8x Lexar 4GB Professional 133x CompactFlash Cards
 1x Lexar Professional UDMA FireWire CompactFlash Reader
 2x 77mm Heliopan UV (Haze) Glass Filters
 1x EF-S (Precision) Focusing Screen for 40D DSLR
 1x Tenba Response Shoulder Bag, Large (Black)

 C'mon UPS...don't let me down!


----------



## raptor84

WOW that is a lot of gear... why 8 CF cards


----------



## TheMarchingMule

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_WOW that is a lot of gear... why 8 CF cards 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

He's probably going to shoot only in RAW.


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *TheMarchingMule* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_He's probably going to shoot only in RAW *+ L*. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

fixed. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 10char


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vibin247* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_C'mon UPS...don't let me down! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Here's to hoping that they handle the package nicely... *cringe* UPS has mistreated most of my packages. 

 Nice gear though... you certainly didn't skimp on anything!

 Yeah, RAW takes up a boatload of space. I can only get ~450 pictures out of a 8GB card from my 450D.

 EDIT: I can't imagine how bad my space requirements would be if I shot in RAW + L. *shudder*


----------



## Sh0eBoX

that is a very nice kit indeed.

 i am dying to upgrade my kit 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 --- why must i be so poor right now lol

 My ideal (yet semi-achievable) kit:

 40D
 17-55 f/2.8 IS (check)
 30 f/1.4
 85 f/1.8
 70-200 f/2.8L IS (quite out of reach)


 Sometimes i think about selling my darths/aria to fund my camera gear.


----------



## vibin247

I would've gotten Lexar 8GB CF cards, but B&H Photo didn't have them in stock, even the UDMA cards (what gives?). I am definitely going to be mostly shooting RAW, so I thought 32GB of memory should be sufficient for working in the field. One of those portable hard drives is more cost effective, but it takes time to transfer all that data and then erase the card. I could've cut corners on a few things, but since this is gear I'm going to be using heavily, I might as well go for the good stuff.


----------



## lan

I'm going to B&H in an hour. I'll let them know your thoughts. LOL.

 Yeah they're out of stock on a few things I was interested in also. The trick is to not want it and then it would still be there. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 32GB is a lot of memory. If you do sports that's nothing but under normal shooting conditions, that's just a lot.


----------



## Wil

I *might* sell my 450D to a friend that's interested.

 Then ill get the 40D.

 I know the 40D has higher FPS, and faster auto focus and a body that's more durable...but the 450D is lighter and has a higher resolution.

 oh...decisions, decisions.

 What do you guys think? 

 ( oh, glass wise, i have quite a few good lens so its only the body im worried about. Already have the Tamron 18-50mm 2.8, Sigma 50mm 2.8 Macro, Canon 17-40mm 4.0L, Canon 100-400mm L, so i guess im pretty much covered lens wise.)


----------



## Sh0eBoX

^ DO IT!!! better noise control, faster, more accurate focusing, bigger and brighter viewfinder, 6.5fps, spot metering, live view, ugh...

 your lens set up is already quite nice so what more do you have to look forward to (where's the 70-200? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) --- unless you are in need of accessories of course


----------



## Wil

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_^ DO IT!!! better noise control, faster, more accurate focusing, bigger and brighter viewfinder, 6.5fps, spot metering, live view, ugh...

 your lens set up is already quite nice so what more do you have to look forward to (where's the 70-200? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) --- unless you are in need of accessories of course_

 

funny you should ask about the 70-200!

 I just went to test it yest and its a FANTASTIC piece of kit. The auto focusing is EXTREMEEEELY quick and the image quality is sharpish!


----------



## vibin247

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm going to B&H in an hour. I'll let them know your thoughts. LOL.

 Yeah they're out of stock on a few things I was interested in also. The trick is to not want it and then it would still be there. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 32GB is a lot of memory. If you do sports that's nothing but under normal shooting conditions, that's just a lot._

 

In fact, a couple days after I placed my order with B&H, they suddenly had some items (the 24mm f/1.4L and off shoe cord for the 580EX II flash, to be exact) in stock that I had to delete out of my wishlist! Well, I guess you can't have it all at all times. Their service is terrific, nonetheless. 

 Sure, 32GB is a lot, but it's easy to fill it all up. Last wedding I did with a 5D, I shot 12GB and still wanted more memory (first couple hundred were in RAW and remaining were in Large JPEG). I'm working on becoming a photojournalist, mostly focusing on long projects, and since I don't have a laptop at the moment, having more than enough memory is about peace of mind. I never want to be in that situation where I'm constantly out memory. Plus, I'm planning on getting a 1D Mark III in the future, and will be shooting more and more, possibly even sports.


----------



## Sh0eBoX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wil* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_funny you should ask about the 70-200!

 I just went to test it yest and its a FANTASTIC piece of kit. The auto focusing is EXTREMEEEELY quick and the image quality is sharpish!_

 

yeah, it's a beautiful piece of machinery hahaha... i'm drooling over the 2.8 IS

 wish i had money to upgrade my kit


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vibin247* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In fact, a couple days after I placed my order with B&H, they suddenly had some items (the 24mm f/1.4L and off shoe cord for the 580EX II flash, to be exact) in stock that I had to delete out of my wishlist! Well, I guess you can't have it all at all times. Their service is terrific, nonetheless. 

 Sure, 32GB is a lot, but it's easy to fill it all up. Last wedding I did with a 5D, I shot 12GB and still wanted more memory (first couple hundred were in RAW and remaining were in Large JPEG). I'm working on becoming a photojournalist, mostly focusing on long projects, and since I don't have a laptop at the moment, having more than enough memory is about peace of mind. I never want to be in that situation where I'm constantly out memory. Plus, I'm planning on getting a 1D Mark III in the future, and will be shooting more and more, possibly even sports._

 

Also, why did you go with haze filters instead of plain old UV filters. Aren't the former intentionally designed to give images a softer, dreamier look? (as opposed to being solely for protection).


----------



## skyline889

UV Haze filters were popular back when everyone shot film since it cut through the haze found in shots like landscapes etc. Digital doesn't really need this though so it's basically just a protection filter


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sh0eBoX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_^ DO IT!!! better noise control, faster, more accurate focusing, bigger and brighter viewfinder, 6.5fps, spot metering, live view, ugh.._

 

The viewfinder and 6.5fps is where it's the most significant. Otherwise noise is about the same. The focusing for all intents using the center point is the same. 450D has spot metering and live view also.

 I think the 40D is a better choice though if it's your only camera.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vibin247* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm working on becoming a photojournalist, mostly focusing on long projects, and since I don't have a laptop at the moment, having more than enough memory is about peace of mind. I never want to be in that situation where I'm constantly out memory. Plus, I'm planning on getting a 1D Mark III in the future, and will be shooting more and more, possibly even sports._

 

Yeah it would suck to worry about running out of memory. It totally makes sense to have a lot of batteries and memory if you're in the field for extended periods.

 IMO though, if you were doing what you're doing, you should be using Nikon. It's a better dynamic situation camera.


----------



## vibin247

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_IMO though, if you were doing what you're doing, you should be using Nikon. It's a better dynamic situation camera._

 

True, Nikon is a sturdier camera, and the D300 was my next choice if the 40D wasn't such a steal with the current instant rebates. I started photography with an FM2 with a 50mm f/1.4 and I currently have an N6000 with a 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 for when I want to shoot film. I've also used a D70s, which was joy until I started using the 5D at work. After that wedding in May, I was sold on Canon equipment. Maybe someday I'll give Nikon another shot (or even Leica).

 As for the filters, I always wanted to try Heliopan filters, but unfortunately their protection filters are more expensive than the UV Haze filters, so I went with the latter route. I'm not big on the multi-coated variety, just as long as it keeps fingerprints, dust, hair and other things away from the front element, and is not too pricey. 

 Oh, UPS decided to ship all my packages on Friday, instead of delivering one today and the rest later. The price of fuel, and all...


----------



## darkninja67

Ordered a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 yesterday from BH. I am hoping it has no issues as it is supposed to be an awesome lens. I had the Tammy 28-75mm brother before and loved it on my Canon XT. I could care less about AF speed and build when the image quality is so damned good for the price.

 BTW, the 70-200mm f4L IS I shot with was pretty sweet. Sharp corner to corner wide open which you cannot say about the f2.8 versions for the most part. I may still go with the f2.8 non IS as I may want that extra stop but the IS on the f4 version is pretty incredible.


----------



## Punnisher

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ordered a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 yesterday from BH. I am hoping it has no issues as it is supposed to be an awesome lens. I had the Tammy 28-75mm brother before and loved it on my Canon XT. I could care less about AF speed and build when the image quality is so damned good for the price.

 BTW, the 70-200mm f4L IS I shot with was pretty sweet. Sharp corner to corner wide open which you cannot say about the f2.8 versions for the most part. I may still go with the f2.8 non IS as I may want that extra stop but the IS on the f4 version is pretty incredible._

 

You'll enjoy the tamron, nicely built lens. I just love how big the glass is. I find it's the perfect walkaround range for me.

 Plus it comes with a nice lens hood which I'm never without.

 I got the 70-200 f/4L without IS, and I find myself taking more blurry pictures than I'd like. Though if I have great lighting, I can get away with some incredibly sharp pictures. Perhaps I'll audition the IS version in the future.


----------



## Wil

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ordered a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 yesterday from BH. I am hoping it has no issues as it is supposed to be an awesome lens. I had the Tammy 28-75mm brother before and loved it on my Canon XT. I could care less about AF speed and build when the image quality is so damned good for the price.

 BTW, the 70-200mm f4L IS I shot with was pretty sweet. Sharp corner to corner wide open which you cannot say about the f2.8 versions for the most part. I may still go with the f2.8 non IS as I may want that extra stop but the IS on the f4 version is pretty incredible._

 

The IS is incredible. Considering i would want to use that lens primarily for street shooting ( candid stuff ), the F4 is more than enough.

 The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is incredibly sharp and fast to focus, it is and extremely good lens for the money, hope you enjoy it!


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Punnisher* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You'll enjoy the tamron, nicely built lens. I just love how big the glass is. I find it's the perfect walkaround range for me.

 Plus it comes with a nice lens hood which I'm never without.

 I got the 70-200 f/4L without IS, and I find myself taking more blurry pictures than I'd like. Though if I have great lighting, I can get away with some incredibly sharp pictures. Perhaps I'll audition the IS version in the future._

 

You might want to try LensRentals.com - Rent Canon, Nikon, or Sony Lenses and Cameras

 Very impressive company. I may try out the 70-200mm f2.8 IS version soon as I want to see if the IS on that lens will be required by my shooting. I am hoping not as I can save some money and grab a flash unit and the 85mm f1.8 with scratch I saved.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wil* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The IS is incredible. Considering i would want to use that lens primarily for street shooting ( candid stuff ), the F4 is more than enough.

 The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is incredibly sharp and fast to focus, it is and extremely good lens for the money, hope you enjoy it!_

 

I grinned when using that L. It was mighty impressive to get good shots at such slow shutter speeds. I did NOT want to send it back. My eyes teared up a bit.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vibin247* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_True, Nikon is a sturdier camera, and the D300 was my next choice if the 40D wasn't such a steal with the current instant rebates. 

 As for the filters, I always wanted to try Heliopan filters, but unfortunately their protection filters are more expensive than the UV Haze filters, so I went with the latter route. I'm not big on the multi-coated variety, just as long as it keeps fingerprints, dust, hair and other things away from the front element, and is not too pricey._

 

Yeah the price on the 40D is very good right now. I just feel the D300, although more money, is still worth it because it really is a pro camera. You get better build and pro level AF. Better programmable auto ISO, better metering, and better flash system is an ultimate combination in a fast changing environment. That's really suited for weddings and photojournalist stuff IMO. In any case, as long as you can work around the cameras capabilities and it's workable, it's no problem. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ordered a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 yesterday from BH.

 BTW, the 70-200mm f4L IS I shot with was pretty sweet. Sharp corner to corner wide open which you cannot say about the f2.8 versions for the most part._

 

Congrats. If you get a lens dud, you can always just return and keep getting it until you get a good one 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Just get the 2.8 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Punnisher* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I got the 70-200 f/4L without IS, and I find myself taking more blurry pictures than I'd like. Though if I have great lighting, I can get away with some incredibly sharp pictures. Perhaps I'll audition the IS version in the future._

 

Was it because the shutter speed was too low? It's good to practice steady holding technique regardless.

 A funny thing though Canon's IS doesn't work as well for me compared to Nikon's VR. I think the way you shake matters. I've tried each on various lens' cameras and that's my results. It's kind of annoying really because some of my shots even at 1/30 or 1/20 aren't as sharp as I'd like them compared to others' attempts.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I may try out the 70-200mm f2.8 IS version soon as I want to see if the IS on that lens will be required by my shooting. I am hoping not as I can save some money and grab a flash unit and the 85mm f1.8 with scratch I saved._

 

Another option you have is 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2, and 1.4 teleconvertor.


----------



## raptor84

I went the 85/1.8 route as opposed to getting a f/2.8 for the weight reasons 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Plus the bokeh is amazing for the lens.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Another option you have is 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2, and 1.4 teleconvertor. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yeah the 85mm is on my list as I have shot it before and loved it. (as long as you shoot with the sun at your back)

 The 135mm L is something I would also like to own. A bargain lens for what it delivers which is sharpness and a smooth creamy bokeh.

 I know BH is easy to deal with but can you say the lens is not sharp and replace it? I think they do have a no questions asked policy which is sweet.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 135mm L is something I would also like to own. A bargain lens for what it delivers which is sharpness and a smooth creamy bokeh.

 I know BH is easy to deal with but can you say the lens is not sharp and replace it? I think they do have a no questions asked policy which is sweet._

 

I'm really liking the 135mm range and above with F2. I'm feeling the 85 and 100 aren't enough to wipe out distracting backgrounds. 

 I think B&H is fine with that stuff. Just don't get too crazy with it.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm really liking the 135mm range and above with F2. I'm feeling the 85 and 100 aren't enough to wipe out distracting backgrounds. 

 I think B&H is fine with that stuff. Just don't get too crazy with it._

 

What do you use for custom WB in the field? I have a gray card but was thinking of grabbing and Expodisc.


----------



## lan

Well if I'm shooting RAW, the white balance doesn't really matter. If I'm in the same location and lighting and want to post process faster, I could just set the white balance to anything fixed and batch adjust later. Of course if you are in a changing environment, I just use auto and fix as needed in post.


----------



## wquiles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Was it because the shutter speed was too low? It's good to practice steady holding technique regardless._

 

Practice does help - always, but I tested the 70-210F2.8 IS on my Rebel XT and took hand-held pictures at various ranges/subjects, with and without the IS enabled, and under magnification, more than 1/2 of the time the IS pictures were sharper, more in focus, and never softer than with IS turned off. After that test, I "really" became a believer in the IS version of the lens - I just need to keep saving money to buy my own 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Will


----------



## lan

Yeah IS works but unfortunately for me, not enough at the estimated 3 or 4 stops.


----------



## RedLeader

Sweet, my semi-busted $40 55-200 showed up today! I'll have to take some pics soon.


----------



## vibin247

Well, all the gear I bought from B&H and J&R Music came last night, and everything works fine. The 70-200mm f/2.8L is one heavy lens, so having the vertical grip for the 40D was nice to help balance it. I do agree that steady hands are required, but this comes with practice. I think I'll need more batteries, but the ones I have for now are just fine. The 24mm f/1.4L is real nice at f/2, and almost dreamlike at full open aperture. I'll post some pictures later...


----------



## lan

You need more batteries? The 40D should be power efficient camera. Or do you need 3 sets of 2 (totally 6) for the grip?

 Yeah the 70-200 2.8 is pretty sizeable. You get used to it though. I prefer using it non gripped though so it can face downwards.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vibin247* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, all the gear I bought from B&H and J&R Music came last night, and everything works fine. The 70-200mm f/2.8L is one heavy lens, so having the vertical grip for the 40D was nice to help balance it. I do agree that steady hands are required, but this comes with practice. I think I'll need more batteries, but the ones I have for now are just fine. The 24mm f/1.4L is real nice at f/2, and almost dreamlike at full open aperture. I'll post some pictures later..._

 

Why did you go for the non-IS version of that lens??


----------



## wquiles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vibin247* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 70-200mm f/2.8L is one heavy lens, so having the vertical grip for the 40D was nice to help balance it. I do agree that steady hands are required, but this comes with practice._

 

Yes, a heavy lens indeed. With my Rebel XT, the body was definitely on the light/small size for this lens - even now with my 24-105F4 L lens, the body is still "small" for that much weight in front!. A 40D would definitely offer better balance/grip, and in fact if/when I do upgrade from the Rebel XT, I will likely go to the 40D


----------



## lan

Decided to try out a light weight combo today, the 5D + 70-200 f/4 IS with Kenko 1.5x teleconvertor. Although I think the image quality is great, I'm still looking forward to trying it vs. the D300 + 100-300 f4 in continuous focus. I'm not convinced in the 5D's autofocus ability. If I need extra reach, the D300 will give me more megapixels on my subject.

 Here's some sample pics from today.


----------



## raptor84

An old 35-80 kit dismantled just for the heck of it since it was fungus infested..... I now use of one the elements(a clean one) as a loupe/closeup filter for my camera phone


----------



## darkninja67

Ian I did not know you owned the 70-200mm f4L IS lens. I must say that it exceeded what I expected from it in terms of IS, image quality, AF speed and it's handling while mounted.

 Here is a shot I took (no pp just resized):


----------



## vibin247

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why did you go for the non-IS version of that lens??_

 

It's cheaper 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was torn for a while between the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS USM and the 70-200 f/4L IS USM, but I decided I needed the extra stop and would learn how to use a zoom telephoto efficiently. And plus, when I was doing a wedding, f/4 just wouldn't do it for me on those low light shots. Perhaps in the future I'll upgrade to the f/2.8L IS USM, but for now, I'm satisfied with the non-IS version.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ian I did not know you owned the 70-200mm f4L IS lens. I must say that it exceeded what I expected from it in terms of IS, image quality, AF speed and it's handling while mounted._

 

I own both the f4 IS and 2.8 versions.

 The 2.8 version autofocuses faster but for all intents and purposes for most people, you don't need AF that fast. You get more accurate AF though with a 2.8 lens. 

 I'm not a big fan of any f4 lens' background blur on APS-C cameras.

 For those reasons and more, I prefer to have both.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vibin247* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's cheaper 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was torn for a while between the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS USM and the 70-200 f/4L IS USM, but I decided I needed the extra stop and would learn how to use a zoom telephoto efficiently. And plus, when I was doing a wedding, f/4 just wouldn't do it for me on those low light shots. Perhaps in the future I'll upgrade to the f/2.8L IS USM, but for now, I'm satisfied with the non-IS version._

 

Remember, though, that f/2.8 really isn't insanely fast for a lens - true, you'll be able grab many shots you'd otherwise miss with any f/4 version, but in many dimly lit scenarios you'll probably need to use flash even with ISO 1600 or above. (this has just been my experience, anyway).


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Remember, though, that f/2.8 really isn't insanely fast for a lens - true, you'll be able grab many shots you'd otherwise miss with any f/4 version, but in many dimly lit scenarios you'll probably need to use flash even with ISO 1600 or above. (this has just been my experience, anyway)._

 

Yeah that is true. Also the reason why I will grab the Canon 85mm f1.8 for indoor use. Just a sweet lens for $340 or so.


----------



## vibin247

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Remember, though, that f/2.8 really isn't insanely fast for a lens - true, you'll be able grab many shots you'd otherwise miss with any f/4 version, but in many dimly lit scenarios you'll probably need to use flash even with ISO 1600 or above. (this has just been my experience, anyway)._

 

True, I just wanted a zoom telephoto that had quality glass, a fast maximum aperture for shooting in just ambient, and wasn't too expensive. If Image Stabilization becomes a need, then I'll consider switching.

 Ian, you can't have too many batteries! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Well, there is the battery pack that comes with the BG-E2N vertical grip that takes 6 AAs, so I do have an emergency spare. It should be enough, but one more couldn't hurt so I can have 3 sets for the vertical grip.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah that is true. Also the reason why I will grab the Canon 85mm f1.8 for indoor use. Just a sweet lens for $340 or so._

 

Yeah, the 85 is a great lens; both for Canon and Nikon.


----------



## lan

The 85s are great but I am really attracted to 135 range + f2. It just knocks out the background more. I might have a go with this lens. I think I'll be saying goodbye to the 24-105.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 85s are great but I am really attracted to 135 range + f2. It just knocks out the background more. I might have a go with this lens. I think I'll be saying goodbye to the 24-105._

 

Yeah that 135 f2L is sweet. I shot with it once and it was special. One Third of the Holy Trinity. And fairly affordable.

 Ian, what do you think about me going for the 70-200mm f2.8L (non IS) then grab a good flash unit rather than just getting the IS version of that lens?? It would enable me to get that range sooner plus if I am shooting indoors I figure I will have some fast primes down the line.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah that 135 f2L is sweet. I shot with it once and it was special. One Third of the Holy Trinity. And fairly affordable.

 Ian, what do you think about me going for the 70-200mm f2.8L (non IS) then grab a good flash unit rather than just getting the IS version of that lens?? It would enable me to get that range sooner plus if I am shooting indoors I figure I will have some fast primes down the line._

 

I just went on bhphoto.com and looked at the 70-200 F/2.8L, and the IS version.

 The IS version is _just_ 384$us more. If you are going to ploop down 1200$, you might as well ploop a few more down to get the better. If you didn't, you would probably keep kicking yourself saying "Oh, if only I spent the 400$ more to get the better one". That's what I would do if I was going to use that focal range a lot.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just went on bhphoto.com and looked at the 70-200 F/2.8L, and the IS version.

 The IS version is just 384$us more. If you are going to ploop down 1200$, you might as well ploop a few more down to get the better. If you didn't, you would probably keep kicking yourself saying "Oh, if only I spent the 400$ more to get the better one". That's what I would do if I was going to use that focal range a lot._

 

Yeah I know they are pretty close in price. The pics I saw on POTN leaned me towards the non IS version since they looked so good. I guess IQ would be negligible between the two although Photozone had the non IS version as slightly sharper wide open at 200mm IIRC.

 I might rent the IS version and see how I like it. I know it is more versatile overall.

 oh yeah... what is "ploop"?? lol

 Come to Boston to go shooting T hopping style.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_oh yeah... what is "ploop"?? lol

 Come to Boston to go shooting T hopping style._

 

Sorry, plop was meant, not ploop.

 Yea, I bet there are a lot of different photos to be taken in the city compared to the rural places I live. Though, I would feel a little on edge holding a 70-200mm in downtown Boston.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 85s are great but I am really attracted to 135 range + f2. It just knocks out the background more. I might have a go with this lens. I think I'll be saying goodbye to the 24-105._

 

The 135's are great performance wise but I personally find them a bit too long for portraiture and general photography on crop DSLR bodies. The 85's are by no means standard, of course, (in terms of perspective) but I find street photography much more enjoyable with the shorter portrait lenses - where I can remain within, say, 15 feet of a subject and keep most of it in-frame. To each his own, of course.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yea, I bet there are a lot of different photos to be taken in the city compared to the rural places I live. Though, I would feel a little on edge holding a 70-200mm in downtown Boston._

 

Heh, I just left my borrowed 70-200 f/4 L at home when I was heading out to Sentosa (beach resort) today because of weight and conspicuousness issues. I'd rather take the 28-105 USM for walkaround use.


----------



## Wil

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Heh, I just left my borrowed 70-200 f/4 L at home when I was heading out to Sentosa (beach resort) today because of weight and conspicuousness issues. I'd rather take the 28-105 USM for walkaround use._

 

Welcome to Singapore!


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sorry, plop was meant, not ploop.

 Yea, I bet there are a lot of different photos to be taken in the city compared to the rural places I live. Though, I would feel a little on edge holding a 70-200mm in downtown Boston._

 

yeah it should be interesting when I start to shoot architecture and people around Harvard Square and the Common.

 Ok I put my kit lens on Craigslist for $330 so that should get me most of the difference between the two types of 70-200mm f2.8 lenses. 

 I figure I can get my girl a cheap lens if she ever gets a dSLR.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ian, what do you think about me going for the 70-200mm f2.8L (non IS) then grab a good flash unit rather than just getting the IS version of that lens?? It would enable me to get that range sooner plus if I am shooting indoors I figure I will have some fast primes down the line._

 

Flash is better if you know how to use it properly either as fill, bounce, or with light modifier. If you're using flash to light the entire room, IS is irrelevent. But a flash is something else to carry. I think you need to try and use all that stuff at once to see if you can deal with the weight.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The IS version is just 384$us more. If you are going to ploop down 1200$, you might as well ploop a few more down to get the better._

 

Yeah it's sort of close pricewise but I liked the simpler construction of the non-IS version. There is the possibility it's better because of that and that's why I chose it. There's a possibility I wouldn't need 2.8 IS in those cases either I need f2 or faster or f/5.6 or slower. It didn't make sense for my usage.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 135's are great performance wise but I personally find them a bit too long for portraiture and general photography on crop DSLR bodies. The 85's are by no means standard, of course, (in terms of perspective) but I find street photography much more enjoyable with the shorter portrait lenses_

 

Yeah on 1.6x crop it's definitely too long. It's much easier to walk forward than to walk backwards. I used the 85 1.2 for a little bit last year but for me it was too slow autofocusing.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...
 Yeah on 1.6x crop it's definitely too long. It's much easier to walk forward than to walk backwards. I used the 85 1.2 for a little bit last year but for me it was too slow autofocusing._

 

I'm pretty sure that's why a lot of people pick up the 85 1.8 instead.

 Been trying to get one here in town. The best photo store carries it for around $360. Wolf camera want's $459. Forget that.


----------



## lan

You can get wolf to pricematch the other local stores' better price. It about evens out if you mail order from B&H or somewhere as opposed to paying local tax though.

 I love my local Wolf store. They are the most friendly people and it's far less hectic and attitude than B&H, Adorama, or J&R.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm pretty sure that's why a lot of people pick up the 85 1.8 instead.

 Been trying to get one here in town. The best photo store carries it for around $360. Wolf camera want's $459. Forget that._

 

Why not hit up beach camera? $339 there shipped. I got my LCD tv from them with no issues.


----------



## archosman

The main Wolf Camera here (at least the one that has the most lenses) has a bunch of jackasses there. I've seen them steer people wrong on more than one occasion.

 Thought about seeing if they would price-match, but the other store doesn't have one in stock... although if you look at their webpage it looks like they do.

 I know I can get it cheaper online, but in some aspects I think it's important to support you local store. At some point I'll need to get something immediately and it's nice to know it's there. On the other hand if I never go by and get anything...

 They still have a ton of film items at Dury's and it always seems to be busy when I'm there. Wish they would hurry up and get another 85 'cause I was there with money when I went looking last Wednesday.


----------



## Roy2001

My lenses in order of tastes (1st is my favorate and the last one is least favorate):

 135L->35L->85/1.8->24-70L->50/1.8->18-55

 In order of frequency of usage:

 35L->24-70L->18-55->85/1.8->50/1.8


----------



## Wmcmanus

I'm just getting back into it, post CanJam, and now have the following setup:

 40D body
 24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM
 50L f/1.2L USM
 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

 My first priority now is to get the ultra wide angle range covered. I'm planning to spend more and more time in the Western states as well as Alaska in years to come and really enjoy landscape photography. Having wide angle capabilities for low light indoor events is also a big draw. Here are the two I'm considering:

 14mm f/2.8L II USM
 16-35mm f2.8L II USM

 The 14mm lens seems to be more highly regarded in terms of sharpness, and it gives an even wider FOV, but of course it also costs $700 more:

Canon | EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Autofocus Lens | 2045B002 | B&H

Canon | EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Autofocus Lens | 1910B002 | B&H

 The only drawback to the 14mm lens is that you can't put any filters on the blasted thing! Thus, I'd probably mess it up in no time. That has me quite concerned, so I'm kind of leaning toward the 16-35 zoom. Besides, I like to play with zoom lenses. Somehow that makes me feel like I know what I'm doing, whereas in reality the zoom feature very rarely makes any difference at all. You can always crop later.

 My second priority will be to (one day, but maybe not soon) pick up a 1D body, either a 1D Mark III (for about $4k) or a 1Ds Mark III (for about $8k). Here, the price difference becomes much more relevant, and although I've read quite a bit about each body, I'm not sure I understand it all. 

 What I do understand is that the 10 fps burst rate on the 1D Mark III is a blast to play around with. One of the guys whom I was hanging out with a a track event last week let me shoot for a while with his 1D Mark III using the same telephoto lens I use (70-200 f/2.8L). As luck would have it, he put his Atom in a spin and I caught it all with just one burst. 

 Obviously, there are a lot of advantages to the 1Ds Mark III but I don't see the 21.1 megapixel thing as any big deal. I suppose that would matter a lot more for professionals who want to blow up their shots. I'm just wanting to grow into the hobby a little more and don't really have highly particularized needs (i.e., I don't see a whole lot of sense in buying a 1D or other FF body at THIS precise point in time, but know that I will one day... just because).

 If the 1D Mark III was FF instead of a 1.3 crop, that would probably seal it for me. But even a 1.3 is a nice move in the right direction. Or maybe in another year or two a used 1Ds Mark III will cost considerably less than it does today. 

 My third priority would be (depending on if I go FF or 1.3) to get a couple more prime lenses to augment or possibly replace my 50mm f/1.2L. Here, I'm thinking of the 35mm f/1.4L USM, 85mm f/1.2L II USM and/or the 135mm f/2.0L USM. This is a distant priority and something I won't know until I've grown into hobby considerably more than I have at this time and can break down some situational needs (indoors, low light, portrait, sporting events, etc).

 For now, I'm just trying to figure out what zoom lens to go with before I end up someplace like the Grand Canyon without one, and then start getting grumpy about the lost opportunity. 

 I'll keep the 40D in any event, as a 2nd body. It would be especially useful for long throw telephoto shots (Grand Canyon again). Using a 1.6 crop and a 1.4 or 2.0 extender gets you pretty far with the long end of a 70-200mm lens. It might not give you the same results as a 1D body and a 600mm or 800mm lens, but it would cost a lot less money and produce pretty decent results for just clowning around. That, and carrying those massive lenses around must be a real pain.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I know I can get it cheaper online, but in some aspects I think it's important to support you local store._

 

Yeah I agree with this. Luckily for me B&H, Adorama, and J&R are all local but they are such large places, I doubt they'd be doing "bad". Wolf is also not a small shop though. Well maybe their stores are but they have many of them.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Roy2001* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My lenses in order of tastes (1st is my favorate and the last one is least favorate):

 135L->35L->85/1.8->24-70L->50/1.8->18-55

 In order of frequency of usage:

 35L->24-70L->18-55->85/1.8->50/1.8_

 

What happened to the 135L in frequency of usage? Yeah I like the 35L also. It's better to be wider and crop or move closer.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My first priority now is to get the ultra wide angle range covered. I'm planning to spend more and more time in the Western states as well as Alaska in years to come and really enjoy landscape photography. Having wide angle capabilities for low light indoor events is also a big draw.

 I'll keep the 40D in any event, as a 2nd body._

 

I would get Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on this crop body of yours. Since you're going to keep the crop body, it's ok to get the Tokina. The 16-35 won't be ultra wide until you get to use full frame.

 As for the other priorities, I won't really comment on those as that's an all in the future kind of thing and depends which direction you're going.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah I agree with this. Luckily for me B&H, Adorama, and J&R are all local but they are such large places..._

 

Lucky you are, you person...


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Lucky you are, you person... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It's cool to have the selection but the vibe isn't the most positive in these places. That's why I prefer my local Ritz.

 ----------

 I'm in love with the 135mm f/2. The subject isolation is great. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Here's me playing with it in the store.


----------



## jfindon

I just got my first DSLR 1.5 weeks ago. Before this I was only P&S, but now I dove right into fully manual and I'm still learning my way around. I'm already in love with the control though. That and I rarely need my flash anymore, one charge gets me ~700 pictures.






 Canon XSi


----------



## kjpmkjp

Canon EF 50mm prime f/1.8. Yay or nay? I just have the basics (18-55 and 75-300). If nay, can you suggest something better in the price range?


----------



## rapier84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kjpmkjp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Canon EF 50mm prime f/1.8. Yay or nay? I just have the basics (18-55 and 75-300). If nay, can you suggest something better in the price range?_

 

Yay, can't be beat for the price really, superb subject isolation and sharpness by F2.8, great for portraits and low light


----------



## Towert7

I was wondering something about the Canons.

 The XTi has a built in dust cleaning feature on the sensor. I was wondering if anyone who has had one for more than a year, and who changes lenses frequently, has had an issue with dust on the sensor.


----------



## kjpmkjp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rapier84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yay, can't be beat for the price really, superb subject isolation and sharpness by F2.8, *great for portraits and low light*_

 

Perfect, that's exactly what I wanted it for. I guess I have one more thing to add to my shopping list.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rapier84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yay, can't be beat for the price really, superb subject isolation and sharpness by F2.8, great for portraits and low light_

 

Yep. It's really quite awesome for portraits, especially outdoors with the aperture stopped down. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kjpmkjp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Perfect, that's exactly what I wanted it for. I guess I have one more thing to add to my shopping list._

 

And it's inexpensive, too!

 Here are some samples of photos with the Nifty Fifty that I took on Monday (well, Monday in this part of the world).


----------



## raptor84

Colours do seem a little subdued but yea for the price its hard to beat. Build quality is kinda off as it does tend to break easily. I've had 2 friends who had thier 50/1.8's break into 2 and 3 pieces..

 Still it can double up as an awesome +20 filter


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jfindon* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just got my first DSLR 1.5 weeks ago.

 Canon XSi_

 

Nice congrats.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kjpmkjp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Canon EF 50mm prime f/1.8. Yay or nay? I just have the basics (18-55 and 75-300). If nay, can you suggest something better in the price range?_

 

There really isn't anything else in the price range.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was wondering something about the Canons.

 The XTi has a built in dust cleaning feature on the sensor. I was wondering if anyone who has had one for more than a year, and who changes lenses frequently, has had an issue with dust on the sensor._

 

I have never cleaned the sensor since I've gotten it and there doesn't seem to be a dust problem. It's not the most effective dust cleaner (from reviews) but it seems to be doing something.


----------



## darkninja67

Got my tripod and ball head coming soon. Went with a Feisol CT-3442 4 section carbon fiber and a Manfrotto 488RC4. I hear the plate is kind of big with this one but I had a head with the RC2 and was not too impressed with it. 

 Next up is probably my 70-200mm lens. Still no idea which to get.


----------



## vibin247

Well, here's a couple I shot today with the 70-200 f/2.8L USM. It was getting dark so I had to bump up the ISO on my 40D. I believe both are at full open aperture, and I did some level adjustments in CS3. I'll post some images from my 24mm f/1.4L later.


----------



## laxx

NICE! I want one of the 2.8 70-200's.


----------



## lan

Anybody try the Sigma or Tamron 70-200 2.8? They are a bit cheaper. Most importantly they're black colored.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anybody try the Sigma or Tamron 70-200 2.8? They are a bit cheaper. Most importantly they're black colored. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I know DP Review tested the Tammy and it was not too good. I forget the issues. The Sigma was pretty well regarded as it had the HSM motor in it. I think the best Sigma out right now is the 100-300mm f4. It rates highly but I know you want speed. 

 They make a 120-300mm f2.8 that is very nice. Too bad it goes for around $2300 +.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anybody try the Sigma or Tamron 70-200 2.8? They are a bit cheaper. Most importantly they're black colored. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

According to reviews, the Sigma's price tag shows when it comes to optical performance, although it's build quality is good. Reviewers noted, in the case of the Tamron, that edge-to-edge sharpness was generally good except around 135, where resolution is extremely low. 

 I'd say based on preliminary opinions to steer clear of Sigma's 70-200, but Tamron's offering maybe worth a deeper look into if you can live with the middle-of-the-range resolution drop.


----------



## terrymx

.


----------



## roastpuff

Just picked up a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

 WOW. WOW. WOOOOOOOW.


----------



## archosman

Just picked up a 40D and the battery pack to go with it. Upgrade from a Rebel XT!


----------



## wquiles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just picked up a 40D and the battery pack to go with it. Upgrade from a Rebel XT!_

 

Congrats! I also have a Rebel XT today. Please let us know more as you use it - that is the same exact upgrade I am considering sometime later this year, and I would love to hear your likes/dislikes comparing the 40D and Rebel XT


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just picked up a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

 WOW. WOW. WOOOOOOOW._

 

Welcome to the club. Be sure to post some photos with it. What did you have before?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just picked up a 40D and the battery pack to go with it. Upgrade from a Rebel XT!_

 

Battery pack meaning grip or just extra batteries?


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Welcome to the club. Be sure to post some photos with it. What did you have before?_

 

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM and 18-55 IS kit. 

 WOOOOOOOW. Sharp. Bright. BOKEH!

 Busy drooling at pictures. will post more later.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just picked up a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

 WOW. WOW. WOOOOOOOW._

 

Love mine. I am thinking I may not own any Canon glass. I am not afraid of 3rd party lenses. You just have to know which one to go with for which range.

 Thinking of grabbing the Siggy 100-300mm f4 soon. Supposed to be one of their best pieces. Thinking the Canon Ls will be a little too attractive walking the streets.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just picked up a 40D and the battery pack to go with it. Upgrade from a Rebel XT!_

 

Congrats on the 40D. Definitely hit up POTN as that forum is incredible for Canon users.


----------



## archosman

Whoops... I meant grip.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_WOOOOOOOW. Sharp._

 

If you happen to take a picture that exemplifies the sharpness of the Tarmon 17-50 F/2.8 some day, I would be interested to see it.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thinking of grabbing the Siggy 100-300mm f4 soon. Supposed to be one of their best pieces. Thinking the Canon Ls will be a little too attractive walking the streets._

 

100-300 as a walkaround is a bit long. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 You can get something accross the street well but if they start to get closer and you want to interact with them, it'll be tough to get more than a headshot.


----------



## analogbox

I second the idea of sample pictures from tamron 17-50.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_100-300 as a walkaround is a bit long. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You can get something accross the street well but if they start to get closer and you want to interact with them, it'll be tough to get more than a headshot._

 

My Tammy 17-50mm will be on the camera most of the time. I will use the larger lens for candid street shots. Those big white Canons tend to draw too much attention. I may still grab the 70-200mm f2.8L for football and baseball games.


 Members asking for shots from the Tammy should check out the lens archive at POTN.

 Here i made it easy for you:
-=Lens Sample Images Archive=- (work in progress) - Canon Digital Photography Forums


----------



## Punnisher

Here are two sample pics from my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 using an XTi


----------



## darkninja67

This is one I took at the old Boston zoo:





 Shot at f2.8

 Near this area is the pit where the one dude's daughter was found dead in the movie Mystic River.


----------



## Towert7

Sadly, when talking about sharpness, you almost have to see the pictures at 100% magnification.
 (For me at least)


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sadly, when talking about sharpness, you almost have to see the pictures at 100% magnification.
 (For me at least)_

 

wide open, no pp, just cropped.






 oh yeah, Towert7. I would not be looking at this lens in a Nikon mount. Seems they have issues with the AF motor being in the lens body.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 oh yeah, Towert7. I would not be looking at this lens in a Nikon mount. Seems they have issues with the AF motor being in the lens body._

 

Thanks for the heads up darknija.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the heads up darknija._

 

no problem.


 In one of my other forums the Nikon users were saying the new Tammy 17-50mm was not a very good lens. Taken from one thread: "I've spoken with a few people who have used both versions - the new one not only focuses slowly but is ratchety and back-focuses 4/5 times on wide and front focuses 4/5 times on tele."

 You shooting the fireworks on Friday in Boston? Supposed to rain but I may head out if it is decent. Thinking of camping on the bridge by Charles/MGN Red line stop.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 You shooting the fireworks on Friday in Boston? Supposed to rain but I may head out if it is decent. Thinking of camping on the bridge by Charles/MGN Red line stop._

 

Oh, I don't live in Boston. I'm in Western Mass.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sadly, when talking about sharpness, you almost have to see the pictures at 100% magnification.
 (For me at least)_

 





IMG_1652 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!




IMG_1682 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!




IMG_1704 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 Sample shots from my Tamron. I didn't do any thing to the picture... absolutely straight from the camera. 

 I've included links to my Flickr so that you can download the full-resolution (12Mp!) pictures to have a better look-see look-see.


----------



## analogbox

I see a great amount of contrast in those pictures. Maybe the contrast was given in the camera image setting?


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *analogbox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I see a great amount of contrast in those pictures. Maybe the contrast was given in the camera image setting?_

 

Nah, the 450D is just THAT good. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 A good lens will also give spectacular contrast... 

 I don't think so - "standard" picture setting, no special settings as far as I know. In general I keep "highlight tone priority" off, and "auto lighting optimizer" off as well. I'll check when I go home.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Subjectively, the first wide angle shot seems a bit sharper than the following two. Assuming you took these at f/2.8 however, I'd say that your copy is indeed as sharp as others claim it to be.


----------



## analogbox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nah, the 450D is just THAT good. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 A good lens will also give spectacular contrast... 

 I don't think so - "standard" picture setting, no special settings as far as I know. In general I keep "highlight tone priority" off, and "auto lighting optimizer" off as well. I'll check when I go home._

 

If it is indeed on 0 settings then this lens is extremely sharp with great contrast. Colors seem a bit saturated and some CA is apparent on the first picture but for this price this lens(with 450D) is doing a good job.


----------



## milkpowder

Congrats roastpuff. How is the build quality?


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *analogbox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If it is indeed on 0 settings then this lens is extremely sharp with great contrast. Colors seem a bit saturated and some CA is apparent on the first picture but for this price this lens(with 450D) is doing a good job._

 

It's quite sharp but sometimes the AF fails to nail the picture. Either that or the unpredictability of the Canon 9-point AF system tends to make the camera focus on the wrong thing... 

 I love the saturated colors. Makes the picture quite a bit punchier. Where's the CA you mentioned? I've been trying to look for it but I can't quite find it. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Congrats roastpuff. How is the build quality?_

 

Thanks. The build quality is quite good... it's a solid lens. Not a metal body, but the plastics are of high quality and the finish and the rubber is very nice. Front cap is very nice. I wish Canon would use that middle-pinch type for theirs. The rear cap sucks though. It's very cheap plastic and I prefer to just adapt the rear cap from my other Canon lenses.


----------



## Wil

Had the chance to go out with the 1D MKIII with 70-200 2.8L yest..its a beast to lug ard and its abit obvious when u're shooting candid shots, but the bokeh is unlike anything ive seen thus far.

 Here are the results.


----------



## analogbox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Where's the CA you mentioned? I've been trying to look for it but I can't quite find it._

 

From the first picture, I see some CA on the Macbook pro power cable and the edges of the lens box. It's not too obvious in the resized image but when it's viewed on 100% resolution, it's quite easy to see. I personally don't think it's a big deal because pretty much all images get resized and at that point minimal to moderate CA is almost irrelevant to IQ.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My Tammy 17-50mm will be on the camera most of the time. I will use the larger lens for candid street shots. Those big white Canons tend to draw too much attention. I may still grab the 70-200mm f2.8L for football and baseball games._

 

100-300 is still pretty big though. Not being light colored has it's advantages. Is 200mm enough for football or baseball?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's quite sharp but sometimes the AF fails to nail the picture. Either that or the unpredictability of the Canon 9-point AF system tends to make the camera focus on the wrong thing..._

 

I dislike it when AF fails or hunts like mad. It's quite annoying. It's one of the things I don't like about the 5D. I was having problems tonight especially with the 135/2.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wil* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Had the chance to go out with the 1D MKIII with 70-200 2.8L yest..its a beast to lug ard and its abit obvious when u're shooting candid shots, but the bokeh is unlike anything ive seen thus far._

 

What time of evening was this? It seemed pretty dark as you must've bumped the ISO up quite a bit.

 Try a full frame and 85 1.2 or 200 2.0 and the bokeh would be insane(r).


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I dislike it when AF fails or hunts like mad. It's quite annoying. It's one of the things I don't like about the 5D. I was having problems tonight especially with the 135/2._

 

The Tamron is doing pretty good, actually, because my 18-55 and 28-105 used to have the same issue of sometimes not nailing the focus for a scene. I'd say it's about on par with the Canon lenses. The zippy focusing sound is certainly exciting though!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *analogbox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_From the first picture, I see some CA on the Macbook pro power cable and the edges of the lens box. It's not too obvious in the resized image but when it's viewed on 100% resolution, it's quite easy to see. I personally don't think it's a big deal because pretty much all images get resized and at that point minimal to moderate CA is almost irrelevant to IQ._

 

See it now, thanks. Yeah, that's a bit obvious @ 100%, eh? 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wil* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Had the chance to go out with the 1D MKIII with 70-200 2.8L yest..its a beast to lug ard and its abit obvious when u're shooting candid shots, but the bokeh is unlike anything ive seen thus far.

 Here are the results._

 

Wil, glad to see another Singaporean shooter. I'm only here temporarily, but it's been giving me great opportunities to shoot candids out on the street. 

 Are you on CS?


----------



## laxx

Man, getting ready to drop the cash fora 70-200 f2.8L IS USM. Just working out the details so my friend can order it to NJ. =T


----------



## lan

Go laxx, go laxx, go!

 You're going to like this lens. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 BTW order me a 200 2.0 IS to NJ. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 -------------

 I used the 5D and 35/1.4 and 135/2 last night. I'm not used to the lack of AF performance lol. It was like a fussy child that wouldn't calm down. I like the colors and tonality of the 5D as that's what I believe makes it special. I hope that stays in either the next 5D or exists in the Nikon small full frame.


----------



## Wil

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Wil, glad to see another Singaporean shooter. I'm only here temporarily, but it's been giving me great opportunities to shoot candids out on the street. 

 Are you on CS?_

 

Hi roastpuff, yes i am..My handle is _merelyok_ over @ CS. Hope you're enjoying yourself here!

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 What time of evening was this? It seemed pretty dark as you must've bumped the ISO up quite a bit.

 Try a full frame and 85 1.2 or 200 2.0 and the bokeh would be insane(r)._

 


 Ian, it was probably ard 655pm when i was shooting, which probably meant that the sun was going to set in about 10-15 mins time. The lighting was poor, but the 2.8f sure helped alot. I quite like the subtle reflection on the elderly man's head in the first picture though. heh. 

 Iso was set at 800 IIRC.

 Next stop (harhar), a 1.2f!


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wil* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ian, it was probably ard 655pm when i was shooting, which probably meant that the sun was going to set in about 10-15 mins time. The lighting was poor, but the 2.8f sure helped alot. I quite like the subtle reflection on the elderly man's head in the first picture though. heh. 

 Iso was set at 800 IIRC.

 Next stop (harhar), a 1.2f!_

 

800? Hmm... Seems a bit too noisy. I thought the 1DMK3 hi-ISO was a bit better. But you can't tell the whole story from a couple of pics anyhow.

 It's in interesting series. The people and their expressions and what they're doing is a bit fascinating to me.


----------



## Wil

The noise could be because of the PP.

 I tried some CS plug ins that supposedly mimics film. I quite like the colors and the grain that the effect produces actually. heh. 

 The original shots were no where as saturated or contrasty as the edited pictures.


----------



## darkninja67

Anyone here own or shoot with The Brick??

 Thinking of getting it over the Tammy 28-75mm and the Sigma 24-70mm. The L is just so expensive.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone here own or shoot with The Brick??

 Thinking of getting it over the Tammy 28-75mm and the Sigma 24-70mm. The L is just so expensive._

 

What's the brick?


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What's the brick?_

 

nickname for the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L.


----------



## Wil

I almost got the brick.

 It was either that or the 70-200 2.8L. Got the 70-200 instead. ):


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wil* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I almost got the brick.

 It was either that or the 70-200 2.8L. Got the 70-200 instead. ):_

 

Thinking of just grabbing the Tamron 28-75mm as I had it before and it was stellar. Then grab a tele zoom.


----------



## Wil

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thinking of just grabbing the Tamron 28-75mm as I had it before and it was stellar. Then grab a tele zoom._

 

Indeed. I have the same thoughts.

 The canon L is just too expensive!

 What tele zoom do u have in mind?


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wil* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Indeed. I have the same thoughts.

 The canon L is just too expensive!

 What tele zoom do u have in mind?_

 

Thinking seriously about the Sigma 100-300mm f4. I believe it is their 2nd best lens behind the 120-300mm f2.8. I would not be using it in low light but mainly for daytime sports and zoo stuff.

 The Canon 70-200mm f2.8L non IS is also on my list. I have a lot of time to decide as I need to pay off the camera first.

 EDIT: Seems a lot of people recommend the 24-105mm f4L IS over the Canon 24-70mm due to issues with AF and poor quality among copies.

 EDIT 2: This was from photozone.de about the Siggy: 

 "The AF 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM is the most impressive Sigma lens tested to date. It is capable to deliver a near flawless performance with great resolution figures, low vignetting, low distortions, low CAs and as a nice whipped cream on top the build quality feels just right. It also mates pretty well with the Canon EF 1.4x II converter at costs of relatively high CAs and a somewhat lower but still high resolution. All in all ... highly recommended!"

 Sounds like they enjoyed it a bit.

 9.5 rating over at FM's too. It is a pretty big lens though.


----------



## Wil

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thinking seriously about the Sigma 100-300mm f4. I believe it is their 2nd best lens behind the 120-300mm f2.8. I would not be using it in low light but mainly for daytime sports and zoo stuff.

 The Canon 70-200mm f2.8L non IS is also on my list. I have a lot of time to decide as I need to pay off the camera first.

 EDIT: Seems a lot of people recommend the 24-105mm f4L IS over the Canon 24-70mm due to issues with AF and poor quality among copies.

 EDIT 2: This was from photozone.de about the Siggy: 

 "The AF 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM is the most impressive Sigma lens tested to date. It is capable to deliver a near flawless performance with great resolution figures, low vignetting, low distortions, low CAs and as a nice whipped cream on top the build quality feels just right. It also mates pretty well with the Canon EF 1.4x II converter at costs of relatively high CAs and a somewhat lower but still high resolution. All in all ... highly recommended!"

 Sounds like they enjoyed it a bit.

 9.5 rating over at FM's too. It is a pretty big lens though._

 

Sounds impressive. I have the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L and its a beast to use. The reach is fantastic though.The sigma should be quite abit lighter. 

 I currently use the Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro lens and the picture quality is very impressive for the price. For portrait shots it is very, very good as well. 

 Although the build quality is a little suspect (the focusing ring is alittle loose for my liking), if the image quality of the 100-300mm f4 is anything like my 50mm 2.8, it should be a good buy.

 Samples (sigma):


----------



## lan

I also had the Tamron 28-75 and thought it was great. I don't see a need for the Canon 24-70 2.8 unless you wanted faster AF or weather sealing or just prefer the Canon interpretation of color. I'm not sure how the 28-75 would be on full frame though as I've never tried.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I also had the Tamron 28-75 and thought it was great. I don't see a need for the Canon 24-70 2.8 unless you wanted faster AF or weather sealing or just prefer the Canon interpretation of color. I'm not sure how the 28-75 would be on full frame though as I've never tried._

 

I am shooting cropped. I do not mind the range. Probably going to grab the Tamron and save some cash for the tele and the 85mm. Then take a look at the Tokina 11-16mm as more reviews are coming out on that one.


----------



## lan

Yeah you can get a few lenses for the price of 1 L.


----------



## laxx

I was initially going to purchase both the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the 24-70 at the same time, but I can't get over the price difference between the brick and the Tamron 28-75 I currently have. At least with the 70-200, I'm going from f4to f2.8 and gaining IS.

 I just convinced myself to wait for Fall rebate to decide on another lense purchase. $1600 for the 70-200 is enough spending for now. =[


----------



## lan

Do you really need the 24-70 over the 28-75?


----------



## laxx

The USM would be welcome. The biggest gripe I have with the 28-75 is how much it hunts in low light. I've used a friend's 24-70 and it locks focus much better. It also has better contrast. But I'm still not sure it's worth 4x the price and then there's also the added weight...


----------



## analogbox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am shooting cropped. I do not mind the range. Probably going to grab the Tamron and save some cash for the tele and the 85mm. Then take a look at the Tokina 11-16mm as more reviews are coming out on that one._

 

Have you considered Sigma 18-50 F2.8 macro too? I've seen some sample pictures and I'd say it's just as good as Tamron's.


----------



## Towert7

So Nikon released their D700. Any news on when the Next 5D is going to be released?


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *analogbox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have you considered Sigma 18-50 F2.8 macro too? I've seen some sample pictures and I'd say it's just as good as Tamron's._

 

Already have the Tammy 17-50mm and it is awesome. I had been looking at the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 but the flaring concerns me.

 My line up will probably look like this:

 Tokina 11-16mm f2.8
 Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
 Tamron 28-75mm f2.8
 Sigma 100-200mm f4

 Possibly get a Canon 70-200mm f2.8L non IS down the line and a Canon 86mm f1.8 USM as well. I could see myself with no Canon lenses at all. Call me crazy.


----------



## Wil

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Already have the Tammy 17-50mm and it is awesome. I had been looking at the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 but the flaring concerns me.

 My line up will probably look like this:

 Tokina 11-16mm f2.8
 Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
 Tamron 28-75mm f2.8
 Sigma 100-200mm f4

 Possibly get a Canon 70-200mm f2.8L non IS down the line and a Canon 86mm f1.8 USM as well. I could see myself with no Canon lenses at all. Call me crazy._

 

Not crazy at all. To me, the optical quality of 3rd party lenses is nothing to be scoffed at. E.g. The Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. now that is a quality piece of kit!


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wil* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not crazy at all. To me, the optical quality of 3rd party lenses is nothing to be scoffed at. E.g. The Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. now that is a quality piece of kit!_

 

Yeah I am definitely not afraid of 3rd party glass. You do give up some of the refinement though. AF speed, build quality, FTM focusing, color accuracy, etc but for the price some 3rd party stuff is fantastic.


----------



## analogbox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah I am definitely not afraid of 3rd party glass. You do give up some of the refinement though. AF speed, build quality, FTM focusing, color accuracy, etc but for the price some 3rd party stuff is fantastic._

 

I've never had any 3rd party lenses before so I'm kind of spoiled in terms of sharpness, color and contrast of L lenses. However, I've been meaning to get a wide angle lens and looks like it will be either sigma or tamron. I'd give a slight edge to tamron since everybody seem happy with their tamrons.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *analogbox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've never had any 3rd party lenses before so I'm kind of spoiled in terms of sharpness, color and contrast of L lenses. However, I've been meaning to get a wide angle lens and looks like it will be either sigma or tamron. I'd give a slight edge to tamron since everybody seem happy with their tamrons. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

17-50mm is not too wide on a 1.6x camera. Definitely take a good look at the Tokina 11-16mm. One dude at POTN that reviews a lot of glass personally owns and loves that lens. 

 Someone asked him what he though of it and he said: "One word: lovely"

 Also are you going to shoot the fireworks over the Charles? I may go if I am off work and it is not too hot that day.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The USM would be welcome. The biggest gripe I have with the 28-75 is how much it hunts in low light. I've used a friend's 24-70 and it locks focus much better. It also has better contrast. But I'm still not sure it's worth 4x the price and then there's also the added weight..._

 

I never had that experience with the 28-75 but I used it on the 1D where it was very sweet.

 The added weight? Consider it free exercise. No point paying for a gym when you can lug the 24-70 2.8 around.


----------



## analogbox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_17-50mm is not too wide on a 1.6x camera. Definitely take a good look at the Tokina 11-16mm. One dude at POTN that reviews a lot of glass personally owns and loves that lens. 

 Someone asked him what he though of it and he said: "One word: lovely"

 Also are you going to shoot the fireworks over the Charles? I may go if I am off work and it is not too hot that day._

 

Unfortunately, I'll be going to Maine for the holiday so I'm going to miss the firework. If I get lucky enough I might have a chance to shoot fireworks over there.

 As for the wide angle, I never thought about Tokina lenses. I guess I have one more lens to research. I think 17-50 will do just fine in my case though. I shoot a lot of indoor family photos and I just need something that's a little more wider than my 24-105L F4 so that I don't have to back up 10 feet to take group shots. Still, I'd love to see some sample photos of that Tokina lens.


----------



## wquiles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *analogbox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Unfortunately, I'll be going to Maine for the holiday so I'm going to miss the firework. If I get lucky enough I might have a chance to shoot fireworks over there.

 As for the wide angle, I never thought about Tokina lenses. I guess I have one more lens to research. I think 17-50 will do just fine in my case though. I shoot a lot of indoor family photos and I just need something that's a little more wider than my 24-105L F4 so that I don't have to back up 10 feet to take group shots. Still, I'd love to see some sample photos of that Tokina lens._

 

I also have the 24-105L F4 lens - but would also like a little bit more wide-angle. Of course part of the problem is the 1.6 factor on my Rebel XT which makes it worst. I actually would also like if it where a 2.8 instead of 4.0


----------



## vibin247

Went to Samy's this weekend and bought a few items: Stroboframe Quick Flip Flash Bracket, Canon OC-E3 Off Camera Cord, Giottos Optics Cleaning Kit. While I was there, I demoed a monopod and the 16-35 f/2.8L II USM, the latter being nice since it gives a wider perspective on the extreme end in comparison to my 24mm f/1.4. I'd rather save up for a 5D, though.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wquiles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I also have the 24-105L F4 lens - but would also like a little bit more wide-angle. Of course part of the problem is the 1.6 factor on my Rebel XT which makes it worst. I actually would also like if it where a 2.8 instead of 4.0 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Definitely give the Tamron 17-50mm a chance then. Not overly wide but a good lens.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vibin247* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Went to Samy's this weekend and bought a few items: Stroboframe Quick Flip Flash Bracket, Canon OC-E3 Off Camera Cord, Giottos Optics Cleaning Kit._

 

By some strange coincidence, I have those also. I like the stroboframe as it gives balance to the left side as the grip is nice and cushioney. I used this very rig this past Sunday. The whole rig looks big but isn't that heavy really. I added a quick release for the flash though.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Definitely give the Tamron 17-50mm a chance then. Not overly wide but a good lens._

 

Yup yup. Great lens. 

 I'm also considering a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 EX DC HSM now to be the complement to that...


----------



## Superpredator

Howdy Canon people. Most of my camera experience is with a Nikon FM. I'm currently borrowing a Canon SD1000 and a Leica D-Lux 3, hoping to get a sense for what camera to go for. Simply because I don't yet own a digital camera doesn't mean I've been living under a rock. I have a pretty good sense for what's on the market these days. 

 I'm here because I really like the Canon. The Leica has some great features, and seemingly wider macro range, but it always seems to get colors wrong, no matter what I do to compensate. I typically shoot indoors, often with the macro setting, and the Canon gets very true to life results on the cloudy light setting. However, its macro range isn't superb. It sometimes zeros in on just a tiny slice of the subject, leaving the rest out of focus (in a less than desirable way).

 I've had my eye on some of the Panasonic/Leica models, but if they get color like the D-Lux, I don't want them. What I'd like is an inexpensive Canon (but better than the SD1000) that does macro as well as can be done without being an SLR. I don't care about outdoor shots, I don't need a zoom lens at all, speed isn't a major factor. Good manual control would be nice, but I find I get quicker results just tricking the automatic processes into doing what I want. The bottom line is I just want it to take good pictures of tea and flowers on a table. Any suggestions?

 My Flickr photostream is here: Flickr: Multiple Infusions' Photostream

 There are shots from both the Canon and Leica.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Superpredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Howdy Canon people. Most of my camera experience is with a Nikon FM. I'm currently borrowing a Canon SD1000 and a Leica D-Lux 3, hoping to get a sense for what camera to go for. Simply because I don't yet own a digital camera doesn't mean I've been living under a rock. I have a pretty good sense for what's on the market these days. 

 I'm here because I really like the Canon. The Leica has some great features, and seemingly wider macro range, but it always seems to get colors wrong, no matter what I do to compensate. I typically shoot indoors, often with the macro setting, and the Canon gets very true to life results on the cloudy light setting. However, its macro range isn't superb. It sometimes zeros in on just a tiny slice of the subject, leaving the rest out of focus (in a less than desirable way).

 I've had my eye on some of the Panasonic/Leica models, but if they get color like the D-Lux, I don't want them. What I'd like is an inexpensive Canon (but better than the SD1000) that does macro as well as can be done without being an SLR. I don't care about outdoor shots, I don't need a zoom lens at all, speed isn't a major factor. Good manual control would be nice, but I find I get quicker results just tricking the automatic processes into doing what I want. The bottom line is I just want it to take good pictures of tea and flowers on a table. Any suggestions?

 My Flickr photostream is here: Flickr: Multiple Infusions' Photostream

 There are shots from both the Canon and Leica._

 

If I am looking at Canon and looking for manual features without going dSLR I am looking at the A series. Take your pick but you might want to look at DP Review and Steves Digicams for reviews. My girl has an A620 (IIRC) and it is very nice.


----------



## Towert7

If you're serious about macro shots, which I see you are, there is no substitute for a cheap D-SLR with a _good_ macro lens and tripod. It's the lens that will make the difference, since almost any D-SLR will have great color reproduction.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If I am looking at Canon and looking for manual features without going dSLR I am looking at the A series. Take your pick but you might want to look at DP Review and Steves Digicams for reviews. My girl has an A620 (IIRC) and it is very nice._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you're serious about macro shots, which I see you are, there is no substitute for a cheap D-SLR with a good macro lens and tripod. It's the lens that will make the difference, since almost any D-SLR will have great color reproduction._

 

Thanks for the suggestions... I'll check out both options.


----------



## darkninja67

Anyone here shoot with or own the Sigma 24-60mm f2.8? It is around $330 on Amazon through Cameta and it seems to get good reviews.


----------



## rx7_fan

*questions for you guys, is $400 for Canon 20D with Lense and 1GB flash card a good deal?

*


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone here shoot with or own the Sigma 24-60mm f2.8? It is around $330 on Amazon through Cameta and it seems to get good reviews._

 

I have had one in the Nikon mount for a couple of weeks. I am very happy with it so far. As far as I can tell it's every bit as good, image quality wise, as the lauded Nikon 35-70 F2.8 "pro" lens I also recently acquired. Absolutely no vignetting, minimal distortion and CA, along with no focus or decentering issues makes for a nice experience. Some people complain about "busy" bokeh from this lens, but I think it has quite nice bokeh (see samples). I'm not sure what the Canon alternatives are, but if they are as expensive as their Nikon counterparts, this Sigma will look like a steal by comparison.

 60mm f/2.8 (near minimum focus distance)






 34mm f/2.8





 60mm f/2.8


----------



## ioXt_2

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rx7_fan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*questions for you guys, is $400 for Canon 20D with Lense and 1GB flash card a good deal?

*_

 

It's a fairly good deal. What is the lens? Also, what is the shutter actuation count (number of clicks) on the 20D?


----------



## Towert7

Looks very nice Iron Dreamer.


----------



## darkninja67

Iron Dreamer, 

 the Canon alternative is the 24-70mm f2.8L and that is over $1000 new. I know that the Tamron 28-75mm did beat it in sharpness at most ranges and apertures. Yeah the L has the build, AF speed and the usual goodies but it is still pricey. 

 I think I can get the Sigma for $219 or something crazy like that. Thanks for the pics and impressions.


----------



## LFC_SL

Proud owner of a Canon G9 for 4 months now

 Perfect for my needs. Fairly portable but with manual controls so I can still play and experiment. Gives me a chance to decide if photography is a passing fad or not

 Will be looking to take pics of the whole headphone collection eventually... _synergy_


----------



## devin_mm

Well I'm a recent purchaser of an XSi, currently I'm using the 18-55 kit lens but I am looking around for other lenses. If you guys had to bring two lenses on a trip to Europe, with plans to shoot a lot of interior shots and architectural shots, what would you get? I am thinking of getting a 50mm f1.8 (or 1.4), and a wide angle lens of some sort. I am pretty new to this whole SLR thing so any help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *devin_mm* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well I'm a recent purchaser of an XSi, currently I'm using the 18-55 kit lens but I am looking around for other lenses. If you guys had to bring two lenses on a trip to Europe, with plans to shoot a lot of interior shots and architectural shots, what would you get? I am thinking of getting a 50mm f1.8 (or 1.4), and a wide angle lens of some sort. I am pretty new to this whole SLR thing so any help would be greatly appreciated._

 

I just received a Canon EF-S 10-22mm, and that lens is unbelievable (if you search these forums, and, of course, any camera forums, you'll find quite a bit of love for this lens)--I imagine it would be a wonderful lens for capturing wide views of big interiors and architectural work.

 I'm also in love with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It's short enough to allow a decent field of view, and fast enough to keep me off the flash much of time.

 I'm still quite new to photography, so I'm just recommending what I've used that I think would work well for your purposes. There are a lot of Canonphiles here with a lot more experience who I'm sure will be glad to give you even more suggestions.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *devin_mm* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well I'm a recent purchaser of an XSi, currently I'm using the 18-55 kit lens but I am looking around for other lenses. If you guys had to bring two lenses on a trip to Europe, with plans to shoot a lot of interior shots and architectural shots, what would you get? I am thinking of getting a 50mm f1.8 (or 1.4), and a wide angle lens of some sort. I am pretty new to this whole SLR thing so any help would be greatly appreciated._

 

Take a good long look at the new Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. Excellent build quality, sharp at all apertures and lengths, and fairly fast at f2.8. Someone said it was like having a prime lens at each focal length setting. I think you can grab it for $600 or so.

 Reviews at photozone.de fredmiranda.com and slrgear.com as well as a photo archive at photography-on-the-net.com which is an excellent Canon owners forum.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Take a good long look at the new Tokina 11-16mm f2.8._

 

Yes, that's all good in all, but it's a Tokina. What I want to know is, Does canon make one?
 I don't think they do, do they?


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, that's all good in all, but it's a Tokina. What I want to know is, Does canon make one?
 I don't think they do, do they?_

 

Yeah it is a Tokina. Biased against 3rd party stuff?? The Tokina 12-24 and the 11-16 rate very nicely. build quality is on par with Canon L for the most part and exceed Canon dollar for dollar.

 Canon makes the 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM which is more expensive and not as fast. The Toke is said to be sharp wide open and in the corners. 

 Lightrules (at POTN) uses one and he has tested a lot of Canon stuff as well as 3rd party glass.

 Please tell me "L" elitist do not exist here like other forums.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Please tell me "L" elitist do not exist here like other forums._

 

Considering how we have the divisions between Grado, Sennheiser, Stax and other uncountable brands... I'm afraid they do.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah it is a Tokina. Biased against 3rd party stuff?? The Tokina 12-24 and the 11-16 rate very nicely. build quality is on par with Canon L for the most part and exceed Canon dollar for dollar.

 Canon makes the 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM which is more expensive and not as fast. The Toke is said to be sharp wide open and in the corners. 

 Lightrules (at POTN) uses one and he has tested a lot of Canon stuff as well as 3rd party glass.

 Please tell me "L" elitist do not exist here like other forums._

 

The big appeal for the Canon SLR's is the Canon lenses. You know what you're getting when you get a L lens; professional build quality, professional optics, the canon name, high resale value. The list goes on and on.

 Frankly, buying a Canon and then using all 3'rd party lenses.... well.... that's like buying a ferrari and putting on skinny tires. It's just not the same.

 Now that I think of it, Canon should start up a special club just for L owners. It will be one of the many perks you get from buying into the Canon kit.

 Pitty that Canon doesn't have an L to compete, because it would wipe the floor with the competition. 
 (Canon, if you're reading this, wink wink)

 ^_^
 (read my post with a fun, almost comical sense to it)


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Considering how we have the divisions between Grado, Sennheiser, Stax and other uncountable brands... I'm afraid they do. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

And for good reason, it's an *L* !
 It's red, and that means it's good!


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's red, and that means it's good!_

 

Tell that to the US military. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Heh, I have to admit that I love L lenses as well. Currently have a EF 200mm f/2.8 L prime.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The big appeal for the Canon SLR's is the Canon lenses. You know what you're getting when you get a L lens; professional build quality, professional optics, the canon name, high resale value. The list goes on and on.

 Frankly, buying a Canon and then using all 3'rd party lenses.... well.... that's like buying a ferrari and putting on skinny tires. It's just not the same.

 Now that I think of it, Canon should start up a special club just for L owners. It will be one of the many perks you get from buying into the Canon kit.

 Pitty that Canon doesn't have an L to compete, because it would wipe the floor with the competition. 
 (Canon, if you're reading this, wink wink)

 ^_^
 (read my post with a fun, almost comical sense to it)_

 

and there would be a 50% premium on the price. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Nothing against Canon stuff but I like some 3rd party glass better and the 3rd party stuff fills in some holes Canon does not. Looking at you Sigma 100-300mm f4


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Tell that to the US military. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Heh, I have to admit that I love L lenses as well. Currently have a EF 200mm f/2.8 L prime._

 

that 200mm was called the best lens nobody knows about. 

 I always wanted one for street photography since it does not stick out like the white lenses.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_that 200mm was called the best lens nobody knows about. 

 I always wanted one for street photography since it does not stick out like the white lenses._

 

Oh, it truly is awesome. Great contrast and colour, and FAST USM focus. Tack-sharp at f/2.8, too. Main problem is size in low light - shutter wants to be around 1/30, and I'm having problems handholding it steady enough. And yes, much less conspicuous than the white lenses. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 When I upload my pictures I'll post a sample from it. 

 I'm looking forward to using it during the National Day Parade in Singapore.


----------



## laxx

Wow, having a hard time hand held 200mm @ 1/30 SS? That's basically impossibel for me. I've had a few decent pics at 200mm @ 1/60 SS, but even that it's like, a handful of keepers total for me.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, having a hard time hand held 200mm @ 1/30 SS? That's basically impossibel for me. I've had a few decent pics at 200mm @ 1/60 SS, but even that it's like, a handful of keepers total for me._

 

increase ISO or start packing some flashlights with you.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, having a hard time hand held 200mm @ 1/30 SS? That's basically impossibel for me. I've had a few decent pics at 200mm @ 1/60 SS, but even that it's like, a handful of keepers total for me._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_increase ISO or start packing some flashlights with you._

 

Or flashguns, though I can't afford one yet. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 When I shoot in lowlight, I go ISO1600 and keep it there. The 450D has great noise reduction and image quality even at ISO1600.


----------



## lan

Using a flash? Well there goes the inconspicuousness of having the smaller black lens 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Just get the 70-200 2.8 IS and paint it black or the 135 f2.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, having a hard time hand held 200mm @ 1/30 SS? That's basically impossibel for me. I've had a few decent pics at 200mm @ 1/60 SS, but even that it's like, a handful of keepers total for me._

 

Oh, practice good shooting habits, just like you would with a rifle or a handgun. 

 Stance, breathing (let out half your breath and hold it before shooting), roll the shutter, don't press it. It really helps to steady yourself down. And doing bursts of 3 helps.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Using a flash? Well there goes the inconspicuousness of having the smaller black lens 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Just get the 70-200 2.8 IS and paint it black or the 135 f2. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

You mean like this?


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_that 200mm was called the best lens nobody knows about. 

 I always wanted one for street photography since it does not stick out like the white lenses._

 

Street with a 200mm lens? No no no no. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Stick to around 75mm at the most IMO.


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh, practice good shooting habits, just like you would with a rifle or a handgun. 

 Stance, breathing (let out half your breath and hold it before shooting), roll the shutter, don't press it. It really helps to steady yourself down. And doing bursts of 3 helps._

 

I feel I have a pretty steady hand. 200mm @ 1/60 no flash no IS is pretty decent imo.


----------



## wquiles

What about a good macro lens for my Rebel XT? Many of my pics for my hobbies are of small items, and the 24-105mm F4 L is not good enough. Would something like the prime 100mm F2.8 Macro be the one to get? Any other alternatives?


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wquiles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What about a good macro lens for my Rebel XT? Many of my pics for my hobbies are of small items, and the 24-105mm F4 L is not good enough. Would something like the prime 100mm F2.8 Macro be the one to get? Any other alternatives?_

 

That would be my choice. Tamron and Sigma make some well regarded macros as well.

 EDIT: Sigma 70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO is very well reviewed. 
 and the Tamron SP AF90MM F/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 is another alternative

 The good thing about the Canon is that it has USM AF (usually do not use AF for macro work) and it does not extend during focusing.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Street with a 200mm lens? No no no no. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Stick to around 75mm at the most IMO._

 

I do not think some people would take too kindly to me being so close to them taking pics, especially where I plan on going.


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I do not think some people would take too kindly to me being so close to them taking pics, especially where I plan on going._

 

Never bothered me in East London. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Where are you going?


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Never bothered me in East London. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Where are you going?_

 

Probably be doing some late night stuff near the downtown area of Boston. Not really too rough but you never know. 


 Anyone ever use the Tokina 50-135mm??


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I do not think some people would take too kindly to me being so close to them taking pics, especially where I plan on going._

 

Have you demo'd the FOV of a 200mm lens though? I imagine you'd need to stand 40-50 feet away from your subject to get a classic 3/4 portrait at 200mm, and unless you're trying to sneak in pictures of these people, I'd suggest you go with something like a 135 f/2 or 105 f/2 instead.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have you demo'd the FOV of a 200mm lens though? I imagine you'd need to stand 40-50 feet away from your subject to get a classic 3/4 portrait at 200mm, and unless you're trying to sneak in pictures of these people, I'd suggest you go with something like a 135 f/2 or 105 f/2 instead._

 

I am going to rent the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L and the Sigma 100-300mm f4 soon just to see how they handle on the streets. The Tokina 50-135mm seems like a good mid range tool for me. May have to give that one a crack too.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am going to rent the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L and the Sigma 100-300mm f4 soon just to see how they handle on the streets. The Tokina 50-135mm seems like a good mid range tool for me. May have to give that one a crack too._

 

Yeah good idea. I haven't been to Boston in awhile so it's tough for me to visualize the block lengths there, but I think you'll find that the 100-135 range is quite comfortable for taking street portraits; beyond that the subject-camera distance is more downside than advantage.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Street with a 200mm lens? No no no no. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Stick to around 75mm at the most IMO._

 


















 Oh, it can definitely be done, sonny boy. And it produces quite stunning pictures, sometimes.


----------



## wquiles

Another Canon question: I have been considering a larger body to replace the Rebel XT that I have, and of course the 40D is a great body, but what about an used full-frame 5D instead? Looking at Ebay pricing, used 5D are hovering in the $1200 range for body only - not too bad to make the jump to a full frame?


----------



## GTRacer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_

















 Oh, it can definitely be done, sonny boy. And it produces quite stunning pictures, sometimes._

 

Street is about being in the moment as much as your subject is, feeling the tone of the scene and capturing it with your camera. A telephoto lens simply isolates you from what makes street photography so enjoyable.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wquiles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Another Canon question: I have been considering a larger body to replace the Rebel XT that I have, and of course the 40D is a great body, but what about an used full-frame 5D instead? Looking at Ebay pricing, used 5D are hovering in the $1200 range for body only - not too bad to make the jump to a full frame?_

 

Do you have full frame lenses already? If not, it'll be a larger investment to get a 5D.

 Do you think you'll need a body upgrade more than a lens upgrade with your XT right now?

 ---------------------

 re: lens for street photography, it all depends what you want. I prefer 35-50mm when I want to interact with subject and would rather than 400mm if I don't. 200mm isn't long enough here in NYC and 300mm is just ok so I use 200+ teleconvertor and I'm just ok.


----------



## raptor84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wquiles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Another Canon question: I have been considering a larger body to replace the Rebel XT that I have, and of course the 40D is a great body, but what about an used full-frame 5D instead? Looking at Ebay pricing, used 5D are hovering in the $1200 range for body only - not too bad to make the jump to a full frame?_

 

I second Ian's opinions. If your current lenses are not all EF compatible it might cost you alot more to get them replaced. Also you will need to look at what you shoot more. If you are more into action/wildlife/sports get a 40D or used 1dmk2 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you are more inclined to landscapes, portraits,architecture , street or anything that doses not need such high fps or that extra reach then the 5D is for you. 

 As for me i find the compromise of a 1.3x works best for em so its time to save up more 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Though it woudnt hurt to have a 5D AND a 1d


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Street is about being in the moment as much as your subject is, feeling the tone of the scene and capturing it with your camera. A telephoto lens simply isolates you from what makes street photography so enjoyable._

 

Something like this?


----------



## wquiles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you have full frame lenses already? If not, it'll be a larger investment to get a 5D.

 Do you think you'll need a body upgrade more than a lens upgrade with your XT right now?_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I second Ian's opinions. If your current lenses are not all EF compatible it might cost you alot more to get them replaced. Also you will need to look at what you shoot more. If you are more into action/wildlife/sports get a 40D or used 1dmk2 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If you are more inclined to landscapes, portraits,architecture , street or anything that doses not need such high fps or that extra reach then the 5D is for you. 

 As for me i find the compromise of a 1.3x works best for em so its time to save up more 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Though it woudnt hurt to have a 5D AND a 1d 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

As I am looking to buy lenses, from day one I decided to only buy lenses that work on the full frame sensor - today I only have one lens - the 24-105 F/4 L lens, which of course will work perferctly with a full frame camera. I have been examining what I need more (wide, tele, etc.), and more often than not I need longer than wider, so I am tempted on the 80-200 L and of course the 70-200 L lenses (I did try the 70-200 L IS lens on my tiny Rebel XT and it was nearly impossible to hold!). The other thing I really need is a good macro lens, but I hope to pick up a 100mm F/2.8 soon 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I have relatively large hands but with the really lightweight kit lens on the Rebel XT, the body of the camera, although small, was more manageable. Now that I have the much heavier L lens (and I don't see myself ever going to small/light lenses as I like to get into the F/2.8 lenses next), I find the small body hard to grab well - I really need a larger body for better grip and more comfort. 

 Since I want to get a larger physical body, I though of the 40D, but now that I am seeing the 5D's at "reasonable" prices, I am tempted to get the full-frame sensor along with the larger body. The small body is just getting harder and harder to use due to the heavier lens - I need a larger surface and better ergonomics for longer usage.

 In terms of what I use the camera for, I am more into portraits, landscapes, and fast moving small children (my kids!) and I don't use/need a fast fps at all (harly ever use it on my Rebel). 

 So between the used 5D and used 1Dmk2: what would be the criteria to pick one over the other, besides price?


----------



## lan

If you can handle the weight and size ALL the time, I would get a 1 series camera for better AF and weather sealing. It's all you would ever need really. Sometimes I get afraid for my gear when the weather gets crappy.

 I'm not sure a 5D is large enough for all that weight. You may still want to add a grip to it.


----------



## laxx

I've seen 1D Mark II N's go for under $2,000. I'd get that over a 5D. Hell, I almost did the other day. It was too tempting.


----------



## raptor84

If you do alot of low light work the 5D is stunning in terms of its tonal response even at ISO3200. If you are gonna use flash or shoot with quite a bit of ambient then get a 1 series if possible. Do note that a 24-105 might leave you wanting on the wide end with a 1.3 crop though. 

 The 24-70 or 24-205 is the best all round lens for FF but 24 is not wide enough for any crop factor.


----------



## wquiles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you can handle the weight and size ALL the time, I would get a 1 series camera for better AF and weather sealing. It's all you would ever need really. Sometimes I get afraid for my gear when the weather gets crappy.

 I'm not sure a 5D is large enough for all that weight. You may still want to add a grip to it._

 

No, the 70-200 F2.8 would not be "on" all of the time. I would either keep the 24-105 F/4 L as a walk-around lens, or get the 24-70 F/2.8 L for every day duty. Weather sealing not an issue for me, at least not in how and when I use my camera.

 I don't want to over-do it either: would the 1 series be heavier/bigger than the 5D?


----------



## lan

Anything 1 series is larger and heavier than the other cameras.

 If you don't use wide often either 24-105 or 24-70 would be fine.


----------



## Wil

Just to sidetrack a little, do any of you guys have any experience with the Sigma 30mm/50mm 1.4F? 

 I'm quite interested in the pair.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wil* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just to sidetrack a little, do any of you guys have any experience with the Sigma 30mm/50mm 1.4F? 

 I'm quite interested in the pair._

 

No experience but the 50mm f1.4 seems to be very well liked:
-= Archive Sigma 50 1.4 Images - Canon Digital Photography Forums


 It is a big hunk of glass.


----------



## Wil

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No experience but the 50mm f1.4 seems to be very well liked:
-= Archive Sigma 50 1.4 Images - Canon Digital Photography Forums


 It is a big hunk of glass._

 

Its priced very nicely as well


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wil* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Its priced very nicely as well _

 

Yeah dude. I wanted to order the Sigma 100-300mm this week but I just got my big credit card bill and I really need to knock that one down.

 Drool at this though:


----------



## Wil

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah dude. I wanted to order the Sigma 100-300mm this week but I just got my big credit card bill and I really need to knock that one down.

 Drool at this though:




_

 

*shakes fist*






 back at you!

 lol. Im considering the 30mm 1.4 now since i don't really need the 50mm for portrait shots. argh decisions!

 Btw, which sigma lens is that?


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wil* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*shakes fist*






 back at you!

 lol. Im considering the 30mm 1.4 now since i don't really need the 50mm for portrait shots. argh decisions!

 Btw, which sigma lens is that?_

 

That is not my camera. It is the Sigma 50mm f1.4 though. Seems to have some issues with lateral CA. The 30mm would be a good choice for a cropped camera from what I have read.


----------



## Wil

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is not my camera. It is the Sigma 50mm f1.4 though. Seems to have some issues with lateral CA. The 30mm would be a good choice for a cropped camera from what I have read._

 

Opps. lol.

 Like you said, it is indeed a big chunk of glass.


----------



## Wil

Sigma Lenses for Digital SLR Cameras - photo.net
 i
 nteresting snippet on the 30mm 1.4


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *GTRacer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Street is about being in the moment as much as your subject is, feeling the tone of the scene and capturing it with your camera. A telephoto lens simply isolates you from what makes street photography so enjoyable._

 

Possibly. It also allows you to reach out and touch someone. I'm wanting a 30mm for street photography, but my wallet is already feeling the pinch.


----------



## Wil

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Possibly. It also allows you to reach out and touch someone. I'm wanting a 30mm for street photography, but my wallet is already feeling the pinch. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Sigma 30mm 1.4


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wil* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sigma 30mm 1.4 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That one. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm waiting till I stop by Hong Kong on my way home to Vancouver from Singapore - roughly 350USD there, and I'm sure I can bargain down further. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Just got a 100mm USM f2 to go with my 200mm f2.8L, so I'm feeling the hit. I might move to a all-prime set-up (barring my 17-50 Tamron) instead of the Sigma 50-150 I was thinking about...

 EDIT: Wil, you coming to the ClubSnap Canon Coffee meet on Friday?


----------



## Wil

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That one. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm waiting till I stop by Hong Kong on my way home to Vancouver from Singapore - roughly 350USD there, and I'm sure I can bargain down further. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Just got a 100mm USM f2 to go with my 200mm f2.8L, so I'm feeling the hit. I might move to a all-prime set-up (barring my 17-50 Tamron) instead of the Sigma 50-150 I was thinking about...

 EDIT: Wil, you coming to the ClubSnap Canon Coffee meet on Friday?_

 

Didn't know there was a meet on friday! ( well, technically i don't even know of the meet since i haven't been to one before! )

 Could you PM me the exact details? Thanks a bunch!


----------



## essasin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is not my camera. It is the Sigma 50mm f1.4 though. Seems to have some issues with lateral CA. The 30mm would be a good choice for a cropped camera from what I have read._

 

Def need to go down to a 30 since I'm assuming you are on a 1.6xcrop? The 50mm will feel too long.


----------



## essasin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Possibly. It also allows you to reach out and touch someone. I'm wanting a 30mm for street photography, but my wallet is already feeling the pinch. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The best walkaround glass for me has been the 24-105 f/4L IS. I love primes but sometimes you just don't have enough time to "manually zoom" with the primes and miss the shot.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No experience but the 50mm f1.4 seems to be very well liked:
-= Archive Sigma 50 1.4 Images - Canon Digital Photography Forums


 It is a big hunk of glass._

 

For what it's worth a lot of those shots are softer than I'd like them to be. I realize that we're talking about an f/1.4 lens here but I haven't really seen a convincing shot from Sigma's large aperture series in awhile. I'd still love for someone to buy it and try it on these forums so we'd get some better samples.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No experience but the 50mm f1.4 seems to be very well liked:
-= Archive Sigma 50 1.4 Images - Canon Digital Photography Forums


 It is a big hunk of glass._

 

The image quality looks pretty bad form the pictures I saw over at that canon forum on the sigma 50mm F/1.4, and the CA is just pathetic. It's what I've come to expect from sigma.

 Same website, taking a look at the Canon 50mm F/1.4, and the pictures from that seem a fair bit better. Canon 50mm F/1.2 looks even better, though it has a lot of CA as well.

 The Sigma 50mm F/1.4 goes for 500$us. The Canon 50mm F/1.4, 325$us.
 Am I missing something? Why does the sigma command such a price premium over the canon?


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The Sigma 50mm F/1.4 goes for 500$us. The Canon 50mm F/1.4, 325$us.Am I missing something? Why does the sigma command such a price premium over the canon?_

 

Sigma fever? I don't quite know - the Canon 50/1.4 is a nice lens, and I'd rather take a Canon rather than an equivalent Sigma most of the time. 

 There isn't such a thing as an affordable 30mm-ish canon 1.4/1.8 lens, so I'll go with the Sigma.


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The image quality looks pretty bad form the pictures I saw over at that canon forum on the sigma 50mm F/1.4, and the CA is just pathetic. It's what I've come to expect from sigma.

 Same website, taking a look at the Canon 50mm F/1.4, and the pictures from that seem a fair bit better. Canon 50mm F/1.2 looks even better, though it has a lot of CA as well.

 The Sigma 50mm F/1.4 goes for 500$us. The Canon 50mm F/1.4, 325$us.
 Am I missing something? Why does the sigma command such a price premium over the canon?_

 


 HSM is the main reason why the Sigma commands a higher price than the Canon.


----------



## wquiles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_HSM is the main reason why the Sigma commands a higher price than the Canon._

 

I am afraid to ask: what is "HSM"?


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wquiles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am afraid to ask: what is "HSM"? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

HyperSonicMotor, Sigma's version of Canon's USM. 

 Erm, I don't understand your statement laxx, because the Canon 50 1.4 is a USM model...? 

 They were comparing the Sigma 50 1.4 to Canon 50 1.4, not Canon 50 1.8.


----------



## vibin247

The 1.6x crop is a bit limiting, but you can look at it in a more positive way. You just have to focus on the subject more carefully, in a smaller field of view. Sure, there are moments when I wished my 24mm f/1.4L was a true 24mm when on my 40D, but it forced me to look around and try to find a better angle. However, I can see how zooming with your feet is sometimes impossible. I photographed a wedding this past weekend, there were a few shots where I wished I had full angle of view from my 24mm f/1.4L.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_HyperSonicMotor, Sigma's version of Canon's USM. 

 Erm, I don't understand your statement laxx, because the Canon 50 1.4 is a USM model...? 

 They were comparing the Sigma 50 1.4 to Canon 50 1.4, not Canon 50 1.8._

 

50 1.4 is a micro USM not a real USM. It doesn't operate as fast. Whether you like the 50 1.4 is up to personal preference. I didn't really like mine. I got it before the sample variation "game" though. I'm sure there are better copies out there but now that I've experience 35 1.4, there's no way I'd get it again.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_50 1.4 is a micro USM not a real USM. It doesn't operate as fast. Whether you like the 50 1.4 is up to personal preference. I didn't really like mine. I got it before the sample variation "game" though. I'm sure there are better copies out there but now that I've experience 35 1.4, there's no way I'd get it again._

 

Hey, at least it still has FTM! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That's the best thing about USM motors...

 And it's not a macro lens, so the focus lag isn't that bad.


----------



## Wil

Sigma 30mm 1.4 or Canon 28mm 1.8!

 SIGH.

 Im slightly edging towards the Canon because i want to use it on a FF too.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wil* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sigma 30mm 1.4 or Canon 28mm 1.8!

 SIGH.

 Im slightly edging towards the Canon because i want to use it on a FF too._

 

The Sigma rates better at FMs but like you said, go Canon if you intend to shoot full frame.


----------



## lan

Just save up for the Canon 35 1.4


----------



## roastpuff

For wedding photography, is having an external flash a must? I'm playing back-up photographer, and I was wondering about this point.


----------



## raptor84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For wedding photography, is having an external flash a must? I'm playing back-up photographer, and I was wondering about this point._

 

If you are required to do group shots or shoot in very dim indoor conditions you might need one. I guess its good to have one as you never know when you need to use it as sometimes ambient jsut wont cut it. If your duties as second are just to roam and freely capture candids then no you can try walking aorund with fast primes 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (and its more fun that way IMO)


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you are required to do group shots or shoot in very dim indoor conditions you might need one. I guess its good to have one as you never know when you need to use it as sometimes ambient jsut wont cut it. If your duties as second are just to roam and freely capture candids then no you can try walking aorund with fast primes 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (and its more fun that way IMO)_

 

My duties as second is probably going to be candids, mostly. My dad couldn't grab me the Sigma 30mm 1.4 in Hong Kong before he flew back, grrr. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I need a semi-wide/normal prime besides the 50 1.8, and my other primes are telephoto length (100 f2, 200 f2.8) so it's pretty hard to snap candids with that.


----------



## episiarch

For weddings - even candids - you really want nice, even illumination, and an external flash can help a lot. I would strongly recommend one. I would also suggest investing in a portable bouncer/diffuser kit, in case the wedding venue doesn't have light enough walls for you to bounce the flash off them effectively.


----------



## LUMIERE

Canon has a small selection of the best "L" series lens in the prime focal lengths. Even with that the best is the 135mm f/2.
 It is simply the sharpest and one of the fastest focusing lenses they make. Yes, the focal length can be a bit too long in a lot of situations... but, if you can alter your shooting style a bit to work with the lens you will be able to produce shots that not many other lenses can. 

 Here is a shot at f/2.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LUMIERE* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Canon has a small selection of the best "L" series lens in the prime focal lengths. Even with that the best is the 135mm f/2.
 It is simply the sharpest and one of the fastest focusing lenses they make. Yes, the focal length can be a bit too long in a lot of situations... but, if you can alter your shooting style a bit to work with the lens you will be able to produce shots that not many other lenses can. 

 Here is a shot at f/2._

 

Oh yes, the L primes are awesome, and not nearly as expensive as the L zooms. I have one already, and will get more when my budget allows. 

 I just need wider lenses.


----------



## lan

I would take this event as an opportunity to learn and experiment. I would bring / use a flash just in case. I'd try and rent the 24 1.4 or 35 1.4.


----------



## laxx

I finally got the courage to order the 70-200 f2.8 IS. It should be here tomorrow. =]


----------



## raptor84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh yes, the L primes are awesome, and not nearly as expensive as the L zooms. I have one already, and will get more when my budget allows. 

 I just need wider lenses. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Heres a 85/1.2 at 1.2 on a 5D Alvin and Adeline on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 and at f/1.4
Dennis and Jane on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 Enough poison yet?


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would take this event as an opportunity to learn and experiment. I would bring / use a flash just in case. I'd try and rent the 24 1.4 or 35 1.4._

 

I think I'll be picking up a 430EX for about $200USD, used, in the next two days, since I'll need a flash anyways. The 35 f1.4 was all rented out, darn it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'll look around for another one to rent. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Heres a 85/1.2 at 1.2 on a 5D Alvin and Adeline on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 and at f/1.4
Dennis and Jane on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 Enough poison yet?_

 

Not enough. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 What doesn't kill me makes me stronger?


----------



## laxx

I keep telling myself the 85 1.8 is better. =[


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I keep telling myself the 85 1.8 is better. =[_

 

*sigh* I know. Even the fact that the 50 1.8 is the best value for money lens out there doesn't make me happy any more. The illusion in wearing thin.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*sigh* I know. Even the fact that the 50 1.8 is the best value for money lens out there doesn't make me happy any more. The illusion in wearing thin. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Thats when you convince yourself that, instead of worrying about the price of the equipment, you'll get it anyways and just have to make money using it.
 Gotta be careful, this hobby will eat you alive.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I finally got the courage to order the 70-200 f2.8 IS. It should be here tomorrow. =]_

 

Wow congrats. Reminds me, I should start working out some more 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think I'll be picking up a 430EX for about $200USD, used, in the next two days, since I'll need a flash anyways._

 

Maybe it doesn't matter to you but I don't like the older 430 and 580 flashes because of the plastic mounts. I prefer the II versions for metal mount, faster recycling and I like the 580IIs better weather sealing.


----------



## wquiles

What about the older (now discotinued) 80-200mm f/2.8 "L" EF lens?

 From what I am reading, although it does not have the more modern USM (and it was not even available with IS), the quality of the pictures is amazing with this "older" lens, and it can be found used on Ebay in the $500-600, which is not bad for a high quality "L" lens. Do you guys agree that a good sample of this lens would be nice to have?

 The reviews also noted that the 80-200mm did not have full time manual focus - what does this mean?


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I keep telling myself the 85 1.8 is better. =[_

 

For the money it is. Just a solid all around lens but the L is magical.


----------



## essasin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wquiles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What about the older (now discotinued) 80-200mm f/2.8 "L" EF lens?

 From what I am reading, although it does not have the more modern USM (and it was not even available with IS), the quality of the pictures is amazing with this "older" lens, and it can be found used on Ebay in the $500-600, which is not bad for a high quality "L" lens. Do you guys agree that a good sample of this lens would be nice to have?

 The reviews also noted that the 80-200mm did not have full time manual focus - what does this mean?_

 

Most of us are shooting with DSLR bodies and would opt for EF-S glass. But if you are shooting film which is still very much awesome, I couldn't talk anyone out of it.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *essasin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Most of us are shooting with DSLR bodies and would opt for EF-S glass._

 

"Most of us"?
 I'm going to contest that, and say the exact opposite.

 The EF lenses are the better choice for most.


----------



## wquiles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *essasin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Most of us are shooting with DSLR bodies and would opt for EF-S glass. But if you are shooting film which is still very much awesome, I couldn't talk anyone out of it._

 

From what I am reading, you can only use EF-S lenses on the crop cameras (Rebel, 20D, 40D for example) but not on the full frame cameras (5D, 1D, for example). But you can use the EF lenses on either camera, so at least for me, I am only buying EF lenses as I know I will be moving to a full sensor body in the near future and I will not have to buy new lenses (plus I will re-gain the true wide angle I am now missing on my Rebel XT).


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow congrats. Reminds me, I should start working out some more 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 Maybe it doesn't matter to you but I don't like the older 430 and 580 flashes because of the plastic mounts. I prefer the II versions for metal mount, faster recycling and I like the 580IIs better weather sealing._

 


 Thanks bro! I just got it today and took a few shots for fun at work and it seems the focus is spot on. I'll do some more testing when I get home and over the weekend to make a full conclusion though. But so far, I'm in <3. And I definitely need to work out a bit, mainly my wrist and forarms, lol. It is one heavy lense.

 And I agree, I prefer the 580EX II. But I'm not complaining since I paid $250 for my 580EX about a year and a half ago. =T

 We should go shoot one of these days.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wquiles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The reviews also noted that the 80-200mm did not have full time manual focus - what does this mean?_

 

Full Time Manual (FTM)means you can manual focus anytime you want to by turning the focus ring. If you didn't have this like on the 80-200 2.8 then you'd have to turn the AF switch to manual to manually focus.

 If you don't need the faster AF of the 70-200, FTM, or 70mm, or prefer the black color, there's nothing wrong with the 80-200 2.8


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wquiles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_From what I am reading, you can only use EF-S lenses on the crop cameras (Rebel, 20D, 40D for example) but not on the full frame cameras (5D, 1D, for example). But you can use the EF lenses on either camera, so at least for me, I am only buying EF lenses as I know I will be moving to a full sensor body in the near future and I will not have to buy new lenses (plus I will re-gain the true wide angle I am now missing on my Rebel XT)._

 

Exactly, EF-S only works on the crops cameras.

 In the end, there aren't even that many EF-S lenses out there to begin with. I think most people don't care what they get, as long as it gets the job done. We're fortunate enough to be in a hobby with VERY good resale value, so investing in either system is perfectly fine, even if you plan to upgrade.

 <3 my new 70-200 f2.8 IS


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And I definitely need to work out a bit, mainly my wrist and forarms, lol. It is one heavy lense.

 And I agree, I prefer the 580EX II. But I'm not complaining since I paid $250 for my 580EX about a year and a half ago. =T

 We should go shoot one of these days._

 

Do you get self conscious carrying that big white lens around?

 I dread the thought of tilting the 580ex to the side and having it possibly break.

 Yeah just let me know where, what, when, you want to shoot.


----------



## fsubassoon

Hey guys! Just picked up a (New!) Rebel XT with kit lense from Sears for 170, so I guess I'll be lurking this forum a bit. The only thing it was missing was the battery. Was it as good of a deal as I thought?


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fsubassoon* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey guys! Just picked up a (New!) Rebel XT with kit lense from Sears for 170, so I guess I'll be lurking this forum a bit. The only thing it was missing was the battery. Was it as good of a deal as I thought?_

 

Good deal. I liked my XT a lot once I added the grip. Just grab a set of Sterlingteks and you are good to go.


----------



## lan

170 is a crazy awesome price. That's the price of some P&S and you get a far better camera.


----------



## analogbox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fsubassoon* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey guys! Just picked up a (New!) Rebel XT with kit lense from Sears for 170, so I guess I'll be lurking this forum a bit. The only thing it was missing was the battery. Was it as good of a deal as I thought?_

 

What a great deal. How'd you get stumble on that deal?


----------



## Wil

Hey guys, anyone tried the 550EX with the 450D (XSI) before?

 I can't seem to change the manual settings ):


----------



## Dimitris

Hi Guys! I havent been around for a while due to moving. I got a 35L and 85L last week and now I am waiting for my camera bag to be delivered at home next week. I cant wait!


----------



## laxx

Word, how'd you get it for $170? I know a friend who's interested but doesnt' want to spend much money. This would be awesome for him.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi Guys! I havent been around for a while due to moving. I got a 35L and 85L last week and now I am waiting for my camera bag to be delivered at home next week. I cant wait!_

 

Where did you move to? I can't seem to justify the price of the 85L. I had it for a short time. Well congrats on those awesome primes.


----------



## diredesire

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Word, how'd you get it for $170? I know a friend who's interested but doesnt' want to spend much money. This would be awesome for him._

 


 It was one of the "hot deals" that was dependent on the region you're in, and the sears stores in your area. Some of them were clearancing the Sony A100, too. Call around and see if they are clearancing any SLRs, you might get lucky!


----------



## darkninja67

Nice call on the two Ls. Two of the Holy Trinity.


----------



## nineohtoo

So I kinda jumped ship today. 






 Picked this up for $300 this evening. I dropped my D50 last month and my command dial broke. I only use a Sigma 30mm 1.4, so I figured what the hell, why not take a look at Canon bodies. Admittedly I've never liked how a consumer Canon felt in my hands(my aunt shoots with a 5D and I love it), and hate their single command dial placement(I prefer nikon's where I can leave my finger on the trigger and adjust with my thumb). At first I couldn't find any D40/D50s for cheap. Same for XTs. I was still able to shoot in aperture priority so I kept shooting with the camera. I went to watch a show at Bottom Of The Hill last night and took the D50 with me. Not having manual shooting was a pain. I like shooting at a fixed shutter speed to freeze the action on stage, and wide open so I can take in as much light as possible. When I got home I decided to do a quick search on craigslist for nikon bodies, but the cheapest I saw a D40 setup was $400. I only wanted a body anyways, and didn't want to spend that much. Did a quick search on Canon bodies and found this for only $300. Most XTs(body only) that I saw were about that much. This came with a grip and remote so I hopped on it. It feels WORLDS better w/a grip compared to w/o it. I still prefer how the D50 feels, but I'll sacrifice a now tiny bit of discomfort to having the portrait grip. 

 I think I'm happy with my decision. Only thing I dislike is the smaller LCD and my friends all have D70s lol. No more exchanging flashes and stuff. I'm trying to find a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 in time to shoot Does It Offend You Yeah? tomorrow, and later on gonna add the Sigma 30mm 1.4 again, as well as either a Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm 2.8.


----------



## Dimitris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Where did you move to? I can't seem to justify the price of the 85L. I had it for a short time. Well congrats on those awesome primes._

 

I moved to Boston. So far so good. I will be coming every weekend in NYC for my MBA so hopefully I will be able to attend some of the meets. As for the lenses I still have my 20D in storage so I havent been able to use them yet! I am hoping Canon will come out with a new 5D soon so I can pick up a used one for around $1000. The price for the 85L was indeed whopping. I got it for $1500 used in like new condition and 6 months in the warranty so I guess I can always unload it in case I dont love it over my 85mm f1.8. The f1.8 is by far my biggest favorite so we will see if the 85L is worth the extra $1200.


----------



## Towert7

Good luck with the new camera nineohtoo. I'm sure you'll be able to take very nice pictures with it.

 If I were to get a canon, the first two budget lenses I would want to try out are the 70-200 F/4L USM and the 17-40 F/4L USM.

 You certainly have a lot of lens choices!


----------



## devin_mm

Hey guys, I was wondering what is the difference on B&H between the 'Imported' lenses and the 'USA' ones besides the price of course?

 I also just wanted to say the Canon thread and the Post Your Photography thread are the only reasons I keep coming back to head-fi as I have been out of the audio game for a while now.


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *devin_mm* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey guys, I was wondering what is the difference on B&H between the 'Imported' lenses and the 'USA' ones besides the price of course?

 I also just wanted to say the Canon thread and the Post Your Photography thread are the only reasons I keep coming back to head-fi as I have been out of the audio game for a while now._

 


 This is from B&H:

  Quote:


 About USA and GREY MARKET (DIRECT IMPORT) Products

 USA or Imported Film PAL Video Equipment

 What are the differences as far as a customer is concerned?

 In most cases the difference between a USA import and a Grey Market, or imported product, is the cost of the item and the terms of the item’s warranty coverage. The products themselves are otherwise identical in every way. Occasionally the manufacturer might change a product name of model number to differentiate between products targeted for US distribution and products targeted for distribution elsewhere.

 As a rule, Grey Market items cost less than their USA counterparts. The warranty of Grey Market items are often, but not always, the same as their USA counterparts. Specific details of product warranties vary by product and manufacturer.

 If you should experience a problem with a product sold with a USA warranty, it can be sent to any of the manufacturer’s worldwide authorized service facilities for servicing. A "direct import" or grey market item would have to be returned to B&H Photo-Video if it required in-warranty attention.

 A resident of the USA may wish to make the buying decision based on price since the cost of shipping to a US service center or to B&H should be about equal.

 A non-USA resident should consider the cost of returning a product to B&H in New York for servicing as opposed to the cost of taking the product to a local warranty service center.

 What kind of warranty is available?

 Any "grey market" item B&H Photo-Video sells includes a B&H warranty, which covers the same particulars the USA warranty would cover for a period of one year. The only difference is that you would ship the item to B&H for service. Your original B&H Photo-Video product invoice is all that is required.

 Why offer "Direct Import"?

 Direct Import, or grey market items often cost less than comparable US imports. There are also items sold at B&H that are not brought into the US through normal distribution channels.


----------



## devin_mm

Thanks, I guess I need to learn to search before I open my big mouth 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.

 Hmmm.... a 70-200mm f4L and a 16-35 f2.8L are very tempting but... ouch my wallet. This camera thing is getting more expensive than audio.


----------



## nineohtoo

Thanks towert. I'm starting to consider that 17-40L as opposed to a 3rd party wide to mid 2.8 zoom now. Has nice bokeh, but I'm not sure if I'll want more control of DOF and moderate low light use. Any recommendations? I might be able to trade my Nikon 30mm 1.4 for a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8(which is highly acclaimed by just about everyone). I've also considered the 20-35mm 2.8 L, but I feel that the focal length isn't gonna be wide enough for a crop body. But considering I'm only losing 3mm on the wide, and 5mm on the mid compared to the 17-40L, I can make up for it with moving my feet and gain the f stop advantage 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 BTW, I'm one of the guys who feels knowledge of equipment+post processing skills > fancy equipment. I'm not gonna shell out of a lot more money for subtle differences I can adjust in photoshop. With that said, the Sigma 30mm 1.4 has spoiled me silly with its creamy bokeh. Thanks guys!


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8(which is highly acclaimed by just about everyone)._

 

and with good reason. Definitely one to have on your short list.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks towert. I'm starting to consider that 17-40L as opposed to a 3rd party wide to mid 2.8 zoom now. Has nice bokeh, but I'm not sure if I'll want more control of DOF and moderate low light use. Any recommendations? I might be able to trade my Nikon 30mm 1.4 for a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8(which is highly acclaimed by just about everyone). I've also considered the 20-35mm 2.8 L, but I feel that the focal length isn't gonna be wide enough for a crop body. But considering I'm only losing 3mm on the wide, and 5mm on the mid compared to the 17-40L, I can make up for it with moving my feet and gain the f stop advantage 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 BTW, I'm one of the guys who feels knowledge of equipment+post processing skills > fancy equipment. I'm not gonna shell out of a lot more money for subtle differences I can adjust in photoshop. With that said, the Sigma 30mm 1.4 has spoiled me silly with its creamy bokeh. Thanks guys!_

 

If you are buying into the Canon kit, I would start investing in as many L lenses as you can. It's an investment, and you know the L's will hold their value (if not increase). Buy a sigma today, and try and sell that in a few months and see if you can get even 1/2 the price you paid. Ouch! Who can afford to buy 3'rd party?

 Plus, you _know_ if it says L, you're going to be getting a VERY nice lens. Even if it's a F/4, you know it's going to be _nice_.
 Like I said, I would jump on the 17-40mm L in a heart beat (for the focal range it covers). It has a focal length range that would be very nice for busy events with people. A 17-40mm (or 24-70mm) on one shoulder and a 70-200mm on the other, and you've got a great setup for event photography. (as well as most general photography).

 I've seen the bokeh on the 70-200 F/4L, and it's very impressive!

 I wish nikon had an equivalent of these 2 budget pro lenses.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've also considered the 20-35mm 2.8 L

 BTW, I'm one of the guys who feels knowledge of equipment+post processing skills > fancy equipment._

 

That lens is old, I wouldn't go there. Whereas telephotos don't improve that much, wide angles have made improvements over time. It's serviceability is questionable. It doesn't have USM.

 20-35 -> 17-35 -> 16-35 -> 16-35 II. So we're talking it's nearly about 20 years old.

 I rather have the modern Tamron 17-50 2.8 if on a crop body.


----------



## nineohtoo

Thanks for the replies. the 17-40mm seems to be a cool walk around lens, but I think I'd want the subject isolation I'd get with the 2.8 zoom, plus the aperture advantage. I'd say 80% of my shooting is in low light, where I'm usually forced to use faster primes. If I can be proved otherwise with shots with great isolation, and smooth bokeh I think I'd be sold on the lens. I mean, I could always use that lens walking around and w/flash, and use my primes when I'm trying to shoot bands and hanging out with friends in low light. From what shots I've seen, the bokeh between the Tamron and that L lens is pre

 Too bad the 30mm 1.8's bokeh isn't as pleasing as the Sigmas from sample pictures I've seen. I'd love to stick with Canon if at all possible, but no way am I shelling out that much for their 24mm or 35mm 1.4 with the money I make. Rent+bills before my geek stuff.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the replies. the 17-40mm seems to be a cool walk around lens, but I think I'd want the subject isolation I'd get with the 2.8 zoom, plus the aperture advantage. I'd say 80% of my shooting is in low light, where I'm usually forced to use faster primes. If I can be proved otherwise with shots with great isolation, and smooth bokeh I think I'd be sold on the lens. I mean, I could always use that lens walking around and w/flash, and use my primes when I'm trying to shoot bands and hanging out with friends in low light. From what shots I've seen, the bokeh between the Tamron and that L lens is pre

 Too bad the 30mm 1.8's bokeh isn't as pleasing as the Sigmas from sample pictures I've seen. I'd love to stick with Canon if at all possible, but no way am I shelling out that much for their 24mm or 35mm 1.4 with the money I make. Rent+bills before my geek stuff._

 

It's tough buying into a kit because you need to start all over for lenses. I wonder if you would have saved money by sticking with nikon (since you already had a lens or two). 

 Either way, if you don't plan to use that lens by all means don't get it.
 I think the 16-40 lens is more for taking pictures like groups of people and events, not really for isolation. In fact, I don't even think you can get isolation with a 35mm at F/2 (unless you are Really close).
 If you want low light photography, you gotta go F/2 or less. So that pretty much leaves you with the fixed focal lengths. Wait until you see the prices of the L primes [and you thought 600$ was bad!]! ^_^
 But they are really nice, and again.... a great investment.


----------



## lan

You won't get much subject isolation with wide angle, f/2.8, and on a crop camera. If you want that, you'll have to use one of the faster primes and wide open.


----------



## roastpuff

What are the batteries the flash users in this thread use? Deciding between Eneloops, Imedions or ReCyko+...


----------



## raptor84

I use 3 types actaully =p Powerex 2700's GP Recyko and the Eneloops. I find the powerex'es do last that bit longer and have quite decent charge retention but yea the recykos and eneloops aren't too shabby. Recyckos are cheaper with the same performace to me IMO


----------



## lan

I primarily use Sanyo Eneloops as AAs and AAAs in everything.


----------



## mr_baseball_08

Just wondering if anyone has tried an FD -> EOS adapter or even a Nikon -> EOS adapter and if so what kind of results what did you get? I've had this itch to try some lenses from days past but I didn't know how successful such an endeavor would be.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mr_baseball_08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just wondering if anyone has tried an FD -> EOS adapter or even a Nikon -> EOS adapter and if so what kind of results what did you get? I've had this itch to try some lenses from days past but I didn't know how successful such an endeavor would be._

 

I think I remember Wil posting shots of an old Nikon camera, taken with a 450D and a Nikkor 50 f/1.8 via an adapter. I'd PM him for more details, but the pictures looked pretty sharp considering the nature of the system. Also, Ken Rockwell (love him or hate him) used a similar adapter with mixed results on his 5D; you can jump to his site for more info.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I use 3 types actaully =p Powerex 2700's GP Recyko and the Eneloops. I find the powerex'es do last that bit longer and have quite decent charge retention but yea the recykos and eneloops aren't too shabby. Recyckos are cheaper with the same performace to me IMO 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I primarily use Sanyo Eneloops as AAs and AAAs in everything._

 

Hmm, anyone tried the Imedions? I'm just being cheap right now after shelling out on the flash, and wanting to avoid paying through the nose for the charger/battery combo... Because I remember seeing a S$28 pack of GP ReCyko+ vs the S$36-37 cost for Eneloop + chargers. I know Eastgear in Singapore has an 8-batt Imedion package for $99... but I don't think I want to shell out quite that much yet. 

 Besides, I will be getting 8-packs of Eneloops for S$35 through the ClubSnap mass order.


----------



## Wil

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think I remember Wil posting shots of an old Nikon camera, taken with a 450D and a Nikkor 50 f/1.8 via an adapter. I'd PM him for more details, but the pictures looked pretty sharp considering the nature of the system. Also, Ken Rockwell (love him or hate him) used a similar adapter with mixed results on his 5D; you can jump to his site for more info._

 

I used an adapter with a focus confirm chip embedded. It's extremely accurate. 

 A few more pictures (450D + Nikkor 50mm 1.8)





 (apologies for the large size, just wanted to show the sharpness.)


----------



## mr_baseball_08

No apologies necessary, you're right, they are extremely sharp, even at 1.8. I'm highly impressed. I also love the bokeh, it looks a little better on the Nikon 50mm than the Canon 50mm.

 I'm very tempted to pick up one of these adapters on Ebay. For 30-40 bucks the risk is pretty low.


----------



## vibin247

Checked out the Battery section in the Electronics Dept. at Wal-Mart and walked away with a Duracell Rechargeable Charger w/ 4 AA Pre-Charged batteries, plus 2 more 4-AA packs. While it was cheaper to buy a 20-pack of Alkalines, I think it's nicer to not buy as many batteries in the long run.


----------



## nineohtoo

Quote:


 You won't get much subject isolation with wide angle, f/2.8, and on a crop camera. If you want that, you'll have to use one of the faster primes and wide open. 
 

Hmm. Thanks for bringing this up. The only f2.8 zoom I've had is Nikon's 80-200mm and I loved the bokeh I got from that lens. I never thought about the bokeh, or lack of, from a wider zoom. So is my only advantage in using a wide to mid 2.8 zoom is speed? Because if it is, 2.8 imo isn't fast enough for some of the dim and poorly lit venues I've been in. Sometimes 1.4 doesn't even seem like it's enough. If that's the case, it's no wonder the 17-40L is so popular. 

 I picked up my 30mm 1.4 today in canon mount and was worried that it was misfocusing, but I took it to see the Virgins at Cafe Du Nord tonight, and was happy with the results. However when uploaded to flickr, they all seemed really soft compared to how they looked in CS2 or windows explorer. I might be picking up a 430ex tomorrow, and hopefully a Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 later this week after I sell my nikon mount 30mm 1.4. If anyone's interested, I put mine up for $350 obo on NikonCafe 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My budget kit should be all set very soon.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So is my only advantage in using a wide to mid 2.8 zoom is speed?

 If that's the case, it's no wonder the 17-40L is so popular._

 

2.8 lenses do autofocus better/faster and the viewfinder is better. I find those important enough. 

 17-40 is nice for people who like wide angle and when you do landscape, you'll be stopped down at f8 or anyhow.


----------



## Dimitris

Damn when is Canon coming up with the new 5D? I need an old one for under $1000.


----------



## roastpuff

Anybody tried the 50-150mm Sigma f2.8, or the Tokina 50-135mm f2.8? Interested in picking these up to complement my Tamron 17-50.


----------



## darkninja67

Funny how you are asking about those two.

 I came here to post that I just ordered the Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 Pro. I did not want to play the copy roulette game with Sigma (it does have the nice HSM AF) but the Toke is extremely well built, has great image quality. 

 Hope to have it next week sometime. May be a good choice as a street photography/portrait lens. Covers some good focal lengths.

 roastpuff, what are you using (will use) on your long end and wide ends? We could be close in gear lists. I am going Tokina 11-16mm on the wide and maybe the Sigma 100-300mm on long (the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L still enters my dreams though).


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Funny how you are asking about those two.

 I came here to post that I just ordered the Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 Pro. I did not want to play the copy roulette game with Sigma (it does have the nice HSM AF) but the Toke is extremely well built, has great image quality. 

 Hope to have it next week sometime. May be a good choice as a street photography/portrait lens. Covers some good focal lengths.

 roastpuff, what are you using (will use) on your long end and wide ends? We could be close in gear lists. I am going Tokina 11-16mm on the wide and maybe the Sigma 100-300mm on long (the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L still enters my dreams though)._

 

Heh, it is funny how our gear is similar, isn't it? 

 I currently have three lenses: 
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 to cover the walkabout zoom range
Canon 50mm f/1.8 to cover the portraits & low-light duty
Canon 200mm f/2.8L to cover the long telephoto range, and it's a great prime.

 I currently want these three lenses to complement my current stuff: 
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 to cover UWA duty.
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to cover the full-body portraits and walkabout low-light.
Either the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 or the Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 to cover zoom normal to telephoto duty.

 If you notice, I've been infected by large-aperture disease. It's grrrrreat! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Also, a macro's probably in there somewhere but it can wait. My priority on acquisition is on the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the zoom f/2.8 right now, with the UWA coming last. I've tried the 11-16, and it's a wowie of a lens.


----------



## lan

Those medium telephoto zoom lenses are for crop cameras only. That made them of limited use for me. If you're going to stick with the crop cams for a while, it's a worthwhile investment though.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Those medium telephoto zoom lenses are for crop cameras only. That made them of limited use for me. If you're going to stick with the crop cams for a while, it's a worthwhile investment though._

 

Kind of an odd focal length but makes sense on a cropped camera. I can see the Tokina (or Sigma) being very versatile.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Heh, it is funny how our gear is similar, isn't it? 

 I currently have three lenses: 
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 to cover the walkabout zoom range
Canon 50mm f/1.8 to cover the portraits & low-light duty
Canon 200mm f/2.8L to cover the long telephoto range, and it's a great prime.

 I currently want these three lenses to complement my current stuff: 
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 to cover UWA duty.
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to cover the full-body portraits and walkabout low-light.
Either the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 or the Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 to cover zoom normal to telephoto duty.

 If you notice, I've been infected by large-aperture disease. It's grrrrreat! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Also, a macro's probably in there somewhere but it can wait. My priority on acquisition is on the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the zoom f/2.8 right now, with the UWA coming last. I've tried the 11-16, and it's a wowie of a lens._

 

Yeah the Sigma 30mm is something I may add a lot later on. Heard it is sweeter than it's 50mm brother. Also will go with a zoom for the tele end. Macro will be the Canon 100mm f2.8 or the Sigma 150mm. Definitely will grab the Canon 85mm f1.8 though as I loved that lens.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Kind of an odd focal length but makes sense on a cropped camera. I can see the Tokina (or Sigma) being very versatile._

 

I'm not commenting on their versatility or their function but you just can't use them much on 1D or full frame.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Those medium telephoto zoom lenses are for crop cameras only. That made them of limited use for me. If you're going to stick with the crop cams for a while, it's a worthwhile investment though._

 

Yup. I don't see myself moving to FF anytime soon, or at all. I'd probably stick with the 40D equivalent line as my camera of choice if I upgrade from my 450D. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah the Sigma 30mm is something I may add a lot later on. Heard it is sweeter than it's 50mm brother. Also will go with a zoom for the tele end. Macro will be the Canon 100mm f2.8 or the Sigma 150mm. Definitely will grab the Canon 85mm f1.8 though as I loved that lens._

 

Yeah, those two macros are on my list, or the Tamron 90mm. The 100mm f2, brother lens of the 85mm f1.8, didn't sit with me very well. 

 I'm still wondering why you'd get the Sigma 50mm since the Canon 50mm is cheaper and probably better IQ.


----------



## nineohtoo

^People equated the Sigma 30mm image quality, to that of the Nikkor 85mm 1.4. Creamy bokeh(most of the time), sharp wide open, and little to no other sort of distortions wide open. So good that people even used it on Canon mount. Nikon shooters were hoping for Sigma to release a 50mm or 85mm that was similar. Nikon's 50mm 1.8 is sharper than the 1.4, the 1.4 has CA wide open. At costing more than Nikon and Canon's versions, I think I'll pass. 50mm fov sucks on crop cameras anyways imo.

















 I shot The Subways last night and had an awesome time(more pics at Flickr: nineohtoo's Photostream). Everything with the 30mm 1.4. Is using the dial the only way to control AF area on a 350D? I much preferred pressing the arrows on my D50, despite having less areas.

 Since I can get by with this lens, Instead of buying a Sigma or Tamron 2.8 wide to mid, I think I might wait for a Canon one. I think the bokeh from that is much smoother, and I've begun to see them around 600-700 used. Might as well pay the extra 2-300 and get the better Canon build, and creamier bokeh. Anyone wanna talk me out of it so I can spend my money on my JDM front conversion for my car lol?


----------



## roastpuff

Dial is quickest way, you can use the arrow keys on my 450D I think. Don't have it on me to check but when I get home I'll test it out. 

 Dude, photos look awesome. Any flash at all?


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yup. I don't see myself moving to FF anytime soon, or at all. I'd probably stick with the 40D equivalent line as my camera of choice if I upgrade from my 450D. 



 Yeah, those two macros are on my list, or the Tamron 90mm. The 100mm f2, brother lens of the 85mm f1.8, didn't sit with me very well. 

 I'm still wondering why you'd get the Sigma 50mm since the Canon 50mm is cheaper and probably better IQ._

 

I would actually want the Sigma 30mm as their 50mm seems to be hit or miss.


----------



## laxx

I'm re-evaluating my lense lineup. I currently have...

 Tamron 28-75 f2.8
 Canon 85 f1.8
 Canon 70-200 f4
 Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS

 I'm selling the 70-200 f4 to my friend, which frees up a bit of money. I really want a macro, but like roastpuff, it doesn't sit well with me to have an 85 1.8 and 100 f2.8 (or similar macro). The focal lengths are too similar. But at the same time, I don't want a 50 macro, nor do I have the money to go for a 180 macro, lol.

 I'm not much of a wide shooter, but I've been debating on trying out the 17-55 IS to replace my 28-75. I'm not entirely sure yet though.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm re-evaluating my lense lineup. I currently have...

 Tamron 28-75 f2.8
 Canon 85 f1.8
 Canon 70-200 f4
 Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS

 I'm selling the 70-200 f4 to my friend, which frees up a bit of money. I really want a macro, but like roastpuff, it doesn't sit well with me to have an 85 1.8 and 100 f2.8 (or similar macro). The focal lengths are too similar. But at the same time, I don't want a 50 macro, nor do I have the money to go for a 180 macro, lol.

 I'm not much of a wide shooter, but I've been debating on trying out the 17-55 IS to replace my 28-75. I'm not entirely sure yet though._

 

Keep the 85mm and try the Sigma 150mm Macro. Supposed to be excellent.


----------



## darkninja67

Beach Camera is awesome. Ordered this yesterday late and got it at noon today. Tokina 50-135mm f2.8. The image quality is excellent so far even wide open, AF is a bit slow but not bad at all, build quality is great as it weighs more than Canon's 70-200mm f4L IS lens. Impressed so far and it is sweet at the $588 price I paid.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I've been having an equally good time with the Sigma 50-150, albeit on a Nikon D200 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It sounds like these are two lenses it would be pretty hard to go wrong with. Although I really like the feel of the Tokina build quality, I went with the Sigma, mostly because I already had two Siggy EX lenses that I really enjoy in the 10-20 and 24-60. The 50-150 is a pleasure to shoot, due to both how it handles and what it produces.

 50mm, 1/80, f/3.5, ISO400


----------



## darkninja67

The Sigma was something I was looking at too. I did not want to play the "good copy" game with Sigma so I went with the Toke. Also with the Toke I will have less overlap when I get my Sigma 100-300mm f4.

 Funny how you posted a pic of the tree. My first shot outdoors was of tree bark to test sharpness.


----------



## roastpuff

I'm just going "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!" at the two of you because now I can't decide which one to get. Thank you, guys.  Pricing is somewhat similar for me, with the Sigma being slightly cheaper in Hong Kong for the II version, while the Tokina is slightly more expensive ($40, probably bargainable~) but available NOW as opposed to FOUR WEEKS LATER when I'll be stopping by in Hong Kong on my way back to Vancouver. 

 If I could get more test pics it would be much appreciated though. How's that Sigma on the focus issue? It seems like Sigmas have a lot of problems there. 

 Also, darkninja, how useful is that tripod mount?


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm just going "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!" at the two of you because now I can't decide which one to get. Thank you, guys.  Pricing is somewhat similar for me, with the Sigma being slightly cheaper in Hong Kong for the II version, while the Tokina is slightly more expensive ($40, probably bargainable~) but available NOW as opposed to FOUR WEEKS LATER when I'll be stopping by in Hong Kong on my way back to Vancouver. 

 If I could get more test pics it would be much appreciated though. How's that Sigma on the focus issue? It seems like Sigmas have a lot of problems there. 

 Also, darkninja, how useful is that tripod mount?_

 

I choose the Tokina due to it being fairly issue free plus it had stellar optical quality. The AF clutch is not something I have used before but now I can see why they do it. Beats fishing for a small AF/M switch unless you have USM.

 The bokeh is really buttery with this lens compared the the Tammy 17-50mm. I do not believe the Sigma 50-150mm is one of their best lenses but Dreamer is loving his. The Sigma roulette is not something I want to try out just yet. 

 The tripod mount is non removable but I palm it when zooming. I also use a huge Bogen RC4 plates which would overwhelm a small tripod mount like this.

 I have been very impressed with the color and sharpness this lens possesses. Tokina: will buy again.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I choose the Tokina due to it being fairly issue free plus it had stellar optical quality. The AF clutch is not something I have used before but now I can see why they do it. Beats fishing for a small AF/M switch unless you have USM.

 The bokeh is really buttery with this lens compared the the Tammy 17-50mm. I do not believe the Sigma 50-150mm is one of their best lenses but Dreamer is loving his. The Sigma roulette is not something I want to try out just yet. 

 The tripod mount is non removable but I palm it when zooming. I also use a huge Bogen RC4 plates which would overwhelm a small tripod mount like this.

 I have been very impressed with the color and sharpness this lens possesses. Tokina: will buy again._

 

Well, Sigma's HSM also has FTM like USM... and I'm wondering how overblown is the bad focus quality of the Sigma brand is, because of their sheer sales volume. 

 What do you mean by palming your tripod mount? 

 I'm using RC2 plates with my 486RC2/190XPROB combo, and I'm probably going to grab a Benro CF monopod and stick a 484/234RC on it, too, so I'm just wondering how useful the mount is or how cumbersome it is when using it in hand-hold.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I've owned three Sigmas thus far, and had zero QC problems. Is it luck? Is it that the problem is overblown? A combination of both? Neither? Hard for me to say. I appreciate the benefits of HSM, and have always been wary of the high level of CA reported in Tokina lens tests. That said, don't sweat the decision too much, as it seems like these are among the better lenses that both companies make.

 To me the 50-150 is not too big to be a walk-around lens, and thus I appreciate the lack of a tripod mount. The Nikkor 180 I used to own was about the same size and also lacked such a mount, it just really doesn't seem necessary for a lens this size, unless using it for macro, IMO.

 I have the second version of the 50-150 (designated II) FWIW.

 Here are a few more samples from it:

 80mm, 1/100, f/2.8, ISO1100





 150mm, 1/250, f/2.8, ISO200





 122mm, 1/80, f/4, ISO400


----------



## devin_mm

I just picked up a 70-200 f4L I can't wait to start playing with it.


----------



## nineohtoo

Just picked up an older Dine Macro Light today at a swap meet:





















 Yeah I know these aren't macro shots, but to be completely honest, I have no intention of using it for that lol. I like it for the effect it has on portraits. I'll probably also use it for low light events I end up at as opposed to using my 430EX, which I'm slowly wishing I didn't buy haha. This is just a lot more fun to use.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've owned three Sigmas thus far, and had zero QC problems. Is it luck? Is it that the problem is overblown? A combination of both? Neither? Hard for me to say._

 

I think the problem affects everyone. I've had a bunch of "off" L lenses also. The more popular something is, the more complaints you hear.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *devin_mm* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just picked up a 70-200 f4L I can't wait to start playing with it._

 

Ah, now that's a lens!
 I'll be very interested to see the images from it.


----------



## raptor84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *devin_mm* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just picked up a 70-200 f4L I can't wait to start playing with it._

 

DOnt worry you'll get to love ti fast 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Its my main lens for most of my work


----------



## analogbox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_DOnt worry you'll get to love ti fast 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Its my main lens for most of my work 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

X2.

 Everything comes out so beautiful every time I shoot with it. It's really a bargain for what it is.


----------



## devin_mm

Here some pictures I took at the Heritage Day festival with my new lens. It's really difficult to shoot at that festival there are just too many people. One of the ladies at the German pavilion asked me if I worked for The Journal (large local newspaper), I should have said yes and seen if I got free food 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (I know these are no where near professional shots but I'm just starting and I'll get a bunch of practice when I head to California for two weeks (in under two weeks).


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *devin_mm* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just picked up a 70-200 f4L I can't wait to start playing with it._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *devin_mm* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here some pictures I took at the Heritage Day festival with my new lens. It's really difficult to shoot at that festival there are just too many people. One of the ladies at the German pavilion asked me if I worked for The Journal (large local newspaper), I should have said yes and seen if I got free food 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (I know these are no where near professional shots but I'm just starting and I'll get a bunch of practice when I head to California for two weeks (in under two weeks).
 [_

 

Dude, gorgeous pictures. That 70-200 f4L is darn near a hero lens in good lighting... I love it even in dimmer settings.


----------



## wquiles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dude, gorgeous pictures. That 70-200 f4L is darn near a hero lens in good lighting... I love it even in dimmer settings._

 

+1 -> nice lens/pictures


----------



## nineohtoo

nice shots. What part of CA are you heading to?


----------



## devin_mm

Thanks for the kind words everyone. Myself and a couple friends are going to be driving to LA then up the coast, I really want to see San Francisco.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

You should have a grand time. Just stick to highway 1 and you will visit some really beautiful areas. Definitely stop by and check out Monterey and the redwoods north of Santa Cruz if at all possible (Big Basin / Felton areas). Drop by Gianni's on Lighthouse in Monterey for some killer pizza.


----------



## Liquidretro

I am glad there are a bunch of Canon Head-Fi-ers around here instead of those communist Nikon head-fi-ers. JK

 I just got back from a short vacation in Las Vegas and was able to take a few panoramics of Hoover Dam and Lake Mead. These were all shot hand held with my Canon 20D and a combination of Sigma 10-20mm lens and Canon EF 17-85mm with CPL


----------



## wquiles

Well guys, I "might" be temporarily moving out of the DSRL for a while. Instead of buying a couple of really nice/expensive lenses for my Canon Rebel XT since 90%+ of the pictures that I take are pics of my kids and always in Program mode, I am going to try a "bridge" camera from Fuji with an equivalent 28-400mm (F/2.8-4) lens: Fujifilm FinePix S100FS

FujiFilm FinePix S100fs Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review 

 I will try it for a couple of weeks and see if this works good enough for me. If it does, I will likely be selling my DSLR soon 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I will try to take pics with both my Canon Rebel XT wt 24-105F/4 "L" lens, and with the Fuji to see what works well for me - I will post both set of pictures in the next couple of weeks


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Liquidretro* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am glad there are a bunch of Canon Head-Fi-ers around here instead of those communist Nikon head-fi-ers. JK

 I just got back from a short vacation in Las Vegas and was able to take a few panoramics of Hoover Dam and Lake Mead. These were all shot hand held with my Canon 20D and a combination of Sigma 10-20mm lens and Canon EF 17-85mm with CPL_

 



 How were you able to do that without having a polarizer issue?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wquiles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well guys, I "might" be temporarily moving out of the DSRL for a while. Instead of buying a couple of really nice/expensive lenses for my Canon Rebel XT since 90%+ of the pictures that I take are pics of my kids and always in Program mode, I am going to try a "bridge" camera from Fuji with an equivalent 28-400mm (F/2.8-4) lens: Fujifilm FinePix S100FS_

 

Even if you were to only use one lens, the advantages of DSLRs still exist such as lower high ISO noise because of bigger sensor and quicker AF and shutter lag.


----------



## wquiles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Even if you were to only use one lens, the advantages of DSLRs still exist such as lower high ISO noise because of bigger sensor and quicker AF and shutter lag._

 

Absolutely - no argument possible. I am definitely moving backwards in several key areas. The question is: what is "good enough" for my use? That is why it will actually be fun to shoot both for a short while to see which route I will go


----------



## lan

The S100FS is nearly $700 though. Certainly you wouldn't be saving much money. Did you just need extra reach?


----------



## wquiles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The S100FS is nearly $700 though. Certainly you wouldn't be saving much money. Did you just need extra reach?_

 

Pretty much all of my photos are posted and/or sent by email resized at 800x600 (max at 1024x768), plus yes, I need something like a 200-300mm lately as my 24-105 F/4 "L" was not long enough for the shots I am trying. 

 The nice lens to buy is of course the 70-200 F/2.8 IS (which I tried on my Rebel XT last year), but that was a "very" heavy combo, and I would certainly not be willing to carry it around as often. I am "hoping" that the S100FS will the something I would carry with me almost always as right now the Rebel/"L" lens stays home most of the time 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Of course, I will not know for sure until the Fuji gets here and I play some with it. After all, you can read all of the reviews, but until you use it, you will not "know" if the camera is a keeper or not


----------



## lan

Why is the Rebel and 24-105 staying at home? Because it's too big and heavy?

 If you crop to 1024 or 800x600 all the time, you could just crop your images.


----------



## wquiles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why is the Rebel and 24-105 staying at home? Because it's too big and heavy?_

 

Yes, the combo is a little bit on the big/heavy side for me and my wife - although we do like the photos we get from it. We hardly ever use it outside the house - maybe to a kiddie b-day party or something, but mostly stays home. I travel a lot for my job, and I would never take it along either due to the weight/size.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wquiles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, the combo is a little bit on the big/heavy side for me and my wife - although we do like the photos we get from it. We hardly ever use it outside the house - maybe to a kiddie b-day party or something, but mostly stays home. I travel a lot for my job, and I would never take it along either due to the weight/size._

 

I'm surprised you don't just get the Nikon D40/D60 and their Nikkor 18-200VR lens. It'll weigh roughly the same as that fuji you linked to, but you get SOOO much more.

 Then you are not limited by the camera or the lens choices if you so desire to fool around later on. Probably the best budget small DSLR on the market, and a nice lens to boot.

 Add to it a SB-400 flash for 100$, and you will have an infinitely better setup than the Fuji for child photography.


----------



## wquiles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm surprised you don't just get the Nikon D40/D60 and their Nikkor 18-200VR lens. It'll weigh roughly the same as that fuji you linked to, but you get SOOO much more.

 Then you are not limited by the camera or the lens choices if you so desire to fool around later on. Probably the best budget small DSLR on the market, and a nice lens to boot.

 Add to it a SB-400 flash for 100$, and you will have an infinitely better setup than the Fuji for child photography._

 

If the Fuji does not cut it, the Nikon/18-200 definitely sounds like a good combo to try - thanks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The Fuji should arrive this coming Thu/Fri, so by next weekend I will have some early view of how the Fuji does (or not!).


----------



## Hayduke

I have a question for all you Canon folks...

 Why do you use Canon equipment vs Nikon?

 Towert might think this question sounds familiar 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My 35mm film camera is a Canon AE1-Program. I love the camera, but I never liked dealing with film. When I was younger and had access to a darkroom at school, it wasn't too bad. I kind of like the act of developing negatives and making prints, but I was only good at B&W. The couple times I tried color didn't come out too well  Basically, film is too expensive for me. Not that I couldn't pay for it, but I would like to be able to take as many photos as I want without worrying about developing costs. I like digital because it let's me take 1000 photos for the same price as 1 photo.

 After using several digital P&S cameras the last few years, I'm really missing the control of my "real" camera. I've never really been satisfied with the results from the P&S cameras I've had. As a result, I'm going to buy a DSLR.

 I'm not in a hurry, so I want to take my time and make as informed a decision as possible. Since I'm not real committed to Canon (I only have a 28mm, 50mm, and 70-200 zoom for the AE1-P), I'm considering Nikon as well. I asked on the Nikon thread why I should choose that brand, and didn't really get the concise answer I was hoping for. So I'm asking the folks here.

 Why Canon vs Nikon?

 Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.


 Edit: I just realized my old 35mm lenses won't work 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They are FD and I need EF. Oh well. Now there really is nothing tieing me to either brand


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why Canon vs Nikon?_

 

Others can certainly answer this question better than I can, but my understanding is that the main argument for Canon is the availability of a wider range of high quality lenses, especially the L series lenses. Although they're quite expensive, you get good value from most of them. I'm sure there are other pro-Canon reasons as well, I'm just not very well versed on the subject. 

 I think the Nikon crowd has strong preferences for some of the features of the Nikon camera bodies themselves and finds it awkward to shoot with Canon cameras once they're become acclimated with the fit and feel of a Nikon. But again, I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.


----------



## nineohtoo

I personally shoot Canon at the moment because it was a cheaper alternative for me. I simply couldn't find a cheap D50 to replace my broken one. I only use my sigma 30mm f1.4, so I figured sell my Nikon mount to get a Canon one. However, I still haven't sold my nikon mount 30mm, or my SB-600. If the D90 can give some of the high ISO quality of the D300(I'll settle for less FPS and AF points/tracking), I'll sell my 350D setup and go back with the D90. Yeah canon's 40D successor will be out, but I'm sure it won't be in my budget. Here's some deciding factors that I'd go over:

_Ergonomics:_ Simply opinion, but I like how Nikon's hold in my hand compared to Canon, especially at consumer levels. They fit my hands better. A Canon with a grip helps tremendously though, and is probably why I've been able to stand this past month with one. To be fair, my aunt's 5D fits like a glove, despite me not feeling at home with the controls. I also disliked taking my trigger finger off the shutter to adjust shutter speed/aperture with the rebels. I preferred using my thumb, that way I can still refocus(say following someone on stage) while adjusting settings. 

_Bodies/sensors?:_ I think both groups can agree that Canon bodies are noticibley sharper, where as Nikon's handle noise better. A lot of people think Nikon's noise reduction hurts its overall sharpness, but its nothing some PP can fix. Look at Todd Owyoung's ISO 6400 images(ishootshows.com). Very clean and still sharp. I also like the dynamic range in Nikons over Canon. Doesn't matter too much if you shoot RAW though. 

_Lenses:_ Hands down to Canon. Options, options options. And cheaper most of the time. Nikon really lacks in primes though. I read somewhere that quoted Nikon saying something along the lines of: only PJ's use primes, and that market is small. Though I don't know how much truth that holds, because I would think a PJ would want the flexibility of a zoom. Plus unless you're shooting with a D300 or better, 2.8 won't be fast enough at times. Canon has a plethora of lenses for that. Nikon may also never have a f1.2 autofocus lens because of how small the f mount is.

_Flash:_I think Nikon's CLS is far better than what Canon has. However wireless triggers negate that. One can use older and cheaper flashes with pocket wizards or cactus triggers and achieve the same, if not better results(but this extends to Samsung/Pentax and Sony/Minolta). 

 I'd heavily consider the type of shooting you'll be doing and your budget before buying either system. I think both are good, but I think the "you" part of your photography is gonna be more important than which system you buy into. A lot of my input is from someone who can only afford a consumer body and some decent glass. If you're in my boat, I personally would prioritize learning photoshop, since you probably already know how to use a camera manually well enough. I mean no offense to some people out there, but I've been blown away by people using cheap bodies and or third party lenses, and disappointed with results I've seen from those with much more expensive pro equipment.

 If I had to start from scratch with little money and buying used? I'd get which ever is cheaper. The only deal breaker to me really is the fact that Canon has more lens selection, but since I can't even afford most of that(a bag of L's are gonna be worth more than my car!), i'm gonna shoot third party. Everything else i've mentioned is really negligible at my budget.

 If I had a lot of money to buy new? I'd get a D700+24-70mm f2.8 and call it a day. ISO6400 @ f2.8 on full frame would probably be what I get on ISO 800 @ f1.4 on crop sensors. 

 If it helps any, the only shooting I take seriously is concert photography. I love live rock music, and it's a pleasure to shoot it. I love the challenge of capturing fast movement, in low lights, with people to fight with for position and safety. In my case, I just need a fast wide or normal prime(hence my 30mm 1.4), and a body that has decent high ISO. Luckily I can also use that as a walk around and indoor lens. So I can really get by with just one lens. You can see how either system fits the bill for me. Your needs might be different and not as simple. Luckily for me I find most other types of photography boring. Again, I mean no offense to anyone but I'm weird in that I like situations where there are variables outside of my control affecting my outcome(like surfing). However, I do want to get into some strobist fashion photography


----------



## Towert7

Nineohtoo has a lot of very good info.

 Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can also see a difference in the colors produced from a Nikon and Canon on the same white balance setting. It's subtle, but that is a consideration too. I'm used to the Nikon colors, and when I see some similar pictures from a Canon camera they look ever so slightly different (for better or for worse, you decide).

 On another note, lets be serious. Even if you start off with a budget lens and a budget camera I think you'll find yourself wanting to upgrade within the first year or so (new lenses to try!). So even though at the moment you won't be getting into some of the more expensive stuff, it's good to keep that in the back of your mind when comparing the brands. See which has a nice upgrade path for you.

 So for haha's, pretend that someday you want to use a 24-70mm lens. Go and compared the Nikon 24-70mm F/2.8 and the Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L. See which seems built better, which is smaller, lighter, more compact. Etc etc.
 That should be one factor to consider.

 Like I said in the other thread, just try them out at your local Ritz and hold each for 30 minutes and use it to take pictures around the store. Compare Auto Focus speed, viewfinders, LCD's, menus, etc etc. See how they feel. Holding what feels like a brick to you for an hour can be a real chore, and that is why having a body that fits your hands is a really nice thing. Weight should also be a consideration.

 Keep us posted on what you find out after you try them at Ritz.

 And, as before, there will be times when you wish you had purchased the other kit. You just need to buy the brand that will help reduce this feeling as much as possible. ^_^


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Lenses: Hands down to Canon. Options, options options. And cheaper most of the time. Nikon really lacks in primes though.

Flash:I think Nikon's CLS is far better than what Canon has. However wireless triggers negate that. One can use older and cheaper flashes with pocket wizards or cactus triggers and achieve the same, if not better results(but this extends to Samsung/Pentax and Sony/Minolta)._

 

Nice write up into your own personal view and choices for your own uses.

 I think Nikon has a good amount of primes.

Nikon | Imaging Products | Wideangle
Nikon | Imaging Products | Normal
Nikon | Imaging Products | Telephoto

 Is this really lacking?

 Wireless triggers make every flash used with them work in manual and make owning such expensive flashes irrelevent since you never use the automatic features. That's good if you have time and assistants. While I use the manual method myself, I can see how easy it is with CLS like by setting ratios and stuff.


----------



## DLeeWebb

I lurk around here constantly. Trying to learn. I have a Canon Rebel XT with the EFS 17-85 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (whatever that means...) I bought it brand new two years ago. It seems to take a pretty good picture. I have no real technical knowledge about photography. However, I enjoy reading what you guys write about Canon cameras and lenses, third-party lenses etc. I don't really understand 95% of your discussion, but I pick up some information here and there. If I were going to purchase another lens or two what *Canon* lenses, similar to the one that I have in terms of quality and features, would allow me to take hand-held, candid street-type pictures from a greater distance than my current lens allows. What would be the best purchase? Would there be any other basic lenses that I should have as my interest and ability in photography increases?


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DLeeWebb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I lurk around here constantly. Trying to learn. I have a Canon Rebel XT with the EFS 17-85 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (whatever that means...) I bought it brand new two years ago. It seems to take a pretty good picture. I have no real technical knowledge about photography. However, I enjoy reading what you guys write about Canon cameras and lenses, third-party lenses etc. I don't really understand 95% of your discussion, but I pick up some information here and there. If I were going to purchase another lens or two what *Canon* lenses, similar to the one that I have in terms of quality and features, would allow me to take hand-held, candid street-type pictures from a greater distance than my current lens allows. What would be the best purchase? Would there be any other basic lenses that I should have as my interest and ability in photography increases?_

 

Well, for the two lenses, either the 28-135mm IS USM f4-5.6 from Canon, or the 70-300 IS USM f4-f5.6 from Canon. I'm a fast aperture guy, so my lens of choice would be a 24-70 f2.8 or a 28-70 f2.8 zoom (from an assortment of brands), but for most situations outdoors the two Canon zooms will suffice. 

 What I recommend also, is learning more about the basics of photography, like aperture control, shutter speeds and ISO selection. Something like this: How to Make Great Photographs will be a good primer on getting you to making better pictures. This is just a basic understanding of how your camera works and how you can affect it.


----------



## lan

DLeeWebb, your choices for Canon brand telephoto are 70-300 IS at $550 or if you want the best quality at slightly less range, 70-200 f4 IS at $1100.

 With either you have little overlap and can cover a lot of stuff. I wouldn't buy any other lens until you learn your favorite ranges and situations where you take photos.


----------



## DLeeWebb

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, for the two lenses, either the 28-135mm IS USM f4-5.6 from Canon, or the 70-300 IS USM f4-f5.6 from Canon. I'm a fast aperture guy, so my lens of choice would be a 24-70 f2.8 or a 28-70 f2.8 zoom (from an assortment of brands), but for most situations outdoors the two Canon zooms will suffice._

 

RP, Thanks for the recommendations, I've checked out these lenses at Canon and at B&H Photo.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What I recommend also, is learning more about the basics of photography, like aperture control, shutter speeds and ISO selection. Something like this:How to Make Great Photographs will be a good primer on getting you to making better pictures. This is just a basic understanding of how your camera works and how you can affect it._

 

Point well-taken, I plan to do just that.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_DLeeWebb, your choices for Canon brand telephoto are 70-300 IS at $550 or if you want the best quality at slightly less range, 70-200 f4 IS at $1100.

 With either you have little overlap and can cover a lot of stuff. I wouldn't buy any other lens until you learn your favorite ranges and situations where you take photos._

 

Ian, thanks I read a lot of what you post here and appreciate that you would take the time to respond. I am concerned about overlap. the 70-200 f4 IS is looking attractive to me at the moment. I'm not sure what I'm going to buy when, but I would like to know if there is a Canon wide-angle type lens that you would recommend.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DLeeWebb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ian, thanks I read a lot of what you post here and appreciate that you would take the time to respond. I am concerned about overlap. the 70-200 f4 IS is looking attractive to me at the moment. I'm not sure what I'm going to buy when, but I would like to know if there is a Canon wide-angle type lens that you would recommend._

 

No prob. Overlap is ok as some lenses don't perform well at their extremes.

 If you're looking for wide angle and Canon only, the 10-22 is great. I don't use these lenses and other people had great luck with Sigma and Tokina's in this range so those might be other cheaper alternatives.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DLeeWebb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I lurk around here constantly. Trying to learn. I have a Canon Rebel XT with the EFS 17-85 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (whatever that means...) I bought it brand new two years ago. It seems to take a pretty good picture. I have no real technical knowledge about photography. However, I enjoy reading what you guys write about Canon cameras and lenses, third-party lenses etc. I don't really understand 95% of your discussion, but I pick up some information here and there. If I were going to purchase another lens or two what *Canon* lenses, similar to the one that I have in terms of quality and features, would allow me to take hand-held, candid street-type pictures from a greater distance than my current lens allows. What would be the best purchase? Would there be any other basic lenses that I should have as my interest and ability in photography increases?_

 

What your talking about is focal length. If you want to take pictures from a greater distance than your current 17-85mm, then you'll need a longer focal length (85 or above). You may want to take a look at the Canon 70-200mm F/4 L lens for about 600$. Great price.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DLeeWebb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ian, thanks I read a lot of what you post here and appreciate that you would take the time to respond. I am concerned about overlap. the 70-200 f4 IS is looking attractive to me at the moment. I'm not sure what I'm going to buy when, but I would like to know if there is a Canon wide-angle type lens that you would recommend._

 

Canon 17-40mm L F/4. Yet another great lens for a great price.

 The Canon 17-40L F/4 and 70-200L F/4 would be a nice kit.


----------



## DLeeWebb

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No prob. Overlap is ok as some lenses don't perform well at their extremes.

 If you're looking for wide angle and Canon only, the 10-22 is great. I don't use these lenses and other people had great luck with Sigma and Tokina's in this range so those might be other cheaper alternatives._

 

Ok, thanks for the additional advice. I really appreciate it.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What your talking about is focal length. If you want to take pictures from a greater distance than your current 17-85mm, then you'll need a longer focal length (85 or above). You may want to take a look at the Canon 70-200mm F/4 L lens for about 600$. Great price._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Canon 17-40mm L F/4. Yet another great lens for a great price.

 The Canon 17-40L F/4 and 70-200L F/4 would be a nice kit._

 

Thank you as well T7. I'm taking notes and making a list. I've got to get some basic educational literature. Any really good websites, magazines, or books on the basics that you guys would recommend in addition to the link supplied by RP above?


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DLeeWebb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Any really good websites, magazines, or books on the basics that you guys would recommend in addition to the link supplied by RP above?_

 

For Canon specific POTN:
Canon Digital Photography Forums - Powered by vBulletin
 Tons of info and the same format as here.

 Note: All the 70-200's are highly conspicuous, little white beasts; they're heavy. If I were doing personal street photography, I'd rather the 70-300 IS, though I really adore the 70-200 f/4. But weigh and conspicuousness are finally your call.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DLeeWebb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thank you as well T7. I'm taking notes and making a list. I've got to get some basic educational literature. Any really good websites, magazines, or books on the basics that you guys would recommend in addition to the link supplied by RP above?_

 

I basically learned from personal experience. My camera came with a short 'intro to photography' from nikon, and that was enough to teach me things like Depth Of Field, shutter speed, focal lengths, etc.

 Once you learn what a few things are on the camera, you can go out and start experimenting for free. If you photograph a lot, expect to take about a year to get good, more or less. 

 I think to start taking full control of your camera, you need to first know what these are:
 Depth of Field
 aperture
 shutter speed
 ISO
 Field of View
 White Balance
 Dynamic Range (camera limitation)
 F-Stop

 Once you find out what each is, and how they intermix, you can start experimenting. I'm not too sure if there are books that are written on basic photography techniques. Most books I've seen are more specific for special purpose techniques, or specific categories of photography (landscape, people, etc). I wouldn't touch the ansel adams books until you've got a fair amount of experience behind you.

 There are a few really helpful articles on the internet that are worth a read. I've found a lot of helpful ones on ken rockwell's site. I'm sure a google search on what ever you wanted to learn about will pull up some nice websites.

 When you get good, you'll be able to go out, judge what the lighting conditions are, make a few changes to the camera (ISO, WB, aperture), and just start taking pictures.

 As you are starting out, you'll take pictures, look at them on the computer and say "I wish this looked different". That's when the thinking begins: "How could I have made this picture look better?", "Is there different equipment that I need?", "Was the lighting conditions less than ideal?", "Were my settings off?", "Could I frame it better?", etc etc.


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DLeeWebb* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ What would be the best purchase? Would there be any other basic lenses that I should have as my interest and ability in photography increases?_

 

Everyone who owns a Canon should at one time have the 50mm f/1.8. It's the perfect introductory prime. It's plastic, doesn't focus that well, but makes great photos. It's $89 from Amazon. Keep it for a while, play with its large aperture and bokeh, decide if you like that focal length, and then you can dump it off on POTN for 90% of what you bought if for. That's if you decide you want a better prime... and you will. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 It's an ideal "learner" lens.

 Edit: I should have said _large_ aperture over _wide_ to avoid confusion with focal length.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I personally shoot Canon at the moment because it was a cheaper alternative for me. I simply couldn't find a cheap D50 to replace my broken one. I only use my sigma 30mm f1.4, so I figured sell my Nikon mount to get a Canon one. However, I still haven't sold my nikon mount 30mm, or my SB-600. If the D90 can give some of the high ISO quality of the D300(I'll settle for less FPS and AF points/tracking), I'll sell my 350D setup and go back with the D90. Yeah canon's 40D successor will be out, but I'm sure it won't be in my budget. Here's some deciding factors that I'd go over:

Ergonomics: Simply opinion, but I like how Nikon's hold in my hand compared to Canon, especially at consumer levels. They fit my hands better. A Canon with a grip helps tremendously though, and is probably why I've been able to stand this past month with one. To be fair, my aunt's 5D fits like a glove, despite me not feeling at home with the controls. I also disliked taking my trigger finger off the shutter to adjust shutter speed/aperture with the rebels. I preferred using my thumb, that way I can still refocus(say following someone on stage) while adjusting settings. 

Bodies/sensors?: I think both groups can agree that Canon bodies are noticibley sharper, where as Nikon's handle noise better. A lot of people think Nikon's noise reduction hurts its overall sharpness, but its nothing some PP can fix. Look at Todd Owyoung's ISO 6400 images(ishootshows.com). Very clean and still sharp. I also like the dynamic range in Nikons over Canon. Doesn't matter too much if you shoot RAW though. 

Lenses: Hands down to Canon. Options, options options. And cheaper most of the time. Nikon really lacks in primes though. I read somewhere that quoted Nikon saying something along the lines of: only PJ's use primes, and that market is small. Though I don't know how much truth that holds, because I would think a PJ would want the flexibility of a zoom. Plus unless you're shooting with a D300 or better, 2.8 won't be fast enough at times. Canon has a plethora of lenses for that. Nikon may also never have a f1.2 autofocus lens because of how small the f mount is.

Flash:I think Nikon's CLS is far better than what Canon has. However wireless triggers negate that. One can use older and cheaper flashes with pocket wizards or cactus triggers and achieve the same, if not better results(but this extends to Samsung/Pentax and Sony/Minolta). 

 I'd heavily consider the type of shooting you'll be doing and your budget before buying either system. I think both are good, but I think the "you" part of your photography is gonna be more important than which system you buy into. A lot of my input is from someone who can only afford a consumer body and some decent glass. If you're in my boat, I personally would prioritize learning photoshop, since you probably already know how to use a camera manually well enough. I mean no offense to some people out there, but I've been blown away by people using cheap bodies and or third party lenses, and disappointed with results I've seen from those with much more expensive pro equipment.

 If I had to start from scratch with little money and buying used? I'd get which ever is cheaper. The only deal breaker to me really is the fact that Canon has more lens selection, but since I can't even afford most of that(a bag of L's are gonna be worth more than my car!), i'm gonna shoot third party. Everything else i've mentioned is really negligible at my budget.

 If I had a lot of money to buy new? I'd get a D700+24-70mm f2.8 and call it a day. ISO6400 @ f2.8 on full frame would probably be what I get on ISO 800 @ f1.4 on crop sensors. 

 If it helps any, the only shooting I take seriously is concert photography. I love live rock music, and it's a pleasure to shoot it. I love the challenge of capturing fast movement, in low lights, with people to fight with for position and safety. In my case, I just need a fast wide or normal prime(hence my 30mm 1.4), and a body that has decent high ISO. Luckily I can also use that as a walk around and indoor lens. So I can really get by with just one lens. You can see how either system fits the bill for me. Your needs might be different and not as simple. Luckily for me I find most other types of photography boring. Again, I mean no offense to anyone but I'm weird in that I like situations where there are variables outside of my control affecting my outcome(like surfing). However, I do want to get into some strobist fashion photography 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

A lot of great points here, but I'd disagree that Nikon's handle noise better than Canon's. Except in the D300, D700, and D3 (perhaps) I think Canon's CMOS sensors keep more detail and less noise than Nikon's CCD based cameras - these include the D40 through the D200. As for sharpness, you could be right; but I think lens selection will really make the difference here. 

 Speaking of lenses, I'd say that Nikon and Canon have equally competent selections. To be fair, Canon has some quality L lenses that you just can't find in Nikon's lineup (I'm looking at you 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L) but all in all, I'd be happy with either brand.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I personally shoot Canon at the moment because it was a cheaper alternative for me. I simply couldn't find a cheap D50 to replace my broken one. I only use my sigma 30mm f1.4, so I figured sell my Nikon mount to get a Canon one. However, I still haven't sold my nikon mount 30mm, or my SB-600. If the D90 can give some of the high ISO quality of the D300(I'll settle for less FPS and AF points/tracking), I'll sell my 350D setup and go back with the D90. Yeah canon's 40D successor will be out, but I'm sure it won't be in my budget. Here's some deciding factors that I'd go over:

Ergonomics: Simply opinion, but I like how Nikon's hold in my hand compared to Canon, especially at consumer levels. They fit my hands better. A Canon with a grip helps tremendously though, and is probably why I've been able to stand this past month with one. To be fair, my aunt's 5D fits like a glove, despite me not feeling at home with the controls. I also disliked taking my trigger finger off the shutter to adjust shutter speed/aperture with the rebels. I preferred using my thumb, that way I can still refocus(say following someone on stage) while adjusting settings. 

Bodies/sensors?: I think both groups can agree that Canon bodies are noticibley sharper, where as Nikon's handle noise better. A lot of people think Nikon's noise reduction hurts its overall sharpness, but its nothing some PP can fix. Look at Todd Owyoung's ISO 6400 images(ishootshows.com). Very clean and still sharp. I also like the dynamic range in Nikons over Canon. Doesn't matter too much if you shoot RAW though. 

Lenses: Hands down to Canon. Options, options options. And cheaper most of the time. Nikon really lacks in primes though. I read somewhere that quoted Nikon saying something along the lines of: only PJ's use primes, and that market is small. Though I don't know how much truth that holds, because I would think a PJ would want the flexibility of a zoom. Plus unless you're shooting with a D300 or better, 2.8 won't be fast enough at times. Canon has a plethora of lenses for that. Nikon may also never have a f1.2 autofocus lens because of how small the f mount is.

Flash:I think Nikon's CLS is far better than what Canon has. However wireless triggers negate that. One can use older and cheaper flashes with pocket wizards or cactus triggers and achieve the same, if not better results(but this extends to Samsung/Pentax and Sony/Minolta). 

 I'd heavily consider the type of shooting you'll be doing and your budget before buying either system. I think both are good, but I think the "you" part of your photography is gonna be more important than which system you buy into. A lot of my input is from someone who can only afford a consumer body and some decent glass. If you're in my boat, I personally would prioritize learning photoshop, since you probably already know how to use a camera manually well enough. I mean no offense to some people out there, but I've been blown away by people using cheap bodies and or third party lenses, and disappointed with results I've seen from those with much more expensive pro equipment.

 If I had to start from scratch with little money and buying used? I'd get which ever is cheaper. The only deal breaker to me really is the fact that Canon has more lens selection, but since I can't even afford most of that(a bag of L's are gonna be worth more than my car!), i'm gonna shoot third party. Everything else i've mentioned is really negligible at my budget.

 If I had a lot of money to buy new? I'd get a D700+24-70mm f2.8 and call it a day. ISO6400 @ f2.8 on full frame would probably be what I get on ISO 800 @ f1.4 on crop sensors. 

 If it helps any, the only shooting I take seriously is concert photography. I love live rock music, and it's a pleasure to shoot it. I love the challenge of capturing fast movement, in low lights, with people to fight with for position and safety. In my case, I just need a fast wide or normal prime(hence my 30mm 1.4), and a body that has decent high ISO. Luckily I can also use that as a walk around and indoor lens. So I can really get by with just one lens. You can see how either system fits the bill for me. Your needs might be different and not as simple. Luckily for me I find most other types of photography boring. Again, I mean no offense to anyone but I'm weird in that I like situations where there are variables outside of my control affecting my outcome(like surfing). However, I do want to get into some strobist fashion photography 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

What a great response. Thanks!

 I'm already pretty comfortable in Photoshop. I'm sure there are some skills I'll need to develop specific to using the RAW images, but I have used it to tweak my digital pics from the P&S for awhile.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nineohtoo has a lot of very good info.

 Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can also see a difference in the colors produced from a Nikon and Canon on the same white balance setting. It's subtle, but that is a consideration too. I'm used to the Nikon colors, and when I see some similar pictures from a Canon camera they look ever so slightly different (for better or for worse, you decide).

 On another note, lets be serious. Even if you start off with a budget lens and a budget camera I think you'll find yourself wanting to upgrade within the first year or so (new lenses to try!). So even though at the moment you won't be getting into some of the more expensive stuff, it's good to keep that in the back of your mind when comparing the brands. See which has a nice upgrade path for you.

 So for haha's, pretend that someday you want to use a 24-70mm lens. Go and compared the Nikon 24-70mm F/2.8 and the Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L. See which seems built better, which is smaller, lighter, more compact. Etc etc.
 That should be one factor to consider.

 Like I said in the other thread, just try them out at your local Ritz and hold each for 30 minutes and use it to shoot around the store. Compare Auto Focus speed, viewfinders, LCD's, menus, etc etc. See how they feel. Holding what feels like a brick to you for an hour can be a real chore, and that is why having a body that fits your hands is a really nice thing. Weight should also be a consideration.

 Keep us posted on what you find out after you try them at Ritz.

 And, as before, there will be times when you wish you had purchased the other kit. You just need to buy the brand that will help reduce this feeling as much as possible. ^_^_

 

My plan is to buy a consumer level body for now, but to invest in some high quality lenses over the next couple of years. When I have the lenses I need for 90% of my photography, I'll upgrade the body. I would really like a full frame sensor, but they are just too expensive right now. I'm leaning towards the Rebel 450d(XSi) because it comes with a better then average kit lens. In a few years, I suspect the full frame sensors will have dropped in price.

 My theory is that lens technology doesn't change as quickly as the DSLR bodies, so any investment in lenses now should serve me well for many years. The bodies however, digital especially, are advancing rapidly. In a couple more years I expect the sensors to be twice as good as those available today.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice write up into your own personal view and choices for your own uses.

 I think Nikon has a good amount of primes.

Nikon | Imaging Products | Wideangle
Nikon | Imaging Products | Normal
Nikon | Imaging Products | Telephoto

 Is this really lacking?

 Wireless triggers make every flash used with them work in manual and make owning such expensive flashes irrelevent since you never use the automatic features. That's good if you have time and assistants. While I use the manual method myself, I can see how easy it is with CLS like by setting ratios and stuff._

 

I don't know too much about flashes yet. I tend to take nature photos. When I use the flash, they always look washed out and crappy, so I've learned to just avoid the flash whenever I can 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A lot of great points here, but I'd disagree that Nikon's handle noise better than Canon's. Except in the D300, D700, and D3 (perhaps) I think Canon's CMOS sensors keep more detail and less noise than Nikon's CCD based cameras - these include the D40 through the D200. As for sharpness, you could be right; but I think lens selection will really make the difference here. 

 Speaking of lenses, I'd say that Nikon and Canon have equally competent selections. To be fair, Canon has some quality L lenses that you just can't find in Nikon's lineup (I'm looking at you 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L) but all in all, I'd be happy with either brand._

 

That's what I thought too. Canon has the better reputation regarding low noise at higher ISOs. I do take pictures in low light, so that is something I am considering in my decision.

 ...

 I'm going to go to the mall this weekend and play with some cameras. I got to take out my daughter in law's 350D yesterday, and I had a great time. I haven't had a chance to even look at the pictures yet, but it was nice to have some of the control I remember from my film days yet be able to take 100s of pictures without worrying about the cost of developing them all  Especially since they were mostly for learning. I went for about a 90 minute hike and I think I took around 100 pictures! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It did feel a little smallish in my hand. From what I've heard, Nikons fit larger hands better, so I'm curious how one will feel. On the other hand, I love to go backpacking so size and weight are things I have to keep in mind. That's one area that Canon beats Nikon. The equivalent Canons are usually lighter then the Nikons. I'm going to decide first based on functionality, but all things being equal, I would choose the lighter camera.

 I'll come back and let everyone know what I decide 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Thanks again for all the input.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 It did feel a little smallish in my hand. From what I've heard, Nikons fit larger hands better, so I'm curious how one will feel. On the other hand, I love to go backpacking so size and weight are things I have to keep in mind. That's one area that Canon beats Nikon. The equivalent Canons are usually lighter then the Nikons. I'm going to decide first based on functionality, but all things being equal, I would choose the lighter camera.

 I'll come back and let everyone know what I decide 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Just for haha's you may want to give the Nikon D80 and their Nikkor 18-200VR a shot and see what you think. Great camera, and wonderful entry level 'do everything' lens. Fairly small and light weight, you get VR for low light pictures, a huge range (18-200), a large viewfinder (VERY important, like the old film cameras your used to), good AF, comfortable, etc etc.
 Then try the canon body and see if it feels the same.
 ^_^


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just for haha's you may want to give the Nikon D80 and their Nikkor 18-200VR a shot and see what you think. Great camera, and wonderful entry level 'do everything' lens. Fairly small and light weight, you get VR for low light pictures, a huge range (18-200), a large viewfinder (VERY important, like the old film cameras your used to), good AF, comfortable, etc etc.
 Then try the canon body and see if it feels the same.
 ^_^_

 

Indeed. Skip the D40-D60 range, because the lack of built-in AF motors make them unable to use anything other than AF-S lenses if you want autofocus, which is a crying shame because there are quite a lot of good Nikon glass out there. 

 The 450D is much better with a battery grip, I find, and you can detach it for those "Need-lightness" moments when traveling. The battery life is simply ridiculous though - I've not charged the pair of batteries in that camera for nearly a month and it hasn't moved from the "full" indicator after roughly 700+ pictures. Plus, the ability to use all of the EF/EF-S lenses that are available is great. 

 On a side note, I have been excitedly waiting for my cousin to give me his Tokina 828 AT-X Pro AF 80-200 f2.8 zoom lens that he does not use anymore. I went on a trip back to Jakarta to clear up some other matters, and was going to pick up the lens at his house, but he forgot it at his office and I had no chance to go back for a second visit to his house before I had to leave town. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Argh!


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ f.28 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



_

 

I would not be happy with a f28 lens either. Needs more speed.


 Have you ever used a Tokina Pro lens??


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would not be happy with a f28 lens either. Needs more speed.


 Have you ever used a Tokina Pro lens??_

 

Note that it said f.28 (f/.28, in other words) which would make it have enough speed to make the Roadrunner envious. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 No, but since I'm getting it for free, I'm not complaining? Why, is there something I ought to look out for?


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Note that it said f.28 (f/.28, in other words) which would make it have enough speed to make the Roadrunner envious. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 No, but since I'm getting it for free, I'm not complaining? Why, is there something I ought to look out for?_

 

Thinking it is an older series. Nothing really to look out for. Just love the build quality of the Toke Pro glass.

 It actually looks to be a decent performer. 7.8 at FMs.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thinking it is an older series. Nothing really to look out for. Just love the build quality of the Toke Pro glass.

 It actually looks to be a decent performer. 7.8 at FMs._

 

Okey-dokey. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think it is fairly old, mid-late 90's or so, for this particular sample. 

 It should be ok, but I've heard about some problems with flaring on digital systems. We'll see what the actual problem is.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Okey-dokey. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I think it is fairly old, mid-late 90's or so, for this particular sample. 

 It should be ok, but I've heard about some problems with flaring on digital systems. We'll see what the actual problem is._

 

Looks to be pretty well built at least. The big thing with Tokina is chromatic aberrations. Many say it is easily correctable in PP though.


----------



## lan

Canon 9d?

UPC Database: Item Record

 Saw this on engadget that UPC symbol of Nikon D90 appeared but also this.

 Should be an interesting few months.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Canon 9d?

UPC Database: Item Record

 Saw this on engadget that UPC symbol of Nikon D90 appeared but also this.

 Should be an interesting few months._

 

Pimpin!


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_On a side note, I have been excitedly waiting for my cousin to give me his Tokina 828 AT-X Pro AF 80-200 f2.8 zoom lens_

 

Free is always good. I hated this lens though (when I tried on Nikon mount).


----------



## Towert7

Wow, I just stumbled across a Canon 50mm F/1.0L lens.
 Selling for 4200$.
 Anyone ever use one?


----------



## lan

LOL. You mean the used one at B&H?

 The 1200mm at $100,000 or the nikon 300 f2 @ $10,000 are far more interesting.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LOL. You mean the used one at B&H?

 The 1200mm at $100,000 or the nikon 300 f2 @ $10,000 are far more interesting. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It's funny that you say that, because I would be more interested in the 50 F/1.0.
 ^_^


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's funny that you say that, because I would be more interested in the 50 F/1.0.
 ^_^_

 

1.0? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 So it can take pictures in the dark? lol


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_1.0? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yea, I had to do a double take when I saw that too.
 But, I guess they did make it.


----------



## Repooc

Although I`m a Nikon guy (D80)... I must admit, I`ve taken a liking to the SD1100 is. Considering it as a gift for my fiance over the Nikon S550.

 (8 more posts to go)


----------



## darkninja67

I think my next rental will be the Magic Canonball. Anyone here own it or shoot it?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Canon 9d?

UPC Database: Item Record

 Saw this on engadget that UPC symbol of Nikon D90 appeared but also this.

 Should be an interesting few months._

 

wth? No 5D MkII or this is a completely different beast?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's funny that you say that, because I would be more interested in the 50 F/1.0.
 ^_^_

 

Certainly most of us could use a shorter range more. I don't think 1.0 is worth the extra cost given how much cheaper the 1.2 is. You could nearly get 1DMKIII and 50 1.2 for the price of a 1.0 LOL.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Certainly most of us could use a shorter range more. I don't think 1.0 is worth the extra cost given how much cheaper the 1.2 is. You could nearly get 1DMKIII and 50 1.2 for the price of a 1.0 LOL._

 

Oh for sure. The price is sky high! I looked over at POTN and didn't even see a thread feating pictures from this lens. Must be real rare!


----------



## lan

You could look on pbase for some pics taken by this lens but I have to warn you, most of them are sad photos. I'm talking ill exposed and not much creative use of f/1.0.


----------



## wquiles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The S100FS is nearly $700 though. Certainly you wouldn't be saving much money. Did you just need extra reach?_

 

I go the Fuji yesterday. Unfortunately the class 6 SD card seems to be lost in transit, so right now I am using a generic SD card which is just plain SLOW. That aside, the S100FS is not a "light" camera by any means. On my calibrated shipping scale, the Fuji came in at 2 pounds 4 ounces, while the Canon Rebel & 24-105F4 "L" combo came at 3 pounds even - does not seem like a lot, but handling both you can certainly like the "lighter" camera. The weight on the Fuji seems to be concentrated on the "lens" portion.

 I can't say much about shooter lag and shot-to-shot until I get a decent SD card, and I have not played much trying to tweak the Fuji's various controls/settings, but preliminary testing still shows the Canon slightly faster (which I think all of us expected). The built-in flash in the Canon is a little brighter for indoor shots - not much, but something to note. Macro on the Fuji is nice as well - a lot closer than I was able to achieve on the Canon combo.

 So far I like the Fuji, but I need more time to really compare both. I will post pictures probably next week 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Will


----------



## nineohtoo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *M0T0XGUY* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...but I'd disagree that Nikon's handle noise better than Canon's. Except in the D300, D700, and D3 (perhaps) I think Canon's CMOS sensors keep more detail and less noise than Nikon's CCD based cameras..._

 

Sorry. I should have been clear. Yes I also agree. Nikon's current crop of prosumer and pro bodies have great noise handling. Everything else minus the D50 and D2Hs is utter crap. CMOS sensors from Canon give a film like grain, compared to the multicolored grain from Nikon's CCD sensors. 

 Now that I think about it, if I can get a D2Hs under 800, I'd probably take that over a D90. Great AF, quick speed, small file sizes, and decent noise handling for CCD.

 EDIT: Great. I'm settled on a D2Hs. All my Canon gear is gonna be put on POTN and craigslist tonight lol. Need a D2Hs asap.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_EDIT: Great. I'm settled on a D2Hs. All my Canon gear is gonna be put on POTN and craigslist tonight lol. Need a D2Hs asap._

 

Wow, that's quite the switch. Which Canon camera did you have before?
 I'll be interested to see how you like the D2Hs.


----------



## nineohtoo

350D. I've only had it for maybe a month. I'm also considering a 40D at the moment, but I'm leaning towards the D2Hs so I can keep my D50 as a crippled back up, smaller files for easier/faster PP, and for the build. Plus I miss Nikon controls lol.


----------



## Hayduke

Am I missing something?

 Why a D2Hs?

 Seems like a lot of $$ for 4MP


----------



## lan

There's nothing wrong with 4MP. I still love my 1D "classic". It still runs circles around the other cameras in handling and build.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's nothing wrong with 4MP. I still love my 1D "classic". It still runs circles around the other cameras in handling and build._

 

You're right. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the camera. I like to make large prints, so MP is important for me.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hayduke* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Am I missing something?

 Why a D2Hs?

 Seems like a lot of $$ for 4MP _

 

The D2Hs was built for speed. You also get pro-build, feel, weather-proofing, etc...

 With a lil' work (noise reduction, etc), a 4MP image can be upsized with few noticeable consequences. Of course, it probably wouldn't be sufficient for poster-board sized prints


----------



## RedLeader

I asked in the post your photography thread, figure I'll try here too. I'm a canuck, heading down to buffalo to fly out for PAX in seattle. Is there anywhere in buffalo/downtown seattle where I could pick up a Canon 50/1.8? I've looked but can't really find anywhere.


----------



## Bob_McBob

If the specs posted on Canon China's site are correct, it looks like we're getting yet another incremental upgrade to the XXD line: Canon 50D


----------



## raptor84

Aww man that better not be true :|


----------



## lan

Why wouldn't you want it to be true? You just got a 40D? or is it some specs like the increase in megapixels.

 For me I just can't get into this line. I like the 1 series or Rebels.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why wouldn't you want it to be true? You just got a 40D? or is it some specs like the increase in megapixels.

 For me I just can't get into this line. I like the 1 series or Rebels._

 

All or just a little bit, eh lan? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Apparently it's got in-body IS, and ISO 12800. 15MP resolution, too. Still 9-point AF...but all cross-type. Wish they'd at least bump up the # of AF points. 1/8000 max shutter.


----------



## archosman

wonder what that's gonna run?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_wonder what that's gonna run?_

 

Anyone wanna guess 1300$us to compete with the new D90?
 I will.


----------



## archosman

Just got a 40D 4 weeks ago.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just got a 40D 4 weeks ago._

 

That's an extra 4 weeks (at least!) of fun you've had with the 40D than if you waited for the new 50D.
 Enjoy your 40D and don't look back.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's an extra 4 weeks (at least!) of fun you've had with the 40D than if you waited for the new 50D.
 Enjoy your 40D and don't look back._

 

That's exactly what I'm going to do!


----------



## raptor84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why wouldn't you want it to be true? You just got a 40D? or is it some specs like the increase in megapixels.

 For me I just can't get into this line. I like the 1 series or Rebels._

 

Cause i want a 5D replacement and not a 40D one hehe.. and yes 15mp is getting ridiculous IMO.. 12 was a sweet spot


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Cause i want a 5D replacement and not a 40D one hehe.. and yes 15mp is getting ridiculous IMO.. 12 was a sweet spot 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Unless you need the new tech, might as well enjoy what you have. Most people should just get more lenses in the mean time. A new 5D replacement won't be cheap and could probably buy 2-3 L lenses.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All or just a little bit, eh lan? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Apparently it's got in-body IS, and ISO 12800. 15MP resolution, too. Still 9-point AF...but all cross-type. Wish they'd at least bump up the # of AF points. 1/8000 max shutter._

 

Yeah I like the Rebels because they get updated the most with the latest tech. But for seriousness, the 1 series's build and speed is just better. The xxD series doesn't do much for me.

 I won't really comment on a supposed 50D unless it's officially announced.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Unless you need the new tech, might as well enjoy what you have. Most people should just get more lenses in the mean time. A new 5D replacement won't be cheap and could probably buy 2-3 L lenses..._

 


 Agreed...


----------



## darkninja67

Happy my 40D. Looking to get more glass rather than another body. Plus bodies depreciate much quicker compared to lenses. I think I need a 70-200mm soon.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think I need a 70-200mm soon._

 

You've been saying this for ages... What else is new? Just get it and be done with it.


----------



## laxx

Indeed, just get it. <3ing my 70-200 f2.8 IS.

 About the 50D, it should be soon. Isn't the XXD line an 18 month refresh? The one year mark is approaching very soon, so an announcement at the end of 2008 wouldn't be surprising.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You've been saying this for ages... What else is new? Just get it and be done with it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I was going to respond with this very same statement, but lan beat me to it.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Holy crap, in body IS?

 EDIT: Nevermind


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You've been saying this for ages... What else is new? Just get it and be done with it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

$1700 does not grow on trees. Plus the prime bug is calling me. I really want to try the 200mm f2.8L prime one of these days. I want (need) a long prime for candids and street work. The white Ls garner way too much attention and defeats the stealthiness needed.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_$1700 does not grow on trees. Plus the prime bug is calling me. I really want to try the 200mm f2.8L prime one of these days. I want (need) a long prime for candids and street work. The white Ls garner way too much attention and defeats the stealthiness needed._

 

I've had the prime bug ever since I got my 50mm F/1.8. What a fantastic lens! Ever prime since the has been nothing short of fantastic. Only problem I find now, is that when I am taking pictures of people at parties, I wish I had more of a zoom. I'd really love the zoom that a 70-200 gives me, or a 24-70 for that matter.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've had the prime bug ever since I got my 50mm F/1.8. What a fantastic lens! Ever prime since the has been nothing short of fantastic. Only problem I find now, is that when I am taking pictures of people at parties, I wish I had more of a zoom. I'd really love the zoom that a 70-200 gives me, or a 24-70 for that matter._

 

I hear ya. I really miss my 85mm f1.8. I will own it again and hopefully soon. The Sigma 30mm f1.4 intrigues me as well since it kept pace with the Canon L in one review. The 135mm f2L is one I would not mind trying out as well. The Canon 100mm Macro will probably be my macro lens once I get into that sort of stuff.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_$1700 does not grow on trees. Plus the prime bug is calling me. I really want to try the 200mm f2.8L prime one of these days. I want (need) a long prime for candids and street work. The white Ls garner way too much attention and defeats the stealthiness needed._

 

Ah I thought we were under the impression that you were ready to buy already.

 Try the 135/2 then and add a 1.4x teleconvertor if you need something closer to 200/2.8


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ah I thought we were under the impression that you were ready to buy already.

 Try the 135/2 then and add a 1.4x teleconvertor if you need something closer to 200/2.8_

 

I have 135mm covered already. I really REALLY REALLY want to try this 200mm prime. I was going to rent it anyway so I can just count depreciation as my rental fee if I want to sell it.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have 135mm covered already. I really REALLY REALLY want to try this 200mm prime. I was going to rent it anyway so I can just count depreciation as my rental fee if I want to sell it._

 

I'm sure it will be a real nice lens.
 Let us know how you like it when you get it!


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm sure it will be a real nice lens.
 Let us know how you like it when you get it!_

 

Oh I will. Shot with Canon L glass before just never owned it. The thing is that I can get a mint 70-200mm f2.8L gently used for $900 at POTN. Gah, I figure I will own both. Also thinking get the 200mm prime now for street and candids then get the 70-200mm f2.8 IS for the fall football season. Definitely feasible.


 Me also want one of these:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=557184

 If I can sell a kidney soon.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have 135mm covered already. I really REALLY REALLY want to try this 200mm prime. I was going to rent it anyway so I can just count depreciation as my rental fee if I want to sell it._

 

One of my favorite lenses for mid- to long-range work on the street. 

 Did I tell you how much I love it yet? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I love it I love it I love it!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Super-fast USM AF, too. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Me also want one of these:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=557184

 If I can sell a kidney soon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

There's been a few scandals regarding kidney sales to rich donors in Singapore, but you can roughly fetch $20-30k for a kidney in good shape.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have 135mm covered already. I really REALLY REALLY want to try this 200mm prime. I was going to rent it anyway so I can just count depreciation as my rental fee if I want to sell it._

 

At what f/stop do you have 135mm covered?

 I still would rather have the 135/2 rather than 200/2.8 as it's a stop faster. The 200/2.8 is cheaper priced though.


----------



## roastpuff

I have just tried the Sigma 30mm f1.4 at the local camera shop. 

 OMG. Die die must have one. -_-;;


----------



## vibin247

I'm really enjoying my 40D so far. With the 24mm f/1.4L, it makes a nice everyday companion. The new 50D looks nice, but I'm focused on getting a 1D Mark III and/or it's next replacement. 10 MP is all I need. I just like something more solid and can take some punishment while in the field. I didn't think the 1D Mark III and 1Ds Mark III were that heavy when I demoed them at a photo expo back in April.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_At what f/stop do you have 135mm covered?

 I still would rather have the 135/2 rather than 200/2.8 as it's a stop faster. The 200/2.8 is cheaper priced though._

 

I am at f2.8 at 135mm. I know the 135mm is a step above the 200mm but the price kind of kills it for me.

 I am thinking my final kit will be this:

 Tokina 11-16mm f2.8
 Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
 Canon 70-200mm f2.8L (IS or Non IS)
 Canon 85mm f1.8 USM
 Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro or the Sigma 150mm f2.8 Macro
 Canon 200mm f2.8L
 Canon 300mm f4L IS

 That should have me well covered. Plus a 580 II flash later on.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have just tried the Sigma 30mm f1.4 at the local camera shop. 

 OMG. Die die must have one. -_-;;_

 

I want to try that prime. I hear the 50mm is still having issues with focusing and such. The 30 is the way to go with Sigma primes.

 EDIT: Actually the 135mm f2L may be an option. Did not realize it is only $930 or so. hmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## raptor84

Wow that is quite an extensive kit =p Would like to see what the 200/2.8 can do though..


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow that is quite an extensive kit =p Would like to see what the 200/2.8 can do though.._

 














 From my copy of the EF 200 2.8L


----------



## darkninja67

Yeah my next lens will be either the 200mm or the 135mm. Thinking on a cropped lens for candid street photography the 135mm will be just right. I have seen the examples of the bokeh it produces and it is sweet.

 Ian, I want $300 from you for the difference in price between those two lenses. You did recommend the 135mm to me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow that is quite an extensive kit =p Would like to see what the 200/2.8 can do though.._

 


 I do not own that yet. Only 25% of the way there.

 Gonna need a bigger bag though, thinking Tamrac Pro 12.


----------



## darkninja67

roastpuff, did you ever grab the Sigma 50-150mm?


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_roastpuff, did you ever grab the Sigma 50-150mm?_

 

Ah, no. I ended up with a free (from my cousin who has given up photography) Tokina 80-200 f2.8! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I haven't seen it yet, because it's still in my dad's luggage and he just arrived in Singapore today. This makes me want to skive off work and grab it....


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ian, I want $300 from you for the difference in price between those two lenses. You did recommend the 135mm to me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Gonna need a bigger bag though, thinking Tamrac Pro 12._

 

How many bags you got? I'm not sure how many I have anymore. A bigger bag isn't always better especially when you don't want to carry it all. I have a Pro 5. I'm not sure I'd like to carry the Pro 12. I have a backpack and a roller carry-on for anything heavier.

 Sorry for your wallet.


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Me also want one of these:
She is finally mine! - Canon Digital Photography Forums

 If I can sell a kidney soon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Why not the 200mm f2 IS?


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How many bags you got? I'm not sure how many I have anymore. A bigger bag isn't always better especially when you don't want to carry it all. I have a Pro 5. I'm not sure I'd like to carry the Pro 12. I have a backpack and a roller carry-on for anything heavier.

 Sorry for your wallet. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I used to have a couple of huge Tamracs for my video and photo gear back in the 90s. Love that brand even more than Lowepro.

 I would use the Pro 12 to house my stuff rather than carry it. I have a Velocity 9 as well which can carry about 3 lenses and a gripped body.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why not the 200mm f2 IS? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 How about I sell both kidneys, a lung and some of my liver, then DIE, and I will put the 200mm f2 in my will for you to have???


 EDIT: Possibly or probably pulling the trigger on a Canon 200mm f2.8L II this Friday. Just need that extra reach until I can get the 70-200mm IS for Christmas. Plus I can get an 85mm f1.8 with the rest of the money.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_EDIT: Possibly or probably pulling the trigger on a Canon 200mm f2.8L II this Friday. Just need that extra reach until I can get the 70-200mm IS for Christmas. Plus I can get an 85mm f1.8 with the rest of the money._

 

This sounds like a plan. No need for 135/2 if you'll have prime on both extremes and 70-200 zoom either.


----------



## lan

Ok it's official. 50D and 18-200IS are announced!

Canon EOS 50D Digital SLR Camera - Canon UK
Canon announces EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens: Digital Photography Review


----------



## laxx

Damn, if only it had a few more focus points. But the ISO sounds sexy...


----------



## Towert7

Sad to see that the new 18-200IS is _still_ not positioned to compete against the 18-200VR nikon.

 For the 50D:

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *canon* 
_Camera Adjusts Tricky Details.
 New Lens Peripheral Illumination Correction setting to automatically even the brightness across the image.
 spacer
 Canon's exclusive Lens Peripheral Illumination setting takes into account any light falloff in the corners of the frame and corrects it, making for a perfectly exposed image. Correction data are detected automatically on a number of Canon EF lenses and can be entered manually through the included Canon EOS Utility software._

 

I hope this is an option and not an always on feature.
 Sometimes the light fall off of certain lenses is desirable. It would be a shame to loose this nice touch.

 I'm also a little sad to see they are spending so much time and effort with live view. Face detection? I hope they are not loosing sight of what audience buys a 50D.

 And sadly, it still looks like the same ergonomics of the 40D, which is not something I like.


 Oh well, lets hope the updated 5D isn't a botch.


----------



## lan

The lightfall off compensation is a cool thing. I'm happy to see that in there as sometimes you just don't want to adjust in post processing so it'll help workflow speeds. If i wanted light falloff, I could just do it in post processing.

 I wonder how much the 18-200IS will be.

 laxx, what will just a few more points do for you? Gotta have all 45 or more


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The lightfall off compensation is a cool thing. I'm happy to see that in there as sometimes you just don't want to adjust in post processing so it'll help workflow speeds. If i wanted light falloff, I could just do it in post processing._

 

Lightfalloff is a cool thing. I'm happy when it's there sometimes, because I don't want to add it in post processing. It helps my workflow speeds.

 If I didn't want light falloff, I could just remove it in post processing.

 ^_^

 I go for an artistic effect with some of my pictures, so light falloff is really a valuable asset! For those who just shot pictures of white screens or skies, I can understand.

 I know which of my lenses, and at what focal lengths, will give falloff so I can anticipate which lens to use for what shot. Very simple.


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_laxx, what will just a few more points do for you? Gotta have all 45 or more 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

If my wallet let me have all 45, I'd be more than willing to have it. =[


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Lightfalloff is a cool thing.

 I go for an artistic effect with some of my pictures

 I know which of my lenses, and at what focal lengths, will give falloff so I can anticipate which lens to use for what shot. Very simple._

 

It really should be a setting since this is a glass half full/empty thing. You would prefer to leave it off and post process it. I'd prefer it on and not have to deal with it in post processing since the majority of my pics don't want/need it. For the occasional artistic effect, I rather have a certain amount at any focal length, on any lens, at any f/stop so I would post process it anyhow and not leave it at whatever the lens wants it to be.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It really should be a setting since this is a glass half full/empty thing. You would prefer to leave it off and post process it. I'd prefer it on and not have to deal with it in post processing since the majority of my pics don't want/need it. For the occasional artistic effect, I rather have a certain amount at any focal length, on any lens, at any f/stop so I would post process it anyhow and not leave it at whatever the lens wants it to be._

 

Agreed, it really should be an option to turn on/off. That's what I wonder.
 If it isn't an option, I think it would be a big "opps" for the 50D.


----------



## lan

AF fine tuning is more interesting to me as is the current 40D features of sRAW. An improved live view is somewhat useful to me also. I'm not going here though. Some of us await the new 5D replacement.


----------



## darkninja67

The 50D looks pretty impressive. There are going to be a lot of 40Ds for sale soon.


----------



## gbx2006

The only thing I dislike about the 50d so far, is the fact that it came out 2 months after I already purchased my 40d.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Ugh.


----------



## lan

Can't you still return your 40D? 50D isn't coming out till October. Then again the price difference is nearly the price of some good lenses.


----------



## gbx2006

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can't you still return your 40D? 50D isn't coming out till October. Then again the price difference is nearly the price of some good lenses._

 

I wish I could. I purchased it at the end of June from best buy. I doubt that they will take it back now after 14 days.

 I already have all of the lenses that I need for now, so the extra cost of the 50d would be well worth it to me.

 BTW, I bet the LCD screen on the 50d is going to be just amazing.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 50D looks pretty impressive. There are going to be a lot of 40Ds for sale soon._

 

I hope the next gen 5D comes out soon. Then I might be able to get a full frame camera for cheap
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I recently got a chance to shoot with the 5D and it is superb. Handling is good, especially with the battery grip. The ISO performance is also pretty decent (certainly usable at 1600). The 5D does take a fraction longer to attain focus than the D300 and I still prefer the Nikon menus. Anyhow, I would love to get my paws on one for scenic shots because the D700 is too expensive.


----------



## Bob_McBob

The 5D's handling is actually quite a bit behind the current generation of Canon DSLRs. Even the menu system is arranged completely differently (they no longer use the "everything on one page" approach).

 One thing that bugs me about the 50D is that they still don't have a grip with a proper AF-ON button. Adding a BG-E2 or BG-E2N basically makes the AF-ON button completely useless, since there's no way to autofocus when using the grip. You have to tie AF to the * button like you do with the older cameras, and the only way to do that is to completely swap the AF-ON and * button functions. This makes the AF-ON button the "zoom out" button in image preview, which is just idiotic. I do not miss this aspect of owning a 40D.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hope the next gen 5D comes out soon. Then I might be able to get a full frame camera for cheap
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I recently got a chance to shoot with the 5D and it is superb. Handling is good, especially with the battery grip. The ISO performance is also pretty decent (certainly usable at 1600). The 5D does take a fraction longer to attain focus than the D300 and I still prefer the Nikon menus. Anyhow, I would love to get my paws on one for scenic shots because the D700 is too expensive._

 

I will wait on full frame. I am very happy with the 1.6 crop. I always wondered why people love Nikon for ergonomics. I handled a D300 and D700 today and was unimpressed. The buttons are all over the place and there are a lot of them. With Canon you have the main dial and quick control, and the 3 top buttons which are used for 2 functions each and the mode dial. Anyway, Canon seems more sorted out to me rather than random like Nikon. To each his own.

 I hope the 5F replacement kicks some butt. Image quality is where it is at and I think the new model will continue that tradition. I hear it is a ways off though.


----------



## laxx

Hell yea. I can afford a 5D II now that I'm single and not having to care as much about saving now.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hell yea. I can afford a 5D II now that I'm single and not having to care as much about saving now._

 

LOL. Do it man. But before it comes out, you really want to buy my 24-105 don't you?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I will wait on full frame. I am very happy with the 1.6 crop. I always wondered why people love Nikon for ergonomics. I handled a D300 and D700 today and was unimpressed. The buttons are all over the place and there are a lot of them. With Canon you have the main dial and quick control, and the 3 top buttons which are used for 2 functions each and the mode dial. Anyway, Canon seems more sorted out to me rather than random like Nikon. To each his own.

 I hope the 5F replacement kicks some butt. Image quality is where it is at and I think the new model will continue that tradition. I hear it is a ways off though._

 

For me, it's more than the placement of the buttons (though that's a big one for me). It's just how it fits my hand. The body is less of a rectangle brick, and more of a 'fit my hand' style. It also seems to grip my hand better, with much less of a plastic feel.

 My hunch is that if you gave the nikon a shot for a week, you'd change your mind.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For me, it's more than the placement of the buttons (though that's a big one for me). It's just how it fits my hand. The body is less of a rectangle brick, and more of a 'fit my hand' style. It also seems to grip my hand better, with much less of a plastic feel.

 My hunch is that if you gave the nikon a shot for a week, you'd change your mind._

 

I've been debating Canon vs Nikon myself recently so I went to the store and played with both brands for a bit. I couldn't figure out the Nikon's interface at the camera store, so I really can't say which I like better, but the Canon's seemed a little more intuitive. I want to give it another chance, so I downloaded the manual and will give it a read before I go try them out again. I did really like the way it felt though. The Rebels seemed small in my hand. This isn't necessarily a bad thing though as I will be taking mine on backpacking trips, so weight/size is a consideration.

 There was one difference between the Canons and the Nikons though that really caught my attention. The zooms work in the opposite direction! I've been borrowing a Rebel XT, and the zoom has always seemed backwards to me. The direction you twist the zoom ring on the Nikon lens is the way I think it should be. This is entirely personal preference, but I constantly find my self twisting the Canon lens the wrong way. This one detail may be enough for me to decide, but I'm still not sure.

 Of course that new D90 is looking pretty damn nice!

 I'm still leaning towards Canon, but it's based entirely on price. I would like a full frame sensor down the road, and I think Canon will offer one I can afford before Nikon will. Canon lenses also seem to be cheaper then the equivalent Nikkor lens. Of course, I could be mistaken on that particular point.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For me, it's more than the placement of the buttons (though that's a big one for me). It's just how it fits my hand. The body is less of a rectangle brick, and more of a 'fit my hand' style. It also seems to grip my hand better, with much less of a plastic feel.

 My hunch is that if you gave the nikon a shot for a week, you'd change your mind._

 

I can understand that. Nikons seem too thick in the handgrip for me. No idea if they actually are but my 40D fits perfectly. Like they designed it for woman hands like mine.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LOL. Do it man. But before it comes out, you really want to buy my 24-105 don't you? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Got a spare 70-200mm lens you want to get rid of?


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I always wondered why people love Nikon for ergonomics. I handled a D300 and D700 today and was unimpressed. The buttons are all over the place and there are a lot of them. With Canon you have the main dial and quick control, and the 3 top buttons which are used for 2 functions each and the mode dial. Anyway, Canon seems more sorted out to me rather than random like Nikon. To each his own._

 

and I've always wondered why people love Canon for ergonomics
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Kiddin. 

 I entirely understand what you mean. They are two completely different approaches. I'm sure I would be right at home with Canons if I used one for a few months.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Got a spare 70-200mm lens you want to get rid of?_

 

Just can't get rid of them since I love them all.


----------



## nineohtoo

I laugh when people say canon or nikon controls are worse than the other. For the most part settings can be changed to make it like the other companies. If anything, I give Canon credit for giving multiple options. I've played with the 40D, and I don't like having to reach for the AF select button, then jog the dial. I'd much rather program that to the joystick, and leave shutter speed/aperture control to that dial. Keeps me from accidentally changing shutter speed instead of AF point. Now with the Nikon's I've used the rear dial controls aperture/shutter, not AF points. They however never gave me the other option.

 In terms of menus and everything, I don't see the two being that dramatically different. I did prefer nikon's shortcuts. I'd press one of the buttons like ISO or QUAL, and jog the dial to change it. On my 350D I've got to press the iso button, and select it in the menu, which is a few more steps. AND since I've designated my buttons to pick AF points, I lose that shortcut.


----------



## Dimitris

Nice announcements and everything but where the heck is the new 5D? I need to get an old one for cheap and that wont happen until the new one is out. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My 35L & 85L are calling for FF!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice announcements and everything but where the heck is the new 5D? I need to get an old one for cheap and that wont happen until the new one is out. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My 35L & 85L are calling for FF!_

 

Haha. I can't believe just how many people are waiting for the 5D replacement. Not to buy it, but to get a good deal on the 5D.
 ^_^


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I laugh when people say canon or nikon controls are worse than the other.

 In terms of menus and everything, I don't see the two being that dramatically different._

 

It's impossible to generalize because everything IS dramatically different even in the same brand. I know of at least 5 Canon menu systems. The button placement keep evolving also. Once you figure things out, it shouldn't be a problem though. It only gets to be a problem if your most used items are hard to get to.


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nineohtoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In terms of menus and everything, I don't see the two being that dramatically different. I did prefer nikon's shortcuts. I'd press one of the buttons like ISO or QUAL, and jog the dial to change it. On my 350D I've got to press the iso button, and select it in the menu, which is a few more steps. AND since I've designated my buttons to pick AF points, I lose that shortcut._

 

The greatest improvement I enjoy going from 350D to 40D is the ISO button. The XSi has a dedicated ISO button too.


----------



## Ed Sawyer

I have the 50 1.0L. It's a nice lens. has its minor flaws one has to learn to work around, but it also offers a lot that no other lens can. 

 -Ed


----------



## raptor84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Haha. I can't believe just how many people are waiting for the 5D replacement. Not to buy it, but to get a good deal on the 5D.
 ^_^_

 







 I'm possibly one of those people.. unless the new 5D's specs tempt me too much hehe..


----------



## wquiles

Well guys (and gals), after a week or two with the Fuji, I now have my Canon Rebel and 24-105 L lens on Ebay for sale.

 Comparing these two is not a true apples to apples comparison, but here is some basic points why I am keeping the Fuji:
 - I can take pictures and video on the same platform - simply freaking awesome for following my kids's activities, events, etc.. I have a cool recording of my little girl who just learned to swim on her own - simply priceless 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 - The Fuji is smaller, lighter, and nicer handling for my uses. Now I really don't have an excuse to not take my camera along more often and while traveling.
 - Fantastic manual and feature control - rivaling and even exeeding what is capable with my Canon.
 - The built in wide-to-really long telephoto, and not having the change lens is awesome. Taking closeups shots of my daugther while she was taking her skating lessons was piece of cake - the stabilizing mechanism works really well when shooting un-supported.
 - Much better built-in macro capability, which I use a lot for my hobbies - I would need a dedicated lens on the Canon to achieve similar results.
 - Built-in automatic red eye elimination: not a deal breaker (since you can do this and much more once on the PC, but you can't beat the convenience of not having to do a thing).
 - Pretty reasonably short shutter lag. The Canon is still quicker, but not by a huge amount. The one time the Canon pulls away is when doing more than one shot in a row and even more when the flash is used - the Canon rules here.
 - Fast focusing - not faster than the Canon, but definitely good enough, even indoors with poor lightling.

 Basically, as a pure "camera", the Canon D-SLR is still the better one of the two. But given its "swiss-army" type of capabilities, the Fuji gives me what I need in a great package. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being best) the Fuji does not do many things at the 10 level, but does more things/stuff in the 8-9 range - so it meets my criteria of being pretty good enough for my uses. I will definitely keep an eye for more camera enhancements - this will not be the last camera that I buy, and I will miss a little the slightly faster D-SRL speeds 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Will


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wquiles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well guys (and gals), after a week or two with the Fuji, I now have my Canon Rebel and 24-105 L lens on Ebay for sale.

 Will_

 

Well, I'm sure you'll love your new Fuji, just as some lucky person will love that Canon and 24-105L.
 Just illustrates to me that not everyone is fit to own a budget DSLR.


----------



## wquiles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just illustrates to me that not everyone is fit to own a budget DSLR._

 

I am just happy that as consumers we have lots of choices, and that we have these so called "bridge" cameras available. Before I decided to give the Fuji a try, a co-worker let me try his 5D with the 70-200 2.5 IS lens - I rapidly concluded that would be moving in the opposite direction of that I needed since I already felt the Rebel/25-105 L was too heavy, and since 95% of all of my pictures get re-sized to 800x600 to send by email and/or posting on forums such as this one. Still, I wanted/needed some D-SRL-like features, so the Fuji fits that need at the moment. In the end, I really can't complain about the quality of the Canon gear or the photos I got from it. It just proved not very convenient to lug around for me


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The greatest improvement I enjoy going from 350D to 40D is the ISO button. The XSi has a dedicated ISO button too._

 

Very useful, that ISO button. Really makes it easy to switch it up in situations with differing light conditions. 

 In other news, I've been gipped. Not only did my cousin's lens turn out not to be the Tokina AT-X 828 80-200 f2.8 promised - it's completely dead. (It's a AT-X 287 (28-70 f2.6-2.8) with a dead aperture control unit).

 *sigh* Back to the hunt - I'm thinking of a 70-200 F4L non-IS.


----------



## vo328

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*sigh* Back to the hunt - I'm thinking of a 70-200 F4L non-IS._

 

I have this lens for my XTi and simply love it....


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Very useful, that ISO button. Really makes it easy to switch it up in situations with differing light conditions._

 

Never have to use it with Auto ISO


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Very useful, that ISO button. Really makes it easy to switch it up in situations with differing light conditions. 

 In other news, I've been gipped. Not only did my cousin's lens turn out not to be the Tokina AT-X 828 80-200 f2.8 promised - it's completely dead. (It's a AT-X 287 (28-70 f2.6-2.8) with a dead aperture control unit).

 *sigh* Back to the hunt - I'm thinking of a 70-200 F4L non-IS._

 

I have a 70-200 f4L non IS laying around after I got my f2.8 IS about a month or so back. I'm still not sure whether I want to sell it. It's damn sharp and light that I may just keep it as a travel lense.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a 70-200 f4L non IS laying around after I got my f2.8 IS about a month or so back. I'm still not sure whether I want to sell it. It's damn sharp and light that I may just keep it as a travel lense._

 

LOL. Seem like you got caught up like me... with TWO 70-200s. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Although I have the opposite pair. I dislike the f4 on crop bodies though.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a 70-200 f4L non IS laying around after I got my f2.8 IS about a month or so back. I'm still not sure whether I want to sell it. It's damn sharp and light that I may just keep it as a travel lense._

 

Want to sell? How much are you looking for?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LOL. Seem like you got caught up like me... with TWO 70-200s. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Although I have the opposite pair. I dislike the f4 on crop bodies though._

 

What's wrong with the f4? I've used it before and it was great - a tad unbalanced without a battery grip, but I've not borrowed it after I got my battery grip. It was pin-sharp at f4 and in challenging light conditions.


----------



## alxwang

70-200 f4L non IS + 16-35/2.8 are all needs.


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LOL. Seem like you got caught up like me... with TWO 70-200s. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Although I have the opposite pair. I dislike the f4 on crop bodies though._

 

I'm kind of thinking to do the same. The price is about even if I were to exchange the f4 and f2.8 IS for f4 IS and f2.8. It's a hard one. I'm going to 3 friend's weddings in October, so I'll see how much I like the 2.8 IS. I have a feeling I won't be letting it go.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What's wrong with the f4? I've used it before and it was great_

 

I just don't like the range and the background blur isn't enough for me. Nothing wrong about the quality.


----------



## laxx

I want FF badly. 85 1.8 on FF is ridiculous. It slaps the crop bodies left and right.


----------



## lan

Ah yes, 85mm as it should be is pretty cool.

 It's time for me to sell one of my Canon rigs. Gotta make room for something although not sure what yet.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ah yes, 85mm as it should be is pretty cool.

 It's time for me to sell one of my Canon rigs. Gotta make room for something although not sure what yet._

 

D700! Sell me the 70-200 F4L?


----------



## lan

LOL no D700 yet. I have f4 IS not f4. The weight and handling of the f4 is undeniably good. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I would get rid of the 2.8 first.


----------



## devin_mm

Here are a couple pictures from my trip to the west coast of the US, these were shot with the kit lens as I did not want to carry my 70-200 around all the time.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LOL no D700 yet. I have f4 IS not f4. The weight and handling of the f4 is undeniably good. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I would get rid of the 2.8 first._

 

wait, aren't you the one that told me to get the f2.8 over the f4 versions??? lol


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_wait, aren't you the one that told me to get the f2.8 over the f4 versions??? lol_

 

Yep. That's why I got the 2.8 first and f4 IS later.


----------



## roastpuff

Some samples from my Sigma 30mm f1.4... I love this lens. 





 1/80, f2.8, ISO200





 1/2500, f1.4, ISO100





 1/1000, f2, ISO100

 The sharpness, color and bokeh is just amazing. 





 1/800, ISO100, f1.4
 Check out the DOF on this - you can see the scratches on the sabre blade clearly, but everything else is out of focus.


----------



## darkninja67

Got my Sigma 24-60 2.8 yesterday. Seems like a nice lens but I am sending it if for calibration. Front focusing and kind of soft. I knew this going in and once it comes back I will love it. Kind of my beat on lens.


----------



## laxx

Swapped lenses with a friend since he's going on vacation, so he took my Tamron 28-75 and I took his Canon 35 f2. Should be fun to play with for the weekend.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Swapped lenses with a friend since he's going on vacation, so he took my Tamron 28-75 and I took his Canon 35 f2. Should be fun to play with for the weekend._

 

How do you like the Tamron? I loved mine when I had it.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Swapped lenses with a friend since he's going on vacation, so he took my Tamron 28-75 and I took his Canon 35 f2. Should be fun to play with for the weekend._

 

Should be an interesting little experiment. Show some example pics if you can. You don't hear much talk about this lens.


----------



## roastpuff

Sigma | 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF Autofocus Lens | 597101

 Just to put the news that this Sigzilla is available now.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Got my Sigma 24-60 2.8 yesterday. Seems like a nice lens but I am sending it if for calibration. Front focusing and kind of soft. I knew this going in and once it comes back I will love it. Kind of my beat on lens._

 

It's comments like this that make me never want to buy a sigma.


----------



## RedLeader

Finally picked up a nifty fifty while in Seattle. Worth every penny, made shooting in the dark PAX hall a breeze.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's comments like this that make me never want to buy a sigma._

 

ummm you do know that Nikon and Canon are not exempt from copy variation right? educate yourself.

 Some of the 24-60s are fine out of the box and if not it takes a week or so to get it back calibrated and good to go.
 Worth it for a $200 2.8 lens IMO.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sigma | 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF Autofocus Lens | 597101

 Just to put the news that this Sigzilla is available now. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Did you post in the thread at POTN?? I came up with the name Sigzilla. We are having fun with this one.

 I think I named the new 24-70mm f2.8L IS the Cinder Block too. lol


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Did you post in the thread at POTN?? I came up with the name Sigzilla. We are having fun with this one.

 I think I named the new 24-70mm f2.8L IS the Cinder Block too. lol_

 

Saw the thread there, didn't post. Just went "Whaaaaaaaat."


----------



## nor_spoon

I have been on the fence regarding going with Canon or Nikon, until I borrowed my brothers EOS 350D. All fine until I was going to transfer the files to my PC from the camera. Canon does not provide drivers for Vista x64? What? Does not seem like they are planning to either.
 Have not checked Nikon though, but this was a major disappointment.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ummm you do know that Nikon and Canon are not exempt from copy variation right? educate yourself._

 

Every Nikon is the Cat's @$$.
 One of the many reasons to buy a Nikon/Canon over a 3'rd party.
 ^_^


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nor_spoon* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have been on the fence regarding going with Canon or Nikon, until I borrowed my brothers EOS 350D. All fine until I was going to transfer the files to my PC from the camera. Canon does not provide drivers for Vista x64? What? Does not seem like they are planning to either.
 Have not checked Nikon though, but this was a major disappointment._

 

You are still better off with an external card reader which are faster.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You are still better off with an external card reader which are faster._

 

X2, and does not suck up battery power.... 

 And towert - Noinks have issues too.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And towert - Noinks have issues too. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

What's a noink?
 No really, what is a noinks?


 I'm up to 10 Nikon lenses that are perfect.

 Had I bought third party......... :shudder:


----------



## raptor84

I'm getting all psyced up now 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




New 5D to eclipse competition?: Digital Photography Review


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm getting all psyced up now 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




New 5D to eclipse competition?: Digital Photography Review_

 

I think Canon is going to release an awesome camera. They need it right now.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think Canon is going to release an awesome camera. They need it right now._

 

But in keeping with tradition, it's bound that Nikon will release an even awesomer camera shortly after. MX 40mp.


----------



## Towert7

In other news, Canon is being a stupid bully:
Canon Rumors - Canon USA & the Demands

 Stupid Canon.


----------



## Samgotit

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But in keeping with tradition, it's bound that Nikon will release an even awesomer camera shortly after. MX 40mp._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In other news, Canon is being a stupid bully:
Canon Rumors - Canon USA & the Demands

 Stupid Canon._

 

Your post have been fair enough in the past, but now you just spouting as an adolescent fanboy. Thankfully, people in both the Nikon and Canon threads don't convey as brand idolaters. I enjoy both threads due to the fact that most people actually own the equipment they are posting about in their respective threads and neither is poop throwing contest. Please don't make the Canon thread you personal pulpit like you've done with your obviously political signature (way to skirt the rules of the forum).


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Samgotit* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Your post have been fair enough in the past, but now..._

 

You don't know how to read my posts. If you heard me say this in real life, you would never have responded in the way you did.
 No worries.


----------



## nor_spoon

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You are still better off with an external card reader which are faster._

 

Yeah I know. I was just disappointed because I have borrowed the camera, and was anxious to edit the images on my computer when I wanted to do so. Not after having to take the drive down to the store and get this thing.
 I am lazy, it's the weekend.

 Anyway, I do not think there are any excuses for a company like Canon to skimp on that part. Can not be that hard to do, when they have the driver for the 32 bit version.

 Oh well... Not really a big issue anyways so... Back to music and playing air drums


----------



## lan

I don't know anybody who uses Vista x64. You're the first.


----------



## nor_spoon

Hehe... yeah, looks like Canon would like to think so


----------



## darkninja67

Well Canon people, I am about to bow out of the dSLR game again. Ran into some financial issues and need to sell my gear. It was either the photo stuff or my speakers. I use my speakers a lot more and get more pleasure out of them than photography.

 I will follow the thread and upcoming news and I figure I will get a new kit next year before my cruise.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well Canon people, I am about to bow out of the dSLR game again. Ran into some financial issues and need to sell my gear. It was either the photo stuff or my speakers. I use my speakers a lot more and get more pleasure out of them than photography.

 I will follow the thread and upcoming news and I figure I will get a new kit next year before my cruise._

 


 What lenses do you want to get rid of?


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What lenses do you want to get rid of?_

 

x2, time for the vultures to circle around. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Hope you can get back in the game soon!


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_x2, time for the vultures to circle around. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Hope you can get back in the game soon!_

 

Yeah I will grab another set up later on in the year.

 I only have the Tamron 17-50mm, Tokina 50-135mm and the Sigma 24-60mm. I will post all of it at POTN once I get the Sigma calibrated. Probably offer up my tripod and monopod too. I use a Canon 40D gripped. That is going up for sale too. I may even sell some of my MP3 players lol.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ran into some financial issues and need to sell my gear._

 

Wow that sucks man. Hope things work out for you.


----------



## lan

Just ordered a Nikon to Canon EF mount adaptor. Time to use some Nikon glass on my Canon.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just ordered a Nikon to Canon EF mount adaptor. Time to use some Nikon glass on my Canon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I was under the impression you only had the 18-55 and 55-200. Did you get any other nikon lenses?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was under the impression you only had the 18-55 and 55-200. Did you get any other nikon lenses?_

 

Never had the 18-55 or any kit lens. I have 17-50 2.8, 50 1.8, 55-200 4-5.6, 100-300 f4, and 300 2.8.

 I rather like the Nikon 50mm 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'd like to use that for some people shots.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Sounds like you're in for some fun there! Too bad there's no way to do the alternate adaptation of lenses, or you'd have the ultimate in interchangeability.


----------



## lan

While the reverse would be fun, I wouldn't do it as I have no full frame Nikon. Plus I prefer Nikon's 70-200VR.


----------



## Ocean7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just ordered a Nikon to Canon EF mount adaptor. Time to use some Nikon glass on my Canon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

How about that rumor : Zeiss will make the annoucement that they have a brand new ZE line for EOS mount on 09/15? Alternative lens galore!


----------



## Ocean7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Swapped lenses with a friend since he's going on vacation, so he took my Tamron 28-75 and I took his Canon 35 f2. Should be fun to play with for the weekend._

 

So how did it turn out? The 35 f/2 is a fantastic lens, especially for the price. Good sharpness, contrast, colours, very compact etc, etc. I love mine.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ocean7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How about that rumor : Zeiss will make the annoucement that they have a brand new ZE line for EOS mount on 09/15? Alternative lens galore! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Yea, but manual focus...................
 Thats the way of the dinosaur.


----------



## Ocean7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yea, but manual focus...................
 Thats the way of the dinosaur._

 

If you're shooting fast dinosaurs, yes. But an ultra wide angle for landscapes... I can take my time or even zone focus. I'll be at least at f/11 anyways 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Ultra wides or even wides under 28mm is where Canon is severely lacking. I wouldn't mind a Zeiss 24mm. Glue that on a 5D, IQ could be fantastic. Just look at what the afficionados say about the Zeiss 21mm for Contax/Yashica mount. These dinosaurs are even willing to pay close to $3k for such a lens, and $200 for an adaptor.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ocean7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you're shooting fast dinosaurs, yes. But an ultra wide angle for landscapes... I can take my time or even zone focus. I'll be at least at f/11 anyways 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Ultra wides or even wides under 28mm is where Canon is severely lacking. I wouldn't mind a Zeiss 24mm. Glue that on a 5D, IQ could be fantastic. Just look at what the afficionados say about the Zeiss 21mm for Contax/Yashica mount. These dinosaurs are even willing to pay close to $3k for such a lens, and $200 for an adaptor._

 

Wide angle on a 5D with a really good lens........... oh man, you make me drool.
 If I had the money, I would be getting myself one right now. I really enjoy landscape photography.


 Well, I see no reason why Zeiss won't release their lenses for the Canon Mount. They did it for nikon, might as well for canon too.


----------



## Ocean7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wide angle on a 5D with a really good lens........... oh man, you make me drool.
 If I had the money, I would be getting myself one right now. I really enjoy landscape photography.

 Well, I see no reason why Zeiss won't release their lenses for the Canon Mount. They did it for nikon, might as well for canon too._

 

Ah yes landscapes are very rewarding. It's zen, you can make beautiful pictures to show around. And imagine you could also bring your portable head-fi rig with you and listen to music at the same time 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I heard that Zeiss has not released anything for the Canon EF mount because of patent issues. We'll see if it changes on sept. 15th!

 BTW do you have a gallery if you wouldn't mind to share? Here is my modest landscape gallery, I just began uploading pics there so be gentle : Philippe Collard | Ocean7 Photography | Landscapes of Québec

 Cheers.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ocean7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And imagine you could also bring your portable head-fi rig with you and listen to music at the same time 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

 The best of both worlds. It is relaxing. Quote:


 
 BTW do you have a gallery if you wouldn't mind to share? Here is my modest landscape gallery, I just began uploading pics there so be gentle : Philippe Collard | Ocean7 Photography | Landscapes of Québec

 Cheers. 
 

Very nice pictures.
 I don't have a gallery per se, just a hodgepodge collection of all of my pictures at:
Flickr: towert7's Photostream

 I don't get around to taking as much landscape as I would like to, being a busy student.


----------



## Ocean7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The best of both worlds. It is relaxing.

 Very nice pictures.
 I don't have a gallery per se, just a hodgepodge collection of all of my pictures at:
Flickr: towert7's Photostream

 I don't get around to taking as much landscape as I would like to, being a busy student._

 

Thanks!

 Wow that opening shot (Kimono Rose) in your Flickr is stunning! I have added you as a contact 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Oh and btw do you still have these hd-25 for sale?

 PS : love your black and whites too!


----------



## Towert7

Thank you very much Ocean7!
 Sadly, I sold the HD25 within an hour of posting them a while ago.


----------



## Audioexcels

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wide angle on a 5D with a really good lens........... oh man, you make me drool.
 If I had the money, I would be getting myself one right now. I really enjoy landscape photography.


 Well, I see no reason why Zeiss won't release their lenses for the Canon Mount. They did it for nikon, might as well for canon too._

 

You should take up 5X7/4X10 Large format then
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Even a Mamiya 7 with wide angle will blast anything a Canon or even MF back can do for landscape. Only catch, LF requires skill with the light and well, both need scans done with an Aztek Premier or Howtek by a very good operator to get these results. As a landscape photographer, I'll take the time and patience to nail down 20 shots that the Digital world cannot replicate at larger print sizes...meaning, 20 beautiful shots in a lifetime would more than satisfy me unless digital ever catches up
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




...Betterlight backs can do decent for landscape, but IMHO, are not there yet.

 For a wide angle, check out the Tamron 17mm, Oly 21mm (might be the 18mm I am thinking of actually), Zenitar 16mm...all very very good wides on the Canon 5D
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. You don't need that Zeiss distagon...it's overkill for the sensor and, IMHO, may show slightly better results at the maximum print size, but it's still not worth it since the maximum print print size is limited...hence, invest into a nice film system OR get an MF digital back if you want to see the detail of landscape photography.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Audioexcels* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_hence, invest into a nice film system OR get an MF digital back if you want to see the detail of landscape photography._

 

I do work in digital primarily, so I won't be going back to film.
 I would LOVE a MF digital camera. Sadly, even the Mamiya is too expensive for me. It'll have to be something I look forward to once I'm out of college.

 I do strive for detail and sharpness in my pictures though, so you know I'll eventually upgrade.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Ocean7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How about that rumor : Zeiss will make the annoucement that they have a brand new ZE line for EOS mount on 09/15? Alternative lens galore! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Nope haven't heard of that.

 I'm not that big of a fan wide angles so don't think I'd invest in a prime wider than 24mm. The rest of the range I'm pretty covered already. I'm putting a curb on the lens shopping lol. I'm just going to get a bunch of lighting stuff from now on.


----------



## Dimitris

Once again. Where the heck is the new 5D? This better be good cause lighting the camera little by little keeps the expectations high.


----------



## lan

Why the impatience? It'll come when it comes.


----------



## darkninja67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why the impatience? It'll come when it comes._

 

Current model is 3 years old IIRC and people are craving a new version.


----------



## Dimitris

I need a used 5D for cheap and I cant wait for the new one to show up. All lemmings will jumpship and should be able to get my spanking 5D for $800.


----------



## laxx

I highly doubt $800. My guess would be $1200.


----------



## Dimitris

Well eventually it will get there. My 20D can't get even $400 anymore.


----------



## laxx

It's alright. I don't think any camera dropped as fast as the 40D did.


----------



## lan

Eventually it will get there but the pro level stuff just doesn't drop as fast. Look at 1D MK2. They're still around 1500-2000 or something. 1D classic is more like the target price of 800. That's 2 generations back about 6 years back.

 Rebels and xxDs drop like rocks. Never buy new at product intro and buy used. lol.


----------



## devin_mm

I just picked up a Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 it's quite nice, unfortunetly it's not full frame or a Canon lens but the price was right and the reviews have been good so it will be fun.


----------



## Dimitris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Rebels and xxDs drop like rocks. Never buy new at product intro and buy used. lol._

 

I learned my lesson with my 20D. I think I will use it for a while and then switch to a 5D. At this point I would rather buy a 5D with 1-2 lenses than the new 5D. Of course for my use the 5D is just fine. I am finding myself in photoshop adding more and more noise to photos lately. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Its funny how Canon is mooning all of us


----------



## lan

The 5D for sure will be an upgrade to your 20D. This way of upgrading works very well also. You get what's better and newer than yours but not necessarily the latest of the time. You can perpetually upgrade but a generation behind and you can save quite a bit of money.


----------



## vibin247

The 5D should hold up fairly well in value. As much as I like the 5D, the 1D bodies are just solid and I really enjoyed handling the 1D Mark III (The 50mm f/1.2 on it, though, wasn't worth it). Bigger bucks indeed, but it's worth it, IMO.


----------



## lan

Yeah I really like the 1D's handling more. I took the 5D out to a fashion show tonight. It was really showing it's age as I was maxxed at ISO3200 and the AI Servo makes me a bit nervous compared to the 1D's tracking. Nevertheless, got some good shots.


----------



## Mr_Junesequa

How much does a 20d retail for atm?


----------



## lan

They don't sell new 20D anymore so you'll have to find them on the used market. They could be 350-500ish depending on condition.


 Indeed Zeiss is coming out with lenses for EF mount. Carl Zeiss lenses for Canon SLRs: Digital Photography Review

 Not sure I'd be interested in manual focus lenses in normal focal lengths. Maybe wide.

 Not really Canon news but the new Leica Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 is now the fastest modern normal lens. And also the most expensive at £6290 price.


----------



## Dimitris

I just need a FF camera. Coming from film days all lenses feel weird on a non FF. I was thinking of getting a used 1DS mkI instead of a 5D but I am worried it will be too heavy for regular use.


----------



## Towert7

That's cool news. I've never tried the Zeiss lenses. I wonder if I'd like them...


----------



## lan

A 1Ds is too heavy for regular use IMO. The body is heavy, the battery is heavy, and the charger is very large in case you take it with you on trips. But you do get a very nice build and AF.


----------



## Bob_McBob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A 1Ds is too heavy for regular use IMO. The body is heavy, the battery is heavy, and the charger is very large in case you take it with you on trips. But you do get a very nice build and AF._

 

The 5D or 40D with a battery grip and two batteries are both essentially the same size and weight as the current 1-series. Some people wouldn't use a battery grip because of size/weight issues, but there seems to be a perception that the 1D and 1DS III are much heavier than the equivalent consumer bodies with accessories.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Bob_McBob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 5D or 40D with a battery grip and two batteries are both essentially the same size and weight as the current 1-series. Some people wouldn't use a battery grip because of size/weight issues, but there seems to be a perception that the 1D and 1DS III are much heavier than the equivalent consumer bodies with accessories._

 


 That's how I run my 40D. Battery pack and all. With my XT it always felt a little small in my hands so I got the battery pack for that. Unfortunately when I upgraded to the 40 it uses a different battery and pack.


----------



## Dimitris

I tried a 1D mark III at B&H and I really liked it. I dont like the 1.3 crop though. If the 1Ds is as heavy at the 1D then I dont think it would be an issue. Out of all the cameras that I fiddled with at my B&H visit I liked the D700 size the best.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Bob_McBob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 5D or 40D with a battery grip and two batteries are both essentially the same size and weight as the current 1-series._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I tried a 1D mark III at B&H and I really liked it. I dont like the 1.3 crop though. If the 1Ds is as heavy at the 1D then I dont think it would be an issue._

 

The key words being *current* 1 series. The old ones are heavier than the current ones. But yes once you add a grip and batteries, it does become about the same as the current one..

 1Ds = 1585g
 1D MK3 = 1335g
 1Ds MK3 = 1385g
 5D = 895g + BG-E4 (320g) + 6 AA (6x27g) = 1377g


----------



## Bob_McBob

5D mark II announced: dpreview


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Bob_McBob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_5D mark II announced: dpreview_

 

Thanks for the info. These next two days should prove to be very interesting!


----------



## roastpuff

Dick Cheney on a pogo stick, Robin!


----------



## Towert7

Wow, just viewed the landscape photo at full res. It looks very nice with me sitting a foot away at full res, which would result in a 40x60' picture!
 Holy cow. That makes medium format almost unnecessary.

 Too bad it's only got a flash sync of 1/200.....................
 Ok, so it probably won't be the wedding photography camera of choice, but I bet it would make a very nice light weight landscape rig on a budget. Sweet.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ok, so it probably won't be the wedding photography camera of choice, but I bet it would make a very nice light weight landscape rig on a budget. Sweet._

 

Why is that? The flash x-sync speed, the low FPS or....? Truly curious, really. I've seen a few wedding photographers with 5D's, and some with 40D's and some with 1DMk2 or 3's, and I want to know what makes a "good" wedding camera.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why is that? The flash x-sync speed, the low FPS or....? Truly curious, really. I've seen a few wedding photographers with 5D's, and some with 40D's and some with 1DMk2 or 3's, and I want to know what makes a "good" wedding camera._

 

the flash sync speed is important. 1/200 is starting to push it when you are zoomed in at 200mm. I'd prefer 1/500 sec to be on the safe side, though the 1Ds and D3 only go up to 1/250 themselves, 1D can do 1/300. D50 can do 1/500...


----------



## Edwood

Looks like the upcoming 5D mkII is going to be a real winner, IF they can manage to match or exceed the Nikon D700's high ISO shooting abilities.

 Now add the fact that the 5D mkII can actually shoot real HD footage (not the gimmicky toy D-movie in the D90), and you have a real Swiss army knife Camera. We'll find out soon if the HD footage out of the 5D mkII is the real deal or not.

 Now, if I only didn't hate the ergonomics of Canon DSLR's. I love their Camcorders, though. I'd be tempted to jump ship to Canon DSLR's.

 -Ed


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Looks like the upcoming 5D mkII is going to be a real winner, IF they can manage to match or exceed the Nikon D700's high ISO shooting abilities.

 Now add the fact that the 5D mkII can actually shoot real HD footage (not the gimmicky toy D-movie in the D90), and you have a real Swiss army knife Camera. We'll find out soon if the HD footage out of the 5D mkII is the real deal or not.

 Now, if I only didn't hate the ergonomics of Canon DSLR's. I love their Camcorders, though. I'd be tempted to jump ship to Canon DSLR's.

 -Ed_

 

Give it a day, and see what Nikon counters with.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the flash sync speed is important. 1/200 is starting to push it when you are zoomed in at 200mm. I'd prefer 1/500 sec to be on the safe side, though the 1Ds and D3 only go up to 1/250 themselves, 1D can do 1/300. D50 can do 1/500..._

 

Well, the Canon flashes ARE able to go higher than that. It's just a custom function - we need to activate high-speed x-sync to go higher than that 1/200 limit, but you can't use the flash as primary source of light then, which I assume in a wedding is not the case (most of the time).


----------



## lan

Hm? The flash sync speed has nothing to do with the zoom. It's the shutter speed limit when using flash (as 100% of the lighting). If you use shutter speed faster than that, you'll see the curtains. It's usually limiting in the daytime because you can't open up your aperture without the shutter speed going over this limit. 

 High speed sync is using multiple flash burst over longer durations. It's used mostly for fill in daytime.

 I think a wedding camera needs to be the best since weddings are worst case scenario. So a 1 series is best or D3 which have redundant memory cards and better AF.

 -------------------------

 To me this new 5D is a welcome upgrade but it's not meant to compete at the higher levels. If it did, it would clash with the 1 series. So it's effectively dumbed down. I think it's a full frame rebel or xxD series. I really hope it's not using the old AF as it seems to be. That one of the things I don't like about the 5D, the AF. It should have pro AF but with less points if they wanted to water it down a bit.

 Here's to hoping for another model full frame either cheaper or more expensive but better.

 I don't want this video mode in a full frame. I wouldn't mind it in Rebel though.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, just viewed the landscape photo at full res. It looks very nice with me sitting a foot away at full res, which would result in a 40x60' picture!
 Holy cow. That makes medium format almost unnecessary.

 Too bad it's only got a flash sync of 1/200.....................
 Ok, so it probably won't be the wedding photography camera of choice, but I bet it would make a very nice light weight landscape rig on a budget. Sweet._

 

1/200 or 1/250 flash synch is standard for SLRs, due to mechanical limitations in the shutter. Faster than 1/250 you'll catch the shutter before it's fully closed. 

 I see no reason the 5DII wouldn't make a good wedding camera, especially with the new battery grip. Not sure about the video mode, though. I hate to feel like I'm paying for a feature that I probably wouldn't use and that does not directly contribute to IQ. OTOH, I can see where it might be fun to play with W/O having to invest in a HD vidcam.


----------



## Towert7

What I was trying to get at with the flash sync speed is to do with shutter speed and motion blur.

 If I'm at 200mm with a 1/200 sec shutter speed using a flash, there is a chance that there will be enough ambient light aside from the flash to create a blurry image. If you have ever tried to use 200mm with a sync speed of 1/60, you'll know what I'm talking about.

 This assumes dim light, not bright light and not very very dark light.


----------



## laxx

If your flash is the primary light source, then it shouldn't be a problem. I've shot 1/60 in @ 200mm in all kinds of lightning and I haven't had a problem with it.

 About the 5D II's video mode, will it AF?

 Also, I would guess it uses the same AF system as the 50D, which would be much better than th original 5D.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_About the 5D II's video mode, will it AF?

 Also, I would guess it uses the same AF system as the 50D, which would be much better than th original 5D._

 

Canon 5D Mark II Officially Awesome: 21MP DSLR First to Shoot Full HD Video
 Gizmodo says 12 mins of Full HD with Live View AF (Contrast, Quick Phase and Face Detect) or 24 in SD res.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If your flash is the primary light source, then it shouldn't be a problem._

 

Exactly!
 Problems only seem to happen when the ambient light is enough to show up at 1/200 sec.


----------



## Dimitris

It looks good. Maybe I will skip the 5D and jump on this one right away. Need to see more reviews though.


----------



## lan

Well looks like I'll never use this as my main camera. One of the most useful features for me is once again a joke. Auto ISO. From dpreview,

 "Auto ISO in all modes except manual
 The Mark II now features an automatic ISO option where the camera selects the sensitivity (in the range ISO 100 - 3200). In Auto, Program and Aperture Priority the camera attempts to maintain a minimum shutter speed of 1/focal length (hence with a 24 mm lens it will try to maintain 1/25 sec or faster). In manual mode Auto ISO is fixed at ISO 400."


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well looks like I'll never use this as my main camera. One of the most useful features for me is once again a joke. Auto ISO. From dpreview,

 "Auto ISO in all modes except manual
 The Mark II now features an automatic ISO option where the camera selects the sensitivity (in the range ISO 100 - 3200). In Auto, Program and Aperture Priority the camera attempts to maintain a minimum shutter speed of 1/focal length (hence with a 24 mm lens it will try to maintain 1/25 sec or faster). In manual mode Auto ISO is fixed at ISO 400."_

 

I'm not seeing why it's a joke. What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not seeing why it's a joke. What are your thoughts on this?_

 

It's a farcical feature... Auto ISO "stuck" at 400 means that it's useless, because it's like an automatic transmission with only one gear. 

 You're supposed to use Auto ISO to allow you to switch ISO's really fast from dark to light to dark conditions. This doesn't seem to be the case. 

 However, if this is true then something is REALLY wrong with Canon's R&D department.


----------



## lan

On Nikon, Auto ISO is more programmable and is available in all modes. Like so,

 You can select greater than ISO 3200 if you want.

 You can choose minimum baseline speed that you want. 1/focal length is a general rule and some people can do with more or less depending on your ability so it's good if you can change it to suit your personal needs. Also sometimes you want to dial it in different motion effect on the subject so I'd use a different setting.

 It works in manual mode also.

 I have to admit, it's a make or break feature for me. It affects my shooting style / speed greatly. I worry less about exposure and about subject and composition.


----------



## Towert7

Thank you for the info lan, that answered my question.
 I've never used auto ISO, so to hear all the things it can do is really quite impressive. I bet if my D50 had all those options I would actually use it.


----------



## lan

Just mentioning a feature doesn't really matter as much as how it's implemented as that will dictate how useful it really is.

 Once you've discovered the use of such a technology, it really changes how you shoot photos and what you shoot photos of. Of course you still have to know the basics to make some sense of it all.

 For example IMO, Live View works very well hand in hand with VR and Auto ISO because you are holding it less stable. Knowing how to use them all will yield sharp photos in more situations. Sometimes I shoot in a moving car and my photos are pretty clear. Clear enough that sometimes it's as if I'm on the sidewalk and sometimes I dial in a little motion.

 -----------------

 On another note. One thing about the 5D which annoys me is the shutter black out time and lag. The faster cameras are a bit faster and I notice the difference when I press the shutter button vs. what the camera actually took a photo of. I wonder if this has improved. It was especially obvious this past weekend on a fashion runway.


----------



## Towert7

I'm gonna laugh my butt off if nikon announces something within the next day, and then canon announces a 7D the very next day. 
 This is getting a little ridiculous.


----------



## darkninja67

Just get the 85mm f1.2L and forget about flash and ISO. lol


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just get the 85mm f1.2L and forget about flash and ISO. lol_

 


 The 1.8 focuses faster...


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 1.8 focuses faster..._

 

True.

 Sometimes you don't want such a shallow depth of field though. Gotta crank up the ISO!


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_True.

 Sometimes you don't want such a shallow depth of field though. Gotta crank up the ISO!_

 

True, true...


----------



## vibin247

I'm definitely buying the 5D Mark II, but not before the 1D Mark III. Ian has a point in that a camera for a wedding should be tough and versatile enough to cover the situations that aren't so ideal, but using a 5D, 40D, or even the Rebels should be sufficient. I've gotten keepers with my 70-200 zoomed all the way to 200, handheld at f/2.8 @ 1/40 and slower with only bounce flash from my 580EXII and ambient, so it's not impossible to shoot moving subjects.

 I was hoping for a better design in the new vertical battery grip for the 5D Mark II, but I suppose that was something the engineers wanted to keep for the 1D ergonomics characteristics. The HD video function should be interesting, though it seems a bit of a novelty at this point in time.

 A new 24mm f/1.4L? It's nice, but the same price would get you the more versatile 16-35mm f/2.8L II. Maybe it's the new lens coating.


----------



## lan

The latest 1 series has better AF, dual memory cards, and better high ISO which I think is critical for weddings. The lower end older cameras just may be slow or have no AF at certain times.

 The new 24mm is quite a bit more $. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ---------------------


 On another note my Nikon to EF adapter came 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The fun begins!


----------



## vibin247

There is also the announcement of the ZE line of lenses from Zeiss. I'm mainly interested in the Planar 85mm f/1.4 for portraiture. 

 I'm sure the 1D series trumps the xxD series in autofocus. I haven't used one at a wedding myself, though I will if I have to rent one.


----------



## lan

The Distagon 21mm f/2.8 is the most interesting of the Zeiss primes IMO. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I think once you've touched / used 1-series, it'll be hard to use a lower end model.


----------



## vibin247

I've demoed both the 1Ds Mark III and 1D Mark III at a photo expo this year in Pasadena, but alas, haven't used one in the field. There wasn't a difference in weight and handling, but performance wise, I think the 1D Mark III was a bit quicker with the focus, though the 1D Mark III had the new 50mm f/1.2L while the 1Ds Mark III had the 85mm f/1.2L respectively. That 85mm is a terrific piece of glass.


----------



## Dimitris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The latest 1 series has better AF, dual memory cards, and better high ISO which I think is critical for weddings. The lower end older cameras just may be slow or have no AF at certain times.

 The new 24mm is quite a bit more $. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ---------------------


 On another note my Nikon to EF adapter came 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The fun begins!_

 

I am interested to see how much better the new 24L is. Probably it will be similar with the 85L to 85L -II upgrade (almost none besides focus speed and on the 24L focus speed isnt improved). 

 In terms of cheap Nikkors that rock I recommend:
 55mm f3.5 micro (superb macro I have 2 which i got for $50-60 each)
 28mm f2.8 (one of the best wides there is)
 105mm f2.5 (excellent portrait lense)


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vibin247* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've demoed both the 1Ds Mark III and 1D Mark III at a photo expo this year in Pasadena, but alas, haven't used one in the field. There wasn't a difference in weight and handling, but performance wise, I think the 1D Mark III was a bit quicker with the focus, though the 1D Mark III had the new 50mm f/1.2L while the 1Ds Mark III had the 85mm f/1.2L respectively. That 85mm is a terrific piece of glass._

 

The 85mm is pretty slow to autofocus. You should only compare the bodies with the same lens really.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am interested to see how much better the new 24L is. Probably it will be similar with the 85L to 85L -II upgrade (almost none besides focus speed and on the 24L focus speed isnt improved). 

 In terms of cheap Nikkors that rock I recommend:
 55mm f3.5 micro (superb macro I have 2 which i got for $50-60 each)
 28mm f2.8 (one of the best wides there is)
 105mm f2.5 (excellent portrait lense)_

 

Some test shots of the new 24 reveal much improved corners. I think the wide angles have much to improve where as the teles don't as much.

 Thanks for the recommendations. I don't do macro much. Those 28 and 105 you mention are a bit too close to my Canon 35/1.4 and 135/2 already.


----------



## ast

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *darkninja67* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just get the 85mm f1.2L and forget about flash and ISO. lol_

 






 costs $1800 new !!!


----------



## ast

5D mk II samples from DPReview:

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos5dmkii_preview/

 look AWESOME! I have put a pre-order with Amazon. 

 ...

 I did some research on DPR but still want to get some opinions here. What do you guys think:

 (1) 50mm/1.2L vs. 50mm/1.4
 (2) 85mm/1.2L vs. 85mm/1.8
 (3) do I need BOTH 50mm and 85mm with 5D mkII since it is Full Frame?


 ...


----------



## lan

The ISO6400 looks pretty good there.

 I'm not a big fan of the look of noise it has even though it's less noise. I'll have to process some RAW files to be able to figure that out.

 -------------

*(1) 50mm/1.2L vs. 50mm/1.4*

 The 1.4 is low contrast and not very sharp wide open. Do you want to use it wide open? The 1.2 has focus errors since it has no floating element. Will you use it in the problem zone? Which I read is stopped down f2-f4 ish close up? I didn't like the 1.4 enough so got rid of it. I don't like fast lenses to just stop them down.


*(2) 85mm/1.2L vs. 85mm/1.8*

 The 1.8 focus a LOT faster which is useful for sports. The price difference is like $1300+ It's the cost of another lens. For me I don't think it's worth it. If you are pro, you could make up the cost easily. I used to own the 1.2 for a short while but ultimately figured it wasn't for me.

*(3) do I need BOTH 50mm and 85mm with 5D mkII since it is Full Frame?*

 I think only you can answer that. They are a different enough view IMO.


----------



## lan

Here's the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D on my Canon 5D wide open.

 Not a detail monster but I like the butteriness.

 edit: ha! forgot to post the image...


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* 
_When I was out camera shopping the other day, the guy in the store advised me I might want to consider an old Canon film SLR instead. His reasoning behind this is that their lenses are much cheaper on the used market since Canon uses a new mounting system for their digital cameras. If I stick with searching for an F2, I have to pay premium prices for the lenses since I am competing with every other Nikon user out there. With an older Canon camera, most people who have moved to digital are looking to offload their lenses.

 They didn't have any Nikon F2's in the store, but the Nikon F3HP's were all around $600 without a lense. Looked in the Canon section, and they had A-1's for less than $300 including a 50mm lense.

 The only problem is, I'm not sure if there is a Canon equivalent to the Nikon F2. From some brief looking around, the following are on my short list: Canon F-1, Canon EF and Canon A-1._

 

I posted this in the Nikon thread, but thought this might be a better place. Any recommendations for a Canon camera with similar qualities to the Nikon F2?

 Thanks in advance.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D on my Canon 5D wide open.

 Not a detail monster but I like the butteriness.

 edit: ha! forgot to post the image...



_

 

Nice lighting too. Makes for a nice desktop wallpaper, although I think you need to use a more worthy subject to photograph. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Are you considering upgrading to the 5D mkII and consolidating Stills and Video? Could potentially replace both the old 5D and HV20. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The specs are very promising, although it remains to be seen how the focusing system and UI work. 

 -Ed


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice lighting too. Makes for a nice desktop wallpaper, although I think you need to use a more worthy subject to photograph. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Are you considering upgrading to the 5D mkII and consolidating Stills and Video? Could potentially replace both the old 5D and HV20. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The specs are very promising, although it remains to be seen how the focusing system and UI work. _

 

I like Nikon ergonomics and buttons more. I'm a huge fan of Nikon's auto-ISO. While there are some Canon's which I think are ok button and menu wise, the 5D isn't one of them. I need better AF also which exists in D700.

 I think the HV20 would make a good remote B-cam. It still has extended record times, stabilization, and can fit on my steady cam thing. 

 Until I can mess with the new 5D, I cannot really comment much on it. I don't like using an expensive rig outside sometimes just for safety purposes.

 Edit: I'm waiting for photokina to be over also. I'd like to see what's up with the larger sensor world. e.g. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092301_leica_s2.asp


----------



## vibin247

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 85mm is pretty slow to autofocus. You should only compare the bodies with the same lens really.

 Some test shots of the new 24 reveal much improved corners. I think the wide angles have much to improve where as the teles don't as much._

 

Whenever I'll get a chance to test both current 1D bodies, I'll make sure to use the same lens on both. How are the wide angles lacking? I haven't encountered a serious problem with corner distortion, though it is present. However, I think my 24L does a fine job in that respect. I still could live with corner distortion if it were more prevalent with a wide-angle zoom like the 16-35mm f/2.8L II.


----------



## lan

Well I'm just saying generally speaking, wide angles are further from perfect compared to the telephotos in regard to corner sharpness, distortion, and vignetting. I guess that's just the nature of wide angle. It doesn't particularly bother me but I'm not a wide angle person.


----------



## roastpuff

Canon Digital Learning Center - Sample Video: EOS 5D Mark II

 Dear Lord in Heaven.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Canon Digital Learning Center - Sample Video: EOS 5D Mark II

 Dear Lord in Heaven._

 

That is pretty amazing. That looked as good or better then movies made with traditional tools. With this camera and the D90, I suspect we will be seeing a lot of interesting and creative media coming out soon.


----------



## lan

Yeah it was a pretty decent video. Looks somewhat better than even real life lol.

 I can see my house in there.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

That was pretty crazy. The video material itself was pretty uninteresting, but the resolution and flexibility of this camera are clearly unprecedented. I think it'd take an expert eye to discern the 5D Mark II's video quality from that of an advanced amateur standalone system.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Canon Digital Learning Center - Sample Video: EOS 5D Mark II

 Dear Lord in Heaven._

 

So that's what 27,055$us in lenses gives you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 For 30,000$, you BETTER be getting good results. ^_^

 Though, the results on that video where simply stunning. I don't think I've seen the technical techniques like that even in the movies. It sure will open up a new realm of creativity using these techniques.

 The moon shot at the end was pathetic though, with the halo and screwed up lighting. I don't understand why they included it, since the rest of it was so impressive................... Who knows.


----------



## lan

A smaller camera can go places big cameras can't. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I thought the moon thing was part of the whole canon lunar eclipse thing? Not sure if that was meant. Maybe it was a quick mimic of that. I wouldn't spend much time on that part either.


----------



## Edwood

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A smaller camera can go places big cameras can't. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Quite true, my Canon HF100 is a lot smaller and I carry it with me wherever I go. Don't think I could do that with a D90, let alone a 5D.

 -Ed


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah it was a pretty decent video. Looks somewhat better than even real life lol.

 I can see my house in there. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

really? That's pretty cool!


----------



## mr_baseball_08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Canon Digital Learning Center - Sample Video: EOS 5D Mark II

 Dear Lord in Heaven._

 

Yeah, I saw this earlier today. Like others have said, the content is meh, meh, but technically, it was beautiful. 

 I think this new 5D is going to wow a lot of people. Personally, I've never attempted or thought of attempting video but this video makes me believe I could actually do something worth watching. Exciting times are around the corner. Let's hope Nikon can catch back up..


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mr_baseball_08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Personally, I've never attempted or thought of attempting video but this video makes me believe I could actually do something worth watching._

 

Video is a whole other world. You've got

 - Footage recording / camera man
 - Lighting. It's different than still photo lighting.
 - Story telling / scripting
 - Audio recording / mixing / sound design
 - Video editing

 Consequently, your workflow is quite different and overall much slower.

 BUT as long as you keep it simple and convincing even though you might be technically limited, you can acheive lots just with the story and editing.


----------



## vibin247

It's always about good lighting and seeing the light...

 For some reason, I couldn't see the film, but I did view the behind-the-scenes feature on Laforet's blog. Well folks, there is now a viable option to shoot both stills and motion on ONE camera setup. What's so incredible is the flexibility. This is a really exciting time...


----------



## mr_baseball_08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Video is a whole other world. You've got

 - Footage recording / camera man
 - Lighting. It's different than still photo lighting.
 - Story telling / scripting
 - Audio recording / mixing / sound design
 - Video editing

 Consequently, your workflow is quite different and overall much slower.

 BUT as long as you keep it simple and convincing even though you might be technically limited, you can acheive lots just with the story and editing._

 

Oh yes, I have no doubts it would be much more work.. And I wasn't talking feature films or anything. Maybe 2 - 3 minute clips on studies of things that interest me.. It definitely wouldn't take over the enjoyment I get from photography, but I think it would be something fun to dabble in and give a try.


----------



## Hayduke

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mr_baseball_08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh yes, I have no doubts it would be much more work.. And I wasn't talking feature films or anything. Maybe 2 - 3 minute clips on studies of things that interest me.. It definitely wouldn't take over the enjoyment I get from photography, but I think it would be something fun to dabble in and give a try._

 

I agree. Some folks are having trouble seeing any value or benefit to the new DSLRs video modes, but I know I would use it. Would it be anything great? I doubt it. Would I use it a lot? Probably not. I suspect I would use it about as often as I used the movie mode on my old P&S (which my friend lost last week right after we came out of the Canyon, so not only do I need a new "little camera", we lost the pictures). I didn't use it a lot on the old camera, but sometimes you can't capture something with a still image.


----------



## archosman

From the video it looks like it only shoot 1080i... and not 1080P. Didn't look at the making of, but there obviously was some supplemental lighting.

 Kind of a deal breaker for me if it doesn't do progressive. Then again it's a DSLR not a video camera. 

 The Red One is a video camera but shoots everything in raw. That and it's pretty much out of the reach for the everyday man.


----------



## lan

I dislike interlaced video also. It's just another step to process. I haven't read much around. Maybe somebody knows the answer.


----------



## roastpuff

As far as I know, the 5DMk2 is 1080p, not 1080i. DPReview and other sites confirm it as such.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As far as I know, the 5DMk2 is 1080p, not 1080i. DPReview and other sites confirm it as such._

 




 That video is not 1080P.

 If they went to all that trouble to light and shoot that I'm shocked they didn't go with 1080P for more of a film look. Wonder if the camera has a hard time keeping up with progressive.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That video is not 1080P.

 If they went to all that trouble to light and shoot that I'm shocked they didn't go with 1080P for more of a film look. Wonder if the camera has a hard time keeping up with progressive._

 

It could just be the video. However, the specs say that the camera IS capable of 1080p.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It could just be the video. However, the specs say that the camera IS capable of 1080p._

 

I downloaded the video and it's H.264... but I can't tell if it's progressive or interlaced.

 What I _can_ tell is it definitely looks interlaced. I don't know Final Cut that well so I don't know if opening it up in that would tell me anything. 

 I've worked on a few broadcast HD projects. I'm an assistant editor. If it does progressive then it's a good bet that interlaced is no problem.

 Could be a size issue for 1080P... so maybe they went with the 1080i. Guess I need to watch the behind the scenes on the blog. Wonder how much video you can record say on a 4 gig card? Aren't they up to 16 gig compact flash now?

 In one aspect that video is misleading since it's lit really well. Not everything is going to look that good shot by Joe Average.


----------



## archosman

_*Movie recording in live view (1080p H.264 up to 12 minutes, VGA H.264 up to 24 mins per clip)

 HDMI and standard composite (AV) video out

 Full audio support: built-in mic and speaker, mic-in socket, audio-out over AV (although not HDMI)*_


 Very interesting. Wonder why no audio through HDMI. More electronics perhaps?


----------



## lan

That video on the website is 960x540. It's a linear scale down which would be pretty good. It would be wild to attempt to play a 1080 streaming clip online. Unless we got source footage, we can't really comment on the "real" quality.

 They're up to 100GB compact flash cards now. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08...b_100gb_cf.asp


----------



## iakonafuji

100gb Flash cards seem like a novelty to me...I usually just shoot out in the field with 3x 4gb at most...This works for me because it keeps me from shooting every and anything. Also, it helps my workflow somewhat


----------



## lan

Tell that to the medium format people with 30-60MP images.

 I'd like to use it also as a harddrive in my laptop.


----------



## iakonafuji

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Tell that to the medium format people with 30-60MP images.

 I'd like to use it also as a harddrive in my laptop._

 


 AH..Completely true. I may have been selfish in my previous statement 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Forgive me!


----------



## uhcmos1

I chose the 85mm 1.2. I wanted something for lowlight and I like this focal length.


----------



## onform

I'm planning on taking the next step in my photography. Have any of you guys had chance to use or own the new 50D?? This represents a massive leap in quality from my current camera. if i have say £1800 to spend would i be better off with the 40D and spending extra on really good lenses, or go for the 50D with say the new 18-200mm allround lens? I love lanscapes and portraits i also love taking pictures at parties and weddings etc so prety much need an all round rig.

 Any help would be great as i'm not rerally sure as to what to get.


----------



## PerformanceFirst

I just got a 350D on clearance for $245. Wanted a DSLR for a long time...


----------



## nineohtoo

onform, The 50D is a special camera. But at the going rate of a 40D, I say hold off. The 40D was already an excellent camera at its msrp, and it's an even better of a deal at the common $700 low to be found on craigslist. The camera imo can go toe to toe with Nikon's last gen of pro bodies, and is part of the reason why it wasn't hard for me to option Canon when I needed to replace my camera. Of course the XXD series still aren't PRO cameras in some cases, but they probably offer the best value for most, and even some pros. 

 That savings of $500+ can be used towards a 17-55mm(if you need the lowlight), or the 18-200mm if you need the versatility which imo is better than a slightly larger screen and two extra stops of light.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *onform* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm planning on taking the next step in my photography. Have any of you guys had chance to use or own the new 50D?? This represents a massive leap in quality from my current camera. if i have say £1800 to spend would i be better off with the 40D and spending extra on really good lenses, or go for the 50D with say the new 18-200mm allround lens? I love lanscapes and portraits i also love taking pictures at parties and weddings etc so prety much need an all round rig.

 Any help would be great as i'm not rerally sure as to what to get._

 

Buy the cheapest body you feel comfortable with, and invest the rest into a solid lens collection.


----------



## raptor84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PerformanceFirst* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just got a 350D on clearance for $245. Wanted a DSLR for a long time...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Wow thats quite a bargain 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I got mine for about US$650 about 2 years back hehe (came with a then very expensive 2gb Extreme 3 card)


----------



## roastpuff

I've finally managed to kill the batteries on my XSi! After over 2000 shots (haven't kept an exact count) spread over nearly a month - including an 800+ pictures photography blitz over the weekend and several other 200+ shot sessions - it's finally told me to change the battery pack. I'm sure the fact that I have an external flash helps, but it's simply amazing performance when they quote you ~1400 shots or so without flash using the battery pack. 

 Since I've installed the battery grip in late June, I've only charged the batteries twice and it's never actually _needed_ charging until yesterday. I just charged it before a trip as a just-in-case procedure, which I skipped this time around as we went up to Kamloops. 

 Thankfully it didn't die until the ride home, when it refused to power up and told me that it was all shot out.


----------



## Towert7

That's gotta be one of the coolest things about DSLR's vs. P&S digital cameras.
 My nikon D50 is the same way.
 I've goon on vacation, taken over 1400 shots, and the meter still says full battery. I love it!


----------



## raptor84

Be careful not to fully drain Li-ion batts too much though might end up damaging it..


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

I could only dream of such battery life. With only about 200 shots per charge out of my D200, I have a spare on hand at all times


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's gotta be one of the coolest things about DSLR's vs. P&S digital cameras.
 My nikon D50 is the same way.
 I've goon on vacation, taken over 1400 shots, and the meter still says full battery. I love it!_

 

Yup! It's one of the awesome things. I'm still clicking when my friends with their P&Ses are dead in the water. Plus, I can shoot and reposition so much faster it's not funny. It actually amazed a couple of my friends when I shoot n' scooted around a wedding reception, holding a steady 1.5-2fps rate of fire. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I could only dream of such battery life. With only about 200 shots per charge out of my D200, I have a spare on hand at all times 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Ouch. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I heard the D200 is a really power-hungry camera... time to get a D300? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Be careful not to fully drain Li-ion batts too much though might end up damaging it.._

 

Yeah, I know. I popped them into the charger right when I got home, too.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've finally managed to kill the batteries on my XSi! After over 2000 shots (haven't kept an exact count) spread over nearly a month - including an 800+ pictures photography blitz over the weekend and several other 200+ shot sessions - it's finally told me to change the battery pack. I'm sure the fact that I have an external flash helps, but it's simply amazing performance when they quote you ~1400 shots or so without flash using the battery pack. 

 Since I've installed the battery grip in late June, I've only charged the batteries twice and it's never actually needed charging until yesterday. I just charged it before a trip as a just-in-case procedure, which I skipped this time around as we went up to Kamloops. 

 Thankfully it didn't die until the ride home, when it refused to power up and told me that it was all shot out._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's gotta be one of the coolest things about DSLR's vs. P&S digital cameras.
 My nikon D50 is the same way.
 I've goon on vacation, taken over 1400 shots, and the meter still says full battery. I love it!_

 

Wow. Those are some incredible battery times. I think I can get around 1000 on one charge on a D300.


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I could only dream of such battery life. With only about 200 shots per charge out of my D200, I have a spare on hand at all times 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

X2. Even with 2 batteries in tow, that pesky little meter reads empty faster than I think it should.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ouch. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I heard the D200 is a really power-hungry camera... time to get a D300? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Heh, not based on that issue alone, it'd still be cheaper just to buy more batteries. I don't know that I prefer the image quality character I've seen from the D300 to that of the 200 for that matter. An upgrade for me will likely be in the form of full-frame.


----------



## Dimitris

I got a 1Ds original last weekend and I can say I am impressed. Very good image quality, full frame works great with my lenses and very nice viewfinder and handling. The camera is a bit heavy and slow in burning the photos on the CF card but I think its a keeper. I also like its noise! It gives photos a film like grain that fits my needs. Looks like I wont be upgrading for the next 3-4 years.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I got a 1Ds original last weekend and I can say I am impressed. Very good image quality, full frame works great with my lenses and very nice viewfinder and handling. The camera is a bit heavy and slow in burning the photos on the CF card but I think its a keeper. I also like its noise! It gives photos a film like grain that fits my needs. Looks like I wont be upgrading for the next 3-4 years._

 

How much did one set you back?


----------



## Dimitris

$1150 shipped and paypaled from Fredmiranda and the camera is in excellent condition with no scratches I can see and with only 25000 actuations. Not bad! I really like the viewfinder and the amazingly short black out time. I got tired of waiting for the old 5D price to go down.


----------



## onform

Which size lens is universaly known as the best/ideal for portrait photoraphy???


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The camera is a bit heavy and slow in burning the photos on the CF card but I think its a keeper. I also like its noise! It gives photos a film like grain that fits my needs._

 

Congrats on the camera.

 You mean it's slow to write to the CF card? Are you trying to shoot at it's max fps for a while?

 Yeah the noise being like film grain is one of the unique things about it.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *onform* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Which size lens is universaly known as the best/ideal for portrait photoraphy???_

 

For 35mm, a lot of people like 85mm and 135mm.


----------



## Dimitris

Thanks. Yes the write speed from the camera to the card takes a while. Also today I did an outing around Maine and found out that both my batteries drain very fast. I was able to get just 100 photos out of both of them. I have them now in refresh mode on the charger. Any recommendations for 3rd party batteries? I have to admit that having a 1D body can be addicting. I dont think I could go to a 5D now even though it might be considered a better camera.


----------



## lan

Wow less than 100 shots out of both? They must be old. You sure it's only 25,000 actuations?

 If you want to stay weather sealed, the Canon batteries are best off I read. I never tried a bunch and there are many but I use the Black Diamond and CTA 2200mah ones.


----------



## Dimitris

Weather sealing isn't a priority. I am trying to refresh the batteries to see if they will improve. I need to figure out how to get shutter actuations.


----------



## raptor84

The 1ds was known to have pretty bad battery life especially with the original canon batteries.. maybe if you tried the third party ones you might get better performance? And from what I know the only way to get an accurate shutter count is to head down to a service center as canon does not put the count in the exif.


----------



## Dimitris

I will try refreshing the batteries and see if that has any result. Also will check with shutercount software this afternoon. I found from other forums that Lenmar batteries should be pretty good and they should last longer than the original ones. Lets see...


----------



## Dimitris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow less than 100 shots out of both? They must be old. You sure it's only 25,000 actuations?_

 

Darn! I downloaded the 1dcount application and it shows 157000 actuations! I think I have been scammed! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The guy has posted this as 27000 actuations. Here is the link. 

Sold: EOS 1DS Body Excellent Condition - FM Forums

 Any advise? Should I return it and ask for a refund or i dont know what the heck I should do now. This ruined my day!


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Darn! I downloaded the 1dcount application and it shows 157000 actuations! I think I have been scammed! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The guy has posted this as 27000 actuations. Here is the link. 

Sold: EOS 1DS Body Excellent Condition - FM Forums

 Any advise? Should I return it and ask for a refund or i dont know what the heck I should do now. This ruined my day!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That's sad. can you take a picture, not send it through any software (just right out of the camera), and post it somewhere that I can view it? I'd like to see what the shutter count says for myself if that's possible.

 If in fact the shutter count is wrong, and you're having a problem with the batteries, I would request a return.


----------



## Dimitris

Dont know if this works


----------



## Dimitris

I confirmed with the Exif Reader as well. It has reseted twice at 65535 shots and then has an additional 26000 actuations that he claimed. At least the camera is in excellent condition and the shutter is still going strong.


----------



## Dimitris

Well I filed a claim with Paypal and he gave me a $150 discount. I guess $1000 for an excellent shape 1Ds is a good deal right?


----------



## lan

How much it's really worth is up to you.

 I think it costs maybe near $300 to replace the shutter.


----------



## raptor84

Gotten my hands on a 50D for the weekend (rental) am loving the huge step up form my 350D.. very tempted to buy now =p


----------



## Dimitris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How much it's really worth is up to you.

 I think it costs maybe near $300 to replace the shutter._

 

Quoted for truth. I really dig FF. Coming from film it seems natural and lenses work the way they are supposed to be. I get very good bokeh from my 35L & 85L now.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think it costs maybe near $300 to replace the shutter._

 

SHOCK!!!


----------



## onform

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Gotten my hands on a 50D for the weekend (rental) am loving the huge step up form my 350D.. very tempted to buy now =p_

 

Ive been debating wether to buy a 50D too! My other choice would be the D300 a bit controversial i know...lol 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It would be great if you could post some pics to look at the Q. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Where on earth do you rent a brand new camera for the wknd?????


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Quoted for truth. I really dig FF. Coming from film it seems natural and lenses work the way they are supposed to be. I get very good bokeh from my 35L & 85L now. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I can imagine. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Now you need the 135 f/2 and you'll be set.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_SHOCK!!!_

 

LOL. Canon has fixed pricing for minor and major repairs and that is the major one I think.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *onform* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ive been debating wether to buy a 50D too! My other choice would be the D300 a bit controversial i know...lol 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It would be great if you could post some pics to look at the Q. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Where on earth do you rent a brand new camera for the wknd????? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Base your choice on the lenses and/or the body's capabilities. Canon has pro f4 lenses. The D300 has better metering, flash system, build, and pro autofocus as well as more customization.


----------



## 1967cutlass

What's the best all around lens for an XTI for ~200? The kit lens is just bad, I was looking at the tamrom 18-200 but some of the reviews make it sound questionable. I was thinking about getting the 1.8/50 again but the range limits the usefulness and I don't really like changing lenses.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *1967cutlass* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What's the best all around lens for an XTI for ~200? The kit lens is just bad, I was looking at the tamrom 18-200 but some of the reviews make it sound questionable. I was thinking about getting the 1.8/50 again but the range limits the usefulness and I don't really like changing lenses._

 

Get a Tamron 17-55 2.8. Probably be more than $200 though.
 My "Nifty 50" doesn't focus worth a poop. If you really want another 50 I'd go with the 1.4. It's most likely over $300. You might try your local craigslist. I got a good deal on a 85 1.8 that way.


----------



## RedLeader

Yea, I've noticed having to switch to MF on my 50/1.8 sometimes, it seems to like hunting. Is the AF on the 1.4 that much better?


----------



## lan

You need more than $200 to get a better lens. $200 is close to kit lens price already. That Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is nice but it's closer to $400. I would recommend saving more money. Do you know what range you'd be interested in?


----------



## 1967cutlass

I didn't have something specific in mind, I just want a sharper picture than the kit lens provides. 17 or 18 to whatever... 50 and up? works for me. The 1.8 was impressive, I guess if I could have that but slightly better color and a more versatile range I'd be set. Even the cheap sigma telephoto I had destroyed the stock lens, so I figure there's gotta be something out there for cheap...

 Here is the cheap sigma, anything in this range of sharpness is fine.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *RedLeader* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yea, I've noticed having to switch to MF on my 50/1.8 sometimes, it seems to like hunting. Is the AF on the 1.4 that much better?_

 


 If you get a good 1.8 then you're set. It's made out of plastic and the build tolerances are so-so. Here's a good review on the 1.2 as well as some comparisons to others in the same range.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens Review


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You need more than $200 to get a better lens. $200 is close to kit lens price already. That Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is nice but it's closer to $400. I would recommend saving more money. Do you know what range you'd be interested in?_

 


 Ian's right. Save your money, do some research and spend more money to get a good lens. Good lenses are where it's at.

 Another good one...

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Review


----------



## 1967cutlass

I'm not spending 900 on a lens right now. $400 is pushing it. Do any of you actually have experience with the tamron 18-200? It's a bit slow but being as I can get one for $170 I would also buy a 1.8/50 for low light. Good budget combo?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *1967cutlass* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm not spending 900 on a lens right now. $400 is pushing it. Do any of you actually have experience with the tamron 18-200? It's a bit slow but being as I can get one for $170 I would also buy a 1.8/50 for low light. Good budget combo?_

 

If you want better results it will cost you either (1) money or (2) versitility!
 If you are limiting yourself to 200$, you can't have the best of both worlds.
 Pick which is most important to you, and that will determine what lens to buy.


----------



## 1967cutlass

No offense but you guys have been less than helpful. I've heard the "you need to spend n (your budget) x2 for a better [insert electronic/car/cycling item here] or it's not worth it" line on every fourm on the internet. Well this is reality, and despite me being a fairly experienced amateur photographer, I have far more important things to spend money on. The kit lens is awful and nobody seems to have any suggestions, much less personal experience with the better cheap lenses out there.

 Also the thing about the 1.8 not focusing is BS unless yours is defective.

 That being said, after some research, I just bought the tamron 18-200mm for $140 (new, non refurb). I'm sure it will be a significant improvement over the kit lens, and I'll post more about it once it arrives. The negative reviews usually involve the lens being compared to L glass (funny).


----------



## raymondlin

I am not sure the Tamron 18-200 is a great improvement over the kit lens, the Tamron 17-50 is however, in every respect. Sharper and faster. the 18-200 is not a constant 2.8 and at its longest end it's slow.


----------



## raptor84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *onform* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ive been debating wether to buy a 50D too! My other choice would be the D300 a bit controversial i know...lol 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It would be great if you could post some pics to look at the Q. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Where on earth do you rent a brand new camera for the wknd????? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Over here in SG there are quite a few rental services. The one I rent form bought the 50D and d90's on launch and I had a small shoot at the shelter so I couldnt resist 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 AS for samples here are some.. at ISO 3200 taken with the monochrome pic style , contrast +3 sharpness 4 Low NR, 85/1.8@2.8






 100% crop





 You can download to view it with the full exif in DPP or photoshop.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *1967cutlass* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also the thing about the 1.8 not focusing is BS unless yours is defective._

 



 I've seen quite a few people who've not had stellar experience with the 1.8. I suggest with your limited research you do some reading on the Canon website. There's tons of people that have good 1.8s just like there tons who have bad. What do you expect for a lens that cost $50?

 Once you get into L lens territory you see a significant jump.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *1967cutlass* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've heard the "you need to spend n (your budget) x2 for a better [insert electronic/car/cycling item here] or it's not worth it" line on every fourm on the internet._

 

Most people upgrade for either more performance or more convenience. That usually means f/2.8 zooms, primes, or more range like the 18-200 but usually with IS/VR. In all of these cases they are usually $300-600 with the exception of the 50 1.8.

 The IS/VR 18-200ish lenses are usually better than their non stabilized versions since most of them are newer. The non stabilized Tamron 18-250 in reviews looks better than the older 18-200. But once again it's about $500.

 The range might not be perfect for crop cameras but I think the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a great lens. You can find them under $280 used. You get good sharpness, nice colors, and f/2.8.


----------



## onform

Does anyone know if there is a cannon, or third party of similar Q, L glass with IS lens that will give me an equivilant of the 70-200 2.8L IS with a crop sensor??

 Does that make sense??


----------



## lan

Nobody makes IS in pro glass besides Canon. In terms of non-IS and being crop only, there is Sigma 50-150 2.8 and Tokina 50-135 2.8.


----------



## mr_baseball_08

So I'm usually not one to ask for advice when it comes to my camera gear but I've debated and debated with myself and I just can't figure out what I want.

 The facts:
 1. I'm a poor college student, so I like to get the most bang for my buck. I have about an $800 budget at this point.
 2. On the flip side, whatever I buy I intend to use for a long time, so I don't really want to buy some lens that will just get my by for now. I like to make the right decision the first time if at all possible.
 3. As of now I have a Canon 30D, 100mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8, and 28-105 3.5-4.5, all Canon gear.
 4. In May of '09 I will be upgrading to the 5D mk II.
 5. I do a lot of landscape and portrait photography
 6. I have a "strobist" like set up and may start doing some sessions (seniors, engagement pictures, etc) for some money on the side.

 The Questions:
 1. One one hand I'd really like a wide angle lens like the Tokina 12-24. But at the same time for portrait work a longer lens like the Canon 70-200 f4 does a very admirable job. Getting both these lenses would be around $900, which is a little outside the budget at this point.
 2. Regardless of what lens I buy the 28-105 will be sold. It's a decent lens for beginners, but I've outgrown it. I only keep it now because I have such large gaps with my primes.
 3. Another option is getting the Canon 24-105L which would make for an awesome walk around lens, but it's missing a bit from both the long and wide ends.
 4. I considered the Canon 10-22, but I can't justify the price since it will be useless when I get the 5D and need to be sold. I've also considered the Canon 17-40L but it's not very wide and while the quality will be a bit better, the Tokina is probably the better buy for me at this point, right?

 Anyway, debate at will and give me suggestions. Living in semi-rural MS I have no opportunity to try these lenses out, and renting doesn't work for me given the lack of funds. So your opinions/suggestions will be highly valued. Thanks guys


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mr_baseball_08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've also considered the Canon 17-40L but it's not very wide_

 

The 17-40L is a very wide lens, you just need to have the right camera.


----------



## mr_baseball_08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 17-40L is a very wide lens, you just need to have the right camera._

 

Yes, I have no doubts about the wideness once I pick up the 5D but that purchase is another 7 months away. On the 30D it would be 27-64, which isn't quite as wide as I was looking for. It's still a fantastic lens, however.. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Decisions...


----------



## lan

Tokina 12-24 is DX and won't work on the 5D either. I think the 17-40 f4 is a good buy for later. Not being able to get superwide is a limitation of using a crop camera.


----------



## mr_baseball_08

Just picked up a 70-200 f4 at Fred Miranda for $480. I'll test drive it for a while and if I don't like it, it should be an easy sale at that price if I don't like it. I may sale some more gear and pick up the 17-40 as well.


----------



## 1967cutlass

.


----------



## 1967cutlass

.


----------



## archosman




----------



## 1967cutlass

fine, I get it, you guys are elitist pricks. Carry on...


----------



## 1967cutlass

This is a waste of time, I'm really not coming back here.


----------



## onform

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *1967cutlass* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is a waste of time, I'm really not coming back here._

 

Whats the problem?? you didnt ask a question???


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *1967cutlass* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_fine, I get it, you guys are elitist pricks. Carry on..._

 

Not really. You're the one who posted this. While I'm not going to go over old territory you've been the aggressor and seem to want approval of _your_ decision rather than listen to advice. Several of us have tried to help but you're the one who's being somewhat "dick-ish". At this point I could care less.


----------



## lan

Don't leave. I want to hear how the Tamron 18-200 is vs the kit lens. Post some samples at equivalent focal length and f/stops,


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not really. You're the one who posted this. While I'm not going to go over old territory you've been the aggressor and seem to want approval of your decision rather than listen to advice. Several of us have tried to help but you're the one who's being somewhat "dick-ish". At this point I could care less._

 

I understand where he's coming from. He asked for something better than the kit and in xyz price range, and people only recommend lenses that are outside his budget. Yea, they're better, but he's not looking to spend that amount.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I understand where he's coming from. He asked for something better than the kit and in xyz price range, and people only recommend lenses that are outside his budget. Yea, they're better, but he's not looking to spend that amount._

 



 I think the point is you're not gonna get that great of a lens for under $200... unless it's used. Better glass makes a big difference in image quality. We tried to steer him that way.

 Craigslist can be a pretty good place to pick up a used lens. Got my 85 1.8 that way.


----------



## raymondlin

Canon 50mm 1.4


----------



## Towert7

It really does help when you have access to that type of subject material.
 :sigh:


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It really does help when you are access to that type of subject material.
 :sigh:_

 

I know the feeling. I have a lot of friends who are camera-shy. VERY camera-shy. It's difficult taking pictures of them. 

 On another note, the fluctuations in the world market is making it very hard for me to firm up my plans to get a 70-200 f2.8L IS. *sigh*


----------



## brotherlen

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *1967cutlass* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What's the best all around lens for an XTI for ~200? The kit lens is just bad, I was looking at the tamrom 18-200 but some of the reviews make it sound questionable. I was thinking about getting the 1.8/50 again but the range limits the usefulness and I don't really like changing lenses._

 

I would try finding the canon 28-135 IS used, that could be had close to the 200 dollar mark. Very good lens if in decently favorable conditions. (mine got dust in the inner elements from Afghanistan) I would highly recommend that, and the higher end Sigma lenses are really good for the buck, cheaper than Canon, and Nikon, plus they come with a real padded case most of the time. I've had good experience with those. 

 I've heard good things about the newer kit lenes the EF-S with IS I heard was good. I'm sure you can find somebody offloading one for cheap. It may take some time though.


----------



## brotherlen

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I know the feeling. I have a lot of friends who are camera-shy. VERY camera-shy. It's difficult taking pictures of them. 

 On another note, the fluctuations in the world market is making it very hard for me to firm up my plans to get a 70-200 f2.8L IS. *sigh*_

 

I may have one of those for sale in a month or two, it sits in my camera bag most of the time. If it doesn't start getting used, I may be looking to sell/trade. Should I keep you in mind?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Towert7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It really does help when you have access to that type of subject material.
 :sigh:_

 

Don't worry man, your cat is better looking. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 BTW this 50 1.4 looks to be front focusing a bit. That is unless the camera is not really looking at her face. LOL. You should run some more focusing tests on her. We approve this test.


----------



## philodox

Cute girl, but too much eye makeup.

 When I first read Towert7's comment, only the cat picture had loaded.


----------



## archosman

The girl looks a wee soft. Or is it just the jpeg?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When I first read Towert7's comment, only the cat picture had loaded. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

^_^


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The girl looks a wee soft. Or is it just the jpeg?_

 

Could just be the lens. That's how I remember mine. :/


----------



## laxx

That's how I remember mine too.


----------



## raymondlin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Cute girl, but too much eye makeup.
_

 

LOL, she isn't a model and it wasn't a shoot so i can't dictate on her make up 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I know it might look like its front focusing, but at 1.4 the DOF is so shallow that by just missing the eyes will means it'll look soft. I believe i have a sharp copy with some home made test done on tripods.


----------



## dima1109

Just got a 1000D, and right away I have a question. Is it possible to get a decent zoom lens for a 1000D w/max FD of 200-250mm for under $200? IS and autofocus not crucial.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dima1109* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just got a 1000D, and right away I have a question. Is it possible to get a decent zoom lens for a 1000D w/max FD of 200-250mm for under $200? IS and autofocus not crucial._

 

Under $200... probably not as a new item? The closest I can find is this: Tamron | 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Asph. (IF) | AF014C700 for $249. 

 However, used I'm sure you can. Keep an eye out on craigslist, Canon Photography-On-The-Net and Fred Miranda. 

 You could probably bargain this guy down to $200 for his Tamron 18-200: FOR SALE: Canon 20D, Tamron 18-200, Canon 10-22 - Canon Digital Photography Forums but would probably be more worth it to grab the new one from BH for the warranty and stuff, what with it just being $50 more.

 EDIT: Btw, talking about a superzoom (18-200 ish) or a more normal telephoto zoom (55-200-250)?


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *brotherlen* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I may have one of those for sale in a month or two, it sits in my camera bag most of the time. If it doesn't start getting used, I may be looking to sell/trade. Should I keep you in mind?_

 

Yes please.


----------



## dima1109

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Btw, talking about a superzoom (18-200 ish) or a more normal telephoto zoom (55-200-250)?_

 

I'm talking more about a telephoto, so 55-200ish would be great. I can get the 18-55 range out of the kit lens (I know, it's a kit lens, but I'm just an amateur). Plus 18-200s are more expensive than 55-200s.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dima1109* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm talking more about a telephoto, so 55-200ish would be great. I can get the 18-55 range out of the kit lens (I know, it's a kit lens, but I'm just an amateur). Plus 18-200s are more expensive than 55-200s._

 

Well in that case your options expand greatly! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Tamron | 55-200mm f/4-5.6 Di-II LD Lens for Can | AF015C700

Sigma | 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC Lens for Digital EOS | 684101 | B&H

 There is a Canon one there, but it's out of stock. Now, for a better lens for a little more... 

Canon | EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Autofocus Lens | 2044B002AA This is a good telephoto lens for the price, and you will really appreciate having IS for the longer focal lengths.


----------



## dima1109

Ah, the 55-250 Canon lens is extremely tempting. Would the image quality be significantly better compared to the Sigma/Tamron?


----------



## Dimitris

The 50mm f1.4 is probably the most unreliable lens I ever had in terms of focusing. IQ it very good though.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dima1109* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ah, the 55-250 Canon lens is extremely tempting. Would the image quality be significantly better compared to the Sigma/Tamron?_

 

That seems to be the case. 

Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS - Nifty Two-Fifty - Canon Digital Photography Forums Some sample images.


----------



## dima1109

Looks like I've found my new christmas present to myself


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dima1109* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Looks like I've found my new christmas present to myself 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Hooray! I'm aiming for the 70-200 f2.8L IS, myself.


----------



## dima1109

Sweet deal 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I hope this photo thing doesn't turn out like the headphone thing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I came here looking for a cheap replacement for MDR-EX71, and eventually ended up with an amp and a D2000


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dima1109* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sweet deal 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I hope this photo thing doesn't turn out like the headphone thing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I came here looking for a cheap replacement for MDR-EX71, and eventually ended up with an amp and a D2000 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Too late! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Eventually you'll be infected by the Red Ring of Canon Doom Disease and have a collection of a zillion lenses and half a zillion pro bodies. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 5DMK2, anyone?


----------



## ast

hmmm..... I thought the point of having SLR is to optimize the usage of different lenses. Otherwise I can get a good P&S like G10 or similar. I don't quite understand the rationale behind the Jack of all trade 55--250mm type of thing, which does everything OK but nothing the BEST.

 Even for light travel purpose, a 17-55 or 24-70 would be more appropriate.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ast* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_hmmm..... I thought the point of having SLR is to optimize the usage of different lenses. Otherwise I can get a good P&S like G10 or similar. I don't quite understand the rationale behind the Jack of all trade 55--250mm type of thing, which does everything OK but nothing the BEST.

 Even for light travel purpose, a 17-55 or 24-70 would be more appropriate._

 




 I really want a 24-70 2.8...


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ast* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_hmmm..... I thought the point of having SLR is to optimize the usage of different lenses. Otherwise I can get a good P&S like G10 or similar. I don't quite understand the rationale behind the Jack of all trade 55--250mm type of thing, which does everything OK but nothing the BEST.

 Even for light travel purpose, a 17-55 or 24-70 would be more appropriate._

 

Arguements for having an SLR include, lower shutter lag, faster autofocus, more subject isolation, better high ISO, and higher fps.

 There's no point in the best lenses with better sharpness if you only print 4x6. High ISO noise is less visible at those smaller prints also. There's nothing wrong with the 55-250 lens. It has it's strengths and weakness you have to play off of.

 The Canon 24-70 2.8 is not a light lens and most casual / intermediate users would agree. Start adding the grip and flash and it'll be something you'll feel at the end of the day. The Tamron 28-75 2.8 on the other hand is pretty light.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I really want a 24-70 2.8..._

 

My feelings on this is I prefer 24-105 f4 since It's range is more useful to me and if i need low light, I use my 35 1.4


----------



## ast

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Arguements for having an SLR include, lower shutter lag, faster autofocus, more subject isolation, better high ISO, and higher fps.

 There's no point in the best lenses with better sharpness if you only print 4x6. High ISO noise is less visible at those smaller prints also. There's nothing wrong with the 55-250 lens. It has it's strengths and weakness you have to play off of._

 


 Very true. I myself opt for dSLR mainly for the lower shutter lag, low light performance, faster focus, and the opportunity to play with all kinds of lenses.

 55-250 seems a little odd to me as I can't think of a case of using it.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ast* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_55-250 seems a little odd to me as I can't think of a case of using it._

 

I guess it just doesn't fit your shooting style. I use my nikon 55-200 VR (of course on nikon body) sometimes because it's light, 55 is wider than 70 and I like 50ish on crop sensor for full body shots. 200 is enough for me to get across street candids. The slowness of the lenses doesn't bother me as I sometimes use it for shooting models between f8 and f10.

 You don't like this range of lens because it's too slow or too telephoto?


----------



## ast

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You don't like this range of lens because it's too slow or too telephoto?_

 

I guess a little bit of both. 

 On the tele end, I can think of sports/wild life type of application, where this lens could be too slow. Same for portraits if you want to blur the background to get the 3D effect. Then for travel/landscape it is too "tele" to be useful. I guess it indeed doesn't fit my shooting style.


 ...


----------



## dima1109

From my short experience with the 55-250, it's very useful for medium to longer FL's. I really only use it at 200+ mm. For shorter stuff, I use the 50 mm 1.8 or the XS kit lens. 

 I've been looking at 70-200 f4 IS, it looks very attractive, but I could never justify buying one for the kind of casual shooting I do. Too heavy, too expensive, and I very rarely print any photos (even when I do, it's 5x7 max), so I really wouldn't find much use for the sharpness. The only truly useful quality for me in it compared to 55-250 is USM, but I focus manually about half the time anyway.

 My point is - 55-250 is indeed a compromise between size/weight, price, and image quality. If I wanted sharpness, I would get the 70-200, if I wanted the extra reach, I would get the Bigma. But I don't have the money for either, so I have to compromise. 55-250 does its thing very well for an amateur, so it has its niche. I personally am yet to find a serious weakness, so I'm perfectly satisfied with the lens (thanks, *roastpuff*





 )


----------



## lan

If you're always at 200+, you can always get the 200 2.8L. It's a small prime and it's sharper at 200 than the other zooms.


----------



## B.Dylan

Hey hey! 

 New to the forum and kinda new to photography too 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My camera gear is small but I like it:

 Canon 40D
 Canon 70-200 2.8L
 Tamron 17-50

 My next buy will probably be the nifty-fifty (50 1.8)!


----------



## I)enial

Has anyone heard anything about Black Friday? I'm hoping B&H will have something as I'm looking to get a 580 for my 30D.

 Maybe Amazon will have a few sales. They did last year.


----------



## raptor84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *B.Dylan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey hey! 

 New to the forum and kinda new to photography too 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 My camera gear is small but I like it:

 Canon 40D
 Canon 70-200 2.8L
 Tamron 17-50

 My next buy will probably be the nifty-fifty (50 1.8)!_

 

Just some advice before you buy it. Check your exif info for your shots and if you shot alot of 50 on the tamron or 70 on the 70-200 then go for it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 if you dont use that focal range alot then 2.8 from the tamron can cover most situations.


----------



## Bob_McBob

My dealer just called to ask if I still want the 5D mark II I pre-ordered on *JANUARY 7*. How's that for forethought? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I can't believe they kept the list all this time. Apparently initial allotments are so low that a lot of people won't receive one until February or later. I am number 2 of 54 and guaranteed a body out of the initial shipment at C$2949.

 "Unfortunately" I bought a 1D mark III since then, and I have no intention of selling it to get a 5D mark II. Oh well


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just some advice before you buy it. Check your exif info for your shots and if you shot alot of 50 on the tamron or 70 on the 70-200 then go for it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 if you dont use that focal range alot then 2.8 from the tamron can cover most situations._

 


 Good point.

 My nifty fifty wasn't that great. It was difficult to focus. One of the reasons I picked up the Tammy...


----------



## lan

I hear some people in asia and west coast US already have theirs. I'm going to wait for reviews and until I can handle one myself. I don't buy sight unseen.


----------



## Bob_McBob

You guys have no idea how hard it is to tell someone you DON'T want one of the first 5D mark IIs available in the country.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Bob_McBob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You guys have no idea how hard it is to tell someone you DON'T want one of the first 5D mark IIs available in the country._

 

I wonder what a brand new, never-out-of-the-box, 5D mkII would fetch on ebay? That would be an interesting bidding war, I think.


----------



## onform

Picked up my new 5D today..
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




..before you all get excited it's a mark 1...lol

 It's my first dslr having previously used a bridge/prosumer camera.

 The only problem is i have to wait till mon/tues for the lens to arrive.


----------



## milkpowder

The 5D is a very good camera. Sure, the interface may not be as easy to use, or the screen may not be as high resolution as the newer generation cameras, but the quality of the pictures is brilliant. A good camera will always be a good camera.


----------



## raptor84

It was released for sale this thursday over here and so far its been really tempting at the price points.

 Some higher ISO shots taken by one of the lucky few to won one..
5D Mk 2 High ISO Test - a set on Flickr


----------



## milkpowder

The shots look very clean, but they don't really show off the 5D Mk2's true capabilities. While detail is quite impressive at ISO 6400, the scenes weren't that tough enough. Well exposed, brightly-lit subjects will never pose a problem. I'm pretty sure my D300 would deliver very similar results with maybe a sliver less resolution and more luminance nose at ISO 6400. What I really want to see is chroma/luminance noise levels in low-light situations.


----------



## lan

I'm not impressed by those examples but I won't judge a camera unless I process the RAW files myself.

 The guy though the ISO50 looked really clean. I thought they were a little bit noisy. *shrug*

 I don't really care about all this ISO noise business. I will use low ISO in studio setting @ 21MP. In other situations, I rather have good metering because if this underexposes, you just boost noise back up. So the "real" performance is in AF and metering consistency for me.


----------



## onform

good news a friend lent me his 70-200 for the day so i could get to grips with my new camera.. http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f11/po...ml#post5064121


----------



## lan

onform, you look to be making some good stuff. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Congrats on a great camera.

 As for me, one of my Canon systems maybe out the door. I'm testing a D700 now.


----------



## lan

5D MK2 is here now because I've returned the D700. I just needed reach and well the D300 or 5DMK2 can give me that. At least this will give me video capabilities and combined with my manual focus nikon lenses, I'll have totally new capabilities.


----------



## laxx

Using a mount adaptor for your Nikon lenses?


----------



## millionmonkeys

Dear Canon Headfiers

 I am still stuck in a timewarp with my EOS650 (and happy!) but my wife wants a new camera.

 I've had a look at the 40D and the 50D.

 My question: is the 50D worth the extra? (better LCD and 3200 ASA is not all that important).

 Thanks very much

 Ian A


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *millionmonkeys* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dear Canon Headfiers

 I am still stuck in a timewarp with my EOS650 (and happy!) but my wife wants a new camera.

 I've had a look at the 40D and the 50D.

 My question: is the 50D worth the extra? (better LCD and 3200 ASA is not all that important).

 Thanks very much

 Ian A_

 


 Coming here and asking that question as a first post is like going to a computer forum and asking what headphone amp to buy - I'm sure there are people here that can answer, but why not go to the Canon forums and sign up there instead? The link is:
Canon Digital Photography Forums - Powered by vBulletin


 Personally I would probably get the 40D. The 50D feels like a 30Dish (as compared to the 20D which is what I still have) sort of upgrade, not quite big enough to be really worth the extra money, and some say 40D actually gives better pictures.

 To be honest, if I was you, I would try to find a 5D in good shape instead; a huge and bright viewfinder, no crop so lenses are what they are supposed to be and with image quality that is still one of the best at lower ISO settings (compared to D700 here: Nikon D700 Review: 28. Compared to (RAW): Digital Photography Review ) it's a great deal today. IMHO.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Using a mount adaptor for your Nikon lenses?_

 

Yep. I've had it for a few months now.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *millionmonkeys* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dear Canon Headfiers

 I am still stuck in a timewarp with my EOS650 (and happy!) but my wife wants a new camera.

 I've had a look at the 40D and the 50D._

 

I just sold my EOS650 to a photo student recently.

 I say get the 40D. $ is better spent on lenses. At least you can share lenses if they're EF.


----------



## laxx

So how are you like the 5D Mark 2 lan?


----------



## millionmonkeys

Quote:


 Coming here and asking that question as a first post is like going to a computer forum and asking what headphone amp to buy 
 

I know it looks odd but I've been lurking and enjoying the headfi forums and the Canon question is somewhat opportunistic. 


 Thanks for your comments.


----------



## vibin247

If you can go for the 5D, I do it. Those wide angle lenses will love you for it, with the small price of vignetting at the corners. However, the 40D is a great value in comparison to the newer 50D. It's 3.5 fps faster than the 5D, built-in sensor cleaning, and more water and dust-resistant seals.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So how are you like the 5D Mark 2 lan?_

 

I haven't opened it out of the box yet. I want to get past the first round of bug shenanigans first and see what they come out with first firmware update. I'm still evaluating manual focus lenses so no big rush here.


----------



## csroc

I intend to get the 5D Mark II, but I have no idea when. I was originally thinking in the next three or four months but now I suspect it will wait until summer or maybe a bit later. I'll just keep truckin with my four year old 1D Mark II for now until the shutter dies (early indications of problems at higher shutter speeds which I don't use often and so I don't care yet). When it does die, I'll send it in for a repair.


----------



## lan

Depending on what you do, a 5D isn't always a step up from a 1D especially when dealing with fast moving things.


----------



## csroc

Obviously, but for what I do it will be.

 My intention is to keep the 1D for when I do want those capabilities, however that's relatively infrequent for me. Maybe a couple times a year.


----------



## lan

Ah so you're going to keep nice. Nice. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It's always good to have different multiple cameras around.


----------



## raptor84

Finally took the plunge after hunting for a used set.. new baby on the left


----------



## lan

Nice. Congrats on getting a fine camera. Can you tell the difference?


----------



## onform

Congrats on the new toy you will love it and i can't wait to see the results..


----------



## raptor84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nice. Congrats on getting a fine camera. Can you tell the difference? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

Been saving up for this beast since last year 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Am so looking forward to giving it a spin soon.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *onform* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Congrats on the new toy you will love it and i can't wait to see the results.._

 

I just hope that I can deliver results with it too


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Been saving up for this beast since last year 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Am so looking forward to giving it a spin soon._

 

Do you only shoot pets? Is there a reason why you got a 5D as opposed to more lenses or another body?


----------



## raptor84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you only shoot pets? Is there a reason why you got a 5D as opposed to more lenses or another body?_

 

Pets is my main focus though I do also cover events from time to time. I am happy with my 3 lenses currently and my 350D was my most limiting factor IMO. It was eitehr a 5D or 1dmk2. I went for the 5D for the better tonal response and full frame bokeh that I would like for my portraits.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Y'all are givin' me some full frame lust here. Good thing that I'm not so sure what I'd need 20+MP for. Though clean ISO6400 is certainly very interesting.


----------



## lan

Yeah the 5D is tonal wise.

 I prefer crop camera for events because I like more depth of field. Same goes for animals really because they don't have as flat a face as people.

 I've always thought pets are better to use a 1D with. They're unpredictable and fast moving so having the following are advantageous

 - fast frame rate
 - faster AF, better ai servo
 - More AF points so you can select one toward the side so you don't have to focus / recompose

 It just depends on how you work. You'll have a lot of fun in either case.

 Iron_Dreamer, if you like more detail then 21MP gives it. I don't think 5D MK2 ISO6400 is that clean looking. It needs work but it has a lot of detail.


----------



## raptor84

Yea the af speed was what I craved for initally but since I was so used to the sluggish 350D already I figured any other camera would be better heh. Also once you get the hang of it pets are not as unpredictable as you think


----------



## lan

Yeah one you figure out the flow of the subjects, it's easier to pre focus. If were satisfied with your technique and keeper rate with the older camera, the 5D should work well. At least it has some AF assist point around the center for AI Servo if you ever use that mode.


----------



## tseryan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_At least it has some AF assist point around the center for AI Servo if you ever use that mode._

 

Does anyone ever have it off that mode? I don't understand why it's not the default mode as it's the most useful.


----------



## raptor84

I'm on One shot most of the time as the AF points are clustered around the center and I will tend to lock the focus to recompose qutie a bit. THe only thing i need to watch out for is that the DOF is shallower than a crop sensor 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Breaking it in with an event


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tseryan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does anyone ever have it off that mode? I don't understand why it's not the default mode as it's the most useful._

 

I use single mode also. Servo can go wrong on some cameras.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Breaking it in with an event 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

What lens? These images are a little soft to me. Don't be afraid to bump up ISO if you can. For B&W, you can get away with 3200 most of the time.


----------



## vibin247

Got to play with a 5D Mark II at the MacWorld Expo and honestly, I wasn't too thrilled about it. Unfortunately I didn't think to slip my CF card in there and snap a few pics for later perusal.


----------



## lan

What about the camera didn't you like?

 I think it's a good camera. Not for everything but it's solid for image quality.


----------



## vibin247

I think the 5D Mark II is a great camera, truly, but I like the Nikon D700 more, which I also demoed at the Nikon booth. I think the controls are a bit more intuitive (particularly, the rear dial on the D700 felt more natural than on the Canon), with better autofocusing on the D700. Oh, and the new 24mm f/1.4L wasn't very impressive either. Nikon's new 14-24mm and 24-70 were really nice to handle.

 I guess this means I'm eventually going to defect...


----------



## raptor84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What lens? These images are a little soft to me. Don't be afraid to bump up ISO if you can. For B&W, you can get away with 3200 most of the time._

 

Its probably due to slight motion blur. I was shooting 3200 in all except that last one.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vibin247* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think the 5D Mark II is a great camera, truly, but I like the Nikon D700 more, which I also demoed at the Nikon booth. I think the controls are a bit more intuitive (particularly, the rear dial on the D700 felt more natural than on the Canon), with better autofocusing on the D700. Oh, and the new 24mm f/1.4L wasn't very impressive either. Nikon's new 14-24mm and 24-70 were really nice to handle._

 

If it's just about handling then I agree I prefer the D700. If I were to only have 1 camera, it would probably be the D700. But the 5D and 5D II to me have better image quality, namely in detail. I don't care much about high ISO noise. Ergonomics and other stuff, I can use nearly any camera I think as it's just a state of mind.

 Yeah the lens selection should matter. So if you prefer the 14-24, and 24-70, Nikon's lenses are great there.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Its probably due to slight motion blur. I was shooting 3200 in all except that last one._

 

Wow you're pushing it to the extreme already. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ISO1600 and the pushed 3200 still have a great amount of detail. Absolutely workable in B+W also.


----------



## martook

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If it's just about handling then I agree I prefer the D700. If I were to only have 1 camera, it would probably be the D700. But the 5D and 5D II to me have better image quality, namely in detail. I don't care much about high ISO noise. Ergonomics and other stuff, I can use nearly any camera I think as it's just a state of mind.

 Yeah the lens selection should matter. So if you prefer the 14-24, and 24-70, Nikon's lenses are great there._

 


 I'd switch to the dark side as well, if they just had the lenses that Canon has... when I can get a Nikon equivalent of 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, 17-40L, 24-105L and 70-200L f4 I'll give up all hope on Canon actually releasing a "3D" and switch. Now, I have to hope that 1Dmk4 (or whatever) is full frame at 16-18mpx. Stupid Canon. And stupid Nikon for not giving me a D700 with proper lens mount


----------



## raptor84

ISO1600 rocks big time


----------



## vibin247

After much conjecture, I've decided to keep going with Canon. Mainly because I spent a bundle for my current lenses, and would really lose a lot if I sell. I've been wanting a 1Ds Mark III, which has what I'm looking for: fast AF, large file, weathersealed body, excellent battery life, great ergonomics. I'd wait for the 1D Mark IV, especially if it's going to be a full frame competitor of the D3. A 5D Mark II is great for traveling, and the video function is handy.


----------



## digitalfrog

my first contribution to the Canon thread


----------



## crazeazn

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ISO1600 rocks big time 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






_

 

i've seen that pic on FM with the post pics of your cat and 85 1.2 LOL


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *digitalfrog* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_my first contribution to the Canon thread _

 

Nice. I knew this looks familiar. I've seen you on. MM.


----------



## digitalfrog

^^^^ small world


----------



## mr_baseball_08

Ok, new topic. Due to a college graduation in my near future, I will be the recipient of a $5000 prize. 

 You're mission (should you choose to accept it) is to spend this money for me. What would you get if you had $5000 to just blow away?

 After much research, at this point I'm thinking 5D MarkII (I'm still using a 30D) because the low light ISO usability is amazing. I think I'll sell my 70-200 f4 and pick up the 70-200 f2.8 IS and pick up a 16-35L. Any thoughts, ideas?


----------



## raymondlin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mr_baseball_08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 After much research, at this point I'm thinking 5D MarkII (I'm still using a 30D) because the low light ISO usability is amazing. I think I'll see my 70-200 f4 and pick up the 70-200 f2.8 IS and pick up a 16-35L. Any thoughts, ideas?_

 

Same set up as me

 I have the 30D and planning to upgrade to the 5D II. I just picked up a 16-35L, getting the 24-70L next and then the 5D II. Set up completed. 

 p.s. the problem with me is that prices of Camera gear have shot up 40% in a month due to the weak £ pound......


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Dear Canonphiles,

 I am thinking about going fullframe, but I do not have a lot of money. So I was thinking about getting a used 5D, are there any pitfalls I should be on the lookout for? 

 One problem though I am a Canon rookie been using my Nikon D80 (please don't hang me), so I have absolutely no idea about what accessories to get besides a flash, I heard the Speedlite EX430 is good is that true? at the moment I am using the SB600 on my D80 with good results, anything that performs the same only in the Canon variety would be sweet. 

 As a side note I primarily do photos for my reviews and street photography.


----------



## mr_baseball_08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raymondlin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Same set up as me

 I have the 30D and planning to upgrade to the 5D II. I just picked up a 16-35L, getting the 24-70L next and then the 5D II. Set up completed. 

 p.s. the problem with me is that prices of Camera gear have shot up 40% in a month due to the weak £ pound......_

 

Do you have the 70-200 2.8 IS as well? I've heard that it's a wonderful lens, but I'm very happy with my f4 non-IS version. I'm seriously debating whether it's worth the extra $1000 (which it probably is).

 I've also read about how great the 24-70 is and am actually still debating between it and the 16-35. Was the 16-35 everything you'd hoped it would be?

 P.S. The problem with me is how ridiculously priced the 5D MarkII is. It will be the largest sum of money I've ever dropped on anything (besides my car) and it's already got me thinking about insurance for all my gear. It will probably be the last body I buy for several years to come, however.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mr_baseball_08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I will be the recipient of a $5000 prize. 

 After much research, at this point I'm thinking 5D MarkII (I'm still using a 30D) because the low light ISO usability is amazing. I think I'll sell my 70-200 f4 and pick up the 70-200 f2.8 IS and pick up a 16-35L. Any thoughts, ideas?_

 

If you know your preferred ranges, the situations you're in, and your style of shooting, then the choices are very limited or make themselves pretty clear.

 My thoughts are 70-200 2.8 IS is big, white, heavy, doesn't have the best quality, and is the most expensive so I'm not a fan of this lens. If you are a working pro, sure this'll cover more situations.

 16-35 2.8 II, I don't use that much wide angle so can't justify that plus it's not the best wide angle either. The Nikon 14-24 is the best there. I don't feel like spending that much on a lens which is just good.

 So it depends if you want to have convenience vs. better quality. I care more about quality though.

 Convenience.
 16-35 f/2.8 II
 24-70 f/2.8
 70-200 f/2.8 IS

 Better quality,
 Nikon 14-24
 Canon 35 1.4
 Sigma 50 1.4
 Canon 85 1.8
 Canon 135 2
 Canon 200 2.8
 Canon 70-200 f4 IS. This is the best of the 70-200.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FrederikS|TPU* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am thinking about going fullframe, but I do not have a lot of money._

 

If you have little money, it makes no sense to switch brands.

 Nikon is a better street camera IMO with auto ISO. Nikon also have smaller prime lenses which are easier to carry and less noticeable.

 Unless you wanted to go super wide angle. < "17mm"?


----------



## mr_baseball_08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you know your preferred ranges, the situations you're in, and your style of shooting, then the choices are very limited or make themselves pretty clear.

 My thoughts are 70-200 2.8 IS is big, white, heavy, doesn't have the best quality, and is the most expensive so I'm not a fan of this lens. If you are a working pro, sure this'll cover more situations.

 16-35 2.8 II, I don't use that much wide angle so can't justify that plus it's not the best wide angle either. The Nikon 14-24 is the best there. I don't feel like spending that much on a lens which is just good.

 So it depends if you want to have convenience vs. better quality. I care more about quality though.

 Convenience.
 16-35 f/2.8 II
 24-70 f/2.8
 70-200 f/2.8 IS

 Better quality,
 Nikon 14-24
 Canon 35 1.4
 Sigma 50 1.4
 Canon 85 1.8
 Canon 135 2
 Canon 200 2.8
 Canon 70-200 f4 IS. This is the best of the 70-200._

 

Interesting. I'm glad to hear your thoughts on this.

 I certainly not a working professional but do intend on making some money in the upcoming future through photography. I'll probably not give up on my future engineering career to pursue photography, but I would like to make enough to pay off the gear I want/need.

 First, off I'm wondering why you'd recommend the 70-200 f4 IS over the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Monetary issues aside, I figured the 2.8 would at least be as sharp (if not sharper once you got around the f4 mark) and would work better in low light situations.

 I think you're absolutely right about the 14-24 besting the 16-35, but the marginal difference isn't going to convince me to sell the Canon gear I do have and switch to Nikon. 

 I will probably agree with you for the most part and say I do care about quality more than convenience, but carrying around and/or owning that amount of primes just doesn't seem feasible or reasonable for my needs. 

 I've seen lots of images from the Canon 85 1.8, but honestly can't tell much of a difference between them and images taken with my 100 2.8. Along the same lines, there's not much difference between the 135 2.0 and my own 100. No doubt there is a difference there, but to my eyes at this point in the game, it's a marginal one.

 Anyway, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts (or anyone elses!) if you would like to share more. Sorry if I come off as argumentative, that is not my intention. I'll just spending spending a large sum of money so I'd love to hear as many ideas, thoughts, justifications as possible. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## lan

Canon 70-200 f4 IS is just the sharpest zoom of them all. It's near prime sharp. It's the most modern design and has the most modern IS system also. I only keep 2.8 around because I can. I have 4 zoom lenses in that xx-200mm range as well as 135 f2. 70-200 f4 IS is just in another class of quality. The 2.8 @ 4 is not the same.

 There's beyond marginal difference between Nikon 14-24 and anything else. They are not close in the corners.

Nikon 14-24mm v Canon 16-35mm v Contax 17-35mm

 But yeah different people have different priorities. I didn't know which Canon lenses you already had. 100/2 is good. No need for 135/2 or 85/1.8. I didn't recommend getting all of those primes, just choosing amongst them whatever you'd prefer.

 200 2.8 is better than 70-200 @200 though.

 Lens weakness will show on higher megapixels and on full frame but you gain some sharpness being full frame so it's a give or take. Then again if you don't care about megapixels or sharpness then not much of this matters. Just get whatever is most convenient.


----------



## digitalfrog




----------



## mr_baseball_08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *digitalfrog* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3239929178_56c248a444_b.jpg_

 

Care to add any insight or did you just want to show us a picture?


----------



## digitalfrog

yes, you are right.

 This is American next top model Season 11 winner, during rehearsal at the Amsterdam Fashion week, today.


----------



## lan

The camera seems to be working well. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 What was your setup?


----------



## digitalfrog

Canon 1Ds Mark III, 70-200 2.8, no flash, monopod.

 Runway photography is tough, but can be (visually) rewarding !


----------



## lan

I find it a bit boring though. Do you fight the other photographer in the small area where you are for your place? I rather watch the show than take the photos for visual appeal. Better yet backstage.


----------



## digitalfrog

The photographers pit is hell, no doubt about it. 
 Backstage is ok, but I prefer to enjoy the show there over taking pictures.


----------



## raymondlin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mr_baseball_08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you have the 70-200 2.8 IS as well? I've heard that it's a wonderful lens, but I'm very happy with my f4 non-IS version. I'm seriously debating whether it's worth the extra $1000 (which it probably is).

 I've also read about how great the 24-70 is and am actually still debating between it and the 16-35. Was the 16-35 everything you'd hoped it would be?

 P.S. The problem with me is how ridiculously priced the 5D MarkII is. It will be the largest sum of money I've ever dropped on anything (besides my car) and it's already got me thinking about insurance for all my gear. It will probably be the last body I buy for several years to come, however._

 

I hired it out for a wedding 6 months ago and it is a great lens, not one that i would use a lot but it is worth what it is. 

 I haven't received the 16-35 yet, its still in transit, and the 24-70 will come after i saved up enough for the 5D 2 !


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you have little money, it makes no sense to switch brands.

 Nikon is a better street camera IMO with auto ISO. Nikon also have smaller prime lenses which are easier to carry and less noticeable.

 Unless you wanted to go super wide angle. < "17mm"?_

 

I've been thinking about it, and it is not something I would have the money for right away, but it would be fun to play around with. I have played around with a 17-55 f/2.8 Nikon but that was on a crop sensor, was kinda hoping the 24-70 on a FF would yield almost the same results on the wide end. 

 The auto ISO is a nice feature, but the metering is so crazy on a D80. The 5D doesn't have the feature but the pictures look really good even at ISO 1600 (I am not comfortable shooting ISO1600 on the D80 it is way to grainy), plus you have the FF advantage. 

 Thanks a lot for your reply! I think I will reconsider the brand swap, and maybe just wait for a cheap D300 to come my way some day.


----------



## raymondlin

digitalfrog, nice portfolio !


----------



## digitalfrog

Merci  !

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raymondlin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_digitalfrog, nice portfolio !_


----------



## raymondlin

Digitalfrog, If you don't mind me asking, how did you get into Fashion Photography instead of another aspect of photography?


----------



## raymondlin

New toy !


----------



## onform

nice...cant wait to see some results.


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raymondlin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_New toy !..._

 

Nice! I, too, am looking forward to seeing what you do with it, Raymond.

 At first glance, I thought it was the 10-22mm, probably because of the hood.


----------



## digitalfrog

I guess it's a matter of opportunity. I sneaked a camera in a night club and it grew until I made money.
 I could access a fashion show, liked it.... did it...



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raymondlin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Digitalfrog, If you don't mind me asking, how did you get into Fashion Photography instead of another aspect of photography?_


----------



## mr_baseball_08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raymondlin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_New toy !
_

 

Post up some pics ASAP so we can see how this bad boy shoots. I'm particularly interested in how wide 16mm is. How you gotten your 5D MkII yet? I'm sure it will look a bit _wider_ on the FF 5D than the 30D.

 I believe after doing some research I've settled on the 70-200 F4 IS and the 16-35 F2.8. The rest I'm gonna spend on some more off camera lighting gear, new tripod, and some other odds and ends. Kudos to Ian for steering me towards the F4 instead of the F2.8. The reviews of the F4 are stellar which is apparently something I'd glossed over before.


----------



## raymondlin

I haven't got the 5D 2 yet, it'll be a couple of months, i am not made of money 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 This one is 35mm





 This one is 16mm, both on the 30D


----------



## lan

Flare eh? It's one of the things I dislike about my 17-35. You might get the sun here or there in some shots. Were you using a hood?


----------



## raymondlin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Flare eh? It's one of the things I dislike about my 17-35. You might get the sun here or there in some shots. Were you using a hood?_

 

I think I did, but shooting into the sun always carry the risk of flares.


----------



## digitalfrog

The 16-35 f/2.8 rocks ...

 here is one made with that lens a few days ago


----------



## onform

Guys can anyone point me in the direction of the reviews for the 70-200 f4?

 Also I love the visual performance charts that you can manipulate like the one's at dpreview. does anyone know any other sites that use similar methods to this http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._c16/page5.asp ?


----------



## raymondlin

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens Review

 There you go, i really like that site for lens reviews.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raymondlin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think I did, but shooting into the sun always carry the risk of flares._

 

Yeah it can get tricky. Depends on the lens though. I find the 24-105 is great shooting into the sun.


----------



## onform

Can anyone tell me at what focal length and aperture the 24-70 2.8L is sharpest at? 

 And also if shooting at 35mm on full frame body from around 2 1/2 - 3 metres away what would the lowest aperture I could use for a three person deep group of people?


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *onform* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can anyone tell me at what focal length and aperture the 24-70 2.8L is sharpest at? 

 And also if shooting at 35mm on full frame body from around 2 1/2 - 3 metres away what would the lowest aperture I could use for a three person deep group of people?_

 

It's typically sharper at the 70mm end from the copies that I've tried, and the smaller the aperture the sharper it is though it's quite good at f2.8 and excellent at f4. 

 I'd go with f8 or higher for that particular situation and put the focus on someone in the middle row... higher if you really want to keep them sharp and everyone in focus, and if you have the light available. How far apart are the people?

 EDIT: Changed f5.6 recommendation to f8 because I just realized that it's a FF camera you're using. More aperture needed with FF camera. Just make sure you have enough light (whether it's natural or indoors or in a studio/whatever)


----------



## lan

I suggest learning to use this calculator,

Online Depth of Field Calculator


----------



## vibin247

Just out of curiousity, has anyone tried the new Zeiss ZE-mount lenses for Canon? Seems like you could only buy'em online...


----------



## onform

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I suggest learning to use this calculator,

Online Depth of Field Calculator_

 

Yeah tanks I had that already but I'm a little confused over whether you focus at the hyper-focal distance or on the subject????


----------



## lyricalmoments

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *digitalfrog* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 16-35 f/2.8 rocks ...

 here is one made with that lens a few days ago





_

 

Is that the mark 1 or mark 2? I find the 16-35 mark II having the best flare control at the moment in my entire arsenal of L glass (even without the hood, it doesn't flare as badly as the 24-70L)


----------



## lyricalmoments

Anyway, there's a brand new EF 50mm f1.0L up for grabs on Ebay. Probably the last new piece left in the world.


----------



## digitalfrog

@lyricalmoments, it's a MII


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lyricalmoments* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyway, there's a brand new EF 50mm f1.0L up for grabs on Ebay. Probably the last new piece left in the world._

 

ha! and they're both local sellers to me. It's such a speciality lens. So much $ though.


----------



## lyricalmoments

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *digitalfrog* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_@lyricalmoments, it's a MII_

 

The MII has a lot of improvements over the 1st version, flare resistance is the first thing, followed by better sharpness at f2.8

 A lot of my images that has won international awards were shot on the 16-35mm mark 2, this one for instance gotten 2 major awards so far.


----------



## lan

lyricalmoments, that's a cool photo. Did you fire it with infrared? I don't see wireless radio triggers.

 I see another 50mm f/1.0 locally. LOL. Much cheaper than the ones on ebay.


----------



## Fumoffuru

I bought a cheap A590 IS. Pretty weak compared to these, but sufficient for my needs.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Fumoffuru* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I bought a cheap A590 IS. Pretty weak compared to these, but sufficient for my needs._

 

For some reason the canon P&S's always seemed nice to me.
 I'm sure it will serve you well fumoffuru.


----------



## raymondlin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lyricalmoments* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The MII has a lot of improvements over the 1st version, flare resistance is the first thing, followed by better sharpness at f2.8

 A lot of my images that has won international awards were shot on the 16-35mm mark 2, this one for instance gotten 2 major awards so far.




_

 

I just realised they are both holding a flash each.


----------



## lyricalmoments

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_lyricalmoments, that's a cool photo. Did you fire it with infrared? I don't see wireless radio triggers.

 I see another 50mm f/1.0 locally. LOL. Much cheaper than the ones on ebay._

 

Infrared wouldn't have the range... it's triggered with the Pocket Wizards Plus II, it's coiled around the couples' hands.


----------



## Bubbah

Sweet! Just got my 50D, just need my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens and im good to go <3


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lyricalmoments* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Infrared wouldn't have the range... it's triggered with the Pocket Wizards Plus II, it's coiled around the couples' hands. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Makes total sense. Good job hiding the wizards.


----------



## raptor84

Rented the 35L for this weekend.. not quite used to the focal range but its a beaaauty on FF 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 @1.8


----------



## BradJudy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Fumoffuru* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I bought a cheap A590 IS. Pretty weak compared to these, but sufficient for my needs._

 

You can do quite a bit with the A590 - it has a decent selection of manual settings if you want to get into them and seems to be a good camera from what I've heard (I own an A630). Most of a good photo is the person behind the camera rather than the camera itself.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Rented the 35L for this weekend.. not quite used to the focal range but its a beaaauty on FF 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I think I like the 85 1.8 photos better. You have to get SO close with the 35. Renting is a good idea to try out lenses though.


----------



## martook

In-depth review of the 5d mk2 on dpreview:

Canon EOS 5D Mark II Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review


 No surprises in there to be honest... I do want one, but I want a camera with proper AF even more...


----------



## raptor84

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think I like the 85 1.8 photos better. You have to get SO close with the 35. Renting is a good idea to try out lenses though._

 

Yes I had to go much closer than what i was used too. Next lens to rent will be a 135/2 then after that I'll know my upgrade path


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes I had to go much closer than what i was used too. Next lens to rent will be a 135/2 then after that I'll know my upgrade path 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I'm afraid the dog would've licked my lens. LOL.


----------



## digitalfrog

^^^^^

 I had a girl licking my lens once


----------



## lan

I don't mind my telephoto zoom being licked by a girl but not my Canon lenses.


----------



## Walie

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Fumoffuru* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I bought a cheap A590 IS. Pretty weak compared to these, but sufficient for my needs._

 

Don't forget to load CHDK on it! I'm having so much fun with mine! HDR on the cheap!


----------



## lan

2 new L Lenses were announced both Tilt and shift. 

Canon introduces 17mm & 24mm TS-E lenses: Digital Photography Review


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes I had to go much closer than what i was used too. Next lens to rent will be a 135/2 then after that I'll know my upgrade path 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That's what I like about wide-angle lenses. They FORCE you to get close, to connect to your subject. You have to have a mutual respect going with the subject to get good pictures. I say this as an amateur street photographer that is trying to become a photojournalist, but, whatever.

 (FYI I'm a Nikon guy, but I also shoot Canon. FD lenses = <3)


----------



## krmathis

Well, I have joined the team! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 As I picked up the following today.
Canon EOS 50D
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Hoya 77mm HMC Super UV(O)
SanDisk Extreme III 16GB
Lowepro Slingshot 200 AW


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I have joined the team! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 As I picked up the following today.
Canon EOS 50D
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Hoya 77mm HMC Super UV(O)
SanDisk Extreme III 16GB
Lowepro Slingshot 200 AW
_

 

Sorry about your wallet


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I have joined the team! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 As I picked up the following today.
Canon EOS 50D
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Hoya 77mm HMC Super UV(O)
SanDisk Extreme III 16GB
Lowepro Slingshot 200 AW
_

 

Welcome! What were you using before? Do you notice a difference?


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Welcome! What were you using before? Do you notice a difference? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Its my first SLR. Hence I am only used to point and shoot cameras, so its a big difference.
 First step is to read the manual..


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I have joined the team! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 As I picked up the following today.
Canon EOS 50D
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Hoya 77mm HMC Super UV(O)
SanDisk Extreme III 16GB
Lowepro Slingshot 200 AW
_

 

Wow, balling! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Congratulations... that's some seriously nice gear there! Let's see some pics, eh? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Oh, find some instructions online on how to use SLR's properly - I find this (Ben's Newbie Guide to Digital SLR Photography - Canon Digital Photography Forums) the most useful guide available for free.


----------



## krmathis

Thanks guys, for the warm welcome! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Pictures will follow, when I have gotten some sort of grip of it all and the weather clear up (snowing heavily now).

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh, find some instructions online on how to use SLR's properly - I find this (Ben's Newbie Guide to Digital SLR Photography - Canon Digital Photography Forums) the most useful guide available for free._

 

Great instructions. Thanks a lot for sharing!
 ...and it looks like a nice forum as well.


----------



## vibin247

Enjoy the new Canon DSLR, krmathis. Do bone up on the manual, but just have fun photographing with it!


----------



## raptor84

NOw the next step will be full frame senors for you


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_2 new L Lenses were announced both Tilt and shift. 

Canon introduces 17mm & 24mm TS-E lenses: Digital Photography Review_

 

Interesting. The 17mm lens is perhaps worth considering as a general purpose ultra wide angle, but the price tag of Euro 2,499 is a bit scary! Wonder what it will cost in the US market? The other choices that I've been considering are:

 EF 16-35 f/2.8L II USM ($1,450 at B&H)
 EF 14 f/2.8L II USM ($2,020 at B&H)

 To be honest, of the 3 of them, I'm leaning toward the prime, but could be convinced otherwise.

 I'm using a 40D but plan to pick up a 5D II in the near future and keep the 40D as a second body. I'm not intending to use the 5D II video capabilities on a regular basis. I've got a Sony PMW EX-1 XDCAM for that purpose.

 Other lens in my bag include:

 EF 50 f/1.2L USM 
 EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM 
 EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM 
 1.4 and 2.0 extenders

 I'm thinking about selling the 24-105 and replacing it with an EF 85 f/1.2L II USM ($1,870 at B&H). I think with 14, 50 and 85 primes, I'd be more or less covered, although the missing 35 would always nag at me, I suppose.

 Also thinking about adding an EF 300 f/2.8L IS USM ($4,100 at B&H) to cover the telephoto range. This lens would come in quite handy for track days, and is at just about the right focal length for that purpose. In the Canon L range, there is a big price jump to move up to anything that will get you closer, so unless I had an urgent need (which I don't foresee) to become a wildlife photographer, I'll just use the extenders if need be and call it a day. This lens is the lowest on my priority list and probably won't happen for a while, unfortunately. Actually, it may be a dream that is never fulfilled.

 After CanJam, I'm planning to head up to Alaska for most of the summer. I'm really not sure if the budget will allow for any new lenses (or the 5D II) between now and then. But at the same time, they would be nice to have!


----------



## OverlordXenu

My advice: Stick with a simple, fast, small, and light wide-angle prime. 35/2 seems to fit the bill...

 One of the worst things that can happen to photographers is getting obsessed with gear, or hunting for a magic bullet. Both are a waste of time, and money. To be honest, some art/photography books are going to be better investments than more lenses. Lenses don't make the pictures, neither do sensors or films, or cameras...the photographer does. You. Composition, composition, composition. That is the most important factor. A good photographer can take good shots whether they're using a Carbon Infinity, Phase One P45+, Hasselblad, 5D Mk. II, Holga, Instamatic, whatever.

 As someone trying to become a photojournalist, I've rarely wanted more than a wide-angle lens. I only carry one lens around with me, on one body. I've got a lot of stuff at home to fool around with, and I choose which I think will be the best tool for the job.

 Also, to be honest, normal lenses and short teles have always bored the heck out of me. I like to get close. If I didn't use my F100 so much I'd get a 24/1.4. If someone gave me $10.000 and told me to buy a camera outfit, I'd get a 5D Mk.II, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 14L II, and 200/2. I'm a sucker for fast primes. If you bent my arm and forced me to get at least one zoom, I'd get the 16-35L II. (I like fast primes because of their lack of DoF, mmm...)

 Also, here's a link to show you what can be done with equipment that you would probably think crappy or mediocre. Rob Galbraith DPI: Alex Majoli points and shoots


----------



## vibin247

Here's my dreamsheet:

 1Ds Mark III (x2)
 16-35 f/2.8L II
 24-70 f/2.8L USM
 85mm f/1.2L II

 I work photojournalistically myself, and 95% of the time, a fast, wide-angle lens will work just fine. I currently use a 40D, 24mm f/1.4L and 70-200mm f/2.8L


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My advice: Stick with a simple, fast, small, and light wide-angle prime. 35/2 seems to fit the bill...

 One of the worst things that can happen to photographers is getting obsessed with gear, or hunting for a magic bullet. Both are a waste of time, and money. To be honest, some art/photography books are going to be better investments than more lenses. Lenses don't make the pictures, neither do sensors or films, or cameras...the photographer does. You. Composition, composition, composition. That is the most important factor. A good photographer can take good shots whether they're using a Carbon Infinity, Phase One P45+, Hasselblad, 5D Mk. II, Holga, Instamatic, whatever.

 As someone trying to become a photojournalist, I've rarely wanted more than a wide-angle lens. I only carry one lens around with me, on one body. I've got a lot of stuff at home to fool around with, and I choose which I think will be the best tool for the job._

 

Nice post, and undoubtedly true.

  Quote:


 Also, to be honest, normal lenses and short teles have always bored the heck out of me. I like to get close. If I didn't use my F100 so much I'd get a 24/1.4. If someone gave me $10.000 and told me to buy a camera outfit, I'd get a 5D Mk.II, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 14L II, and 200/2. I'm a sucker for fast primes. If you bent my arm and forced me to get at least one zoom, I'd get the 16-35L II. (I like fast primes because of their lack of DoF, mmm...) 
 

By 14L II, are you referring to the same lens I mentioned above? 14 f2.8L II. It's the only 14 that Canon seems to offer.


----------



## lan

Here's some interesting videos on the creation of one of Canon's super telephoto lenses, 500mm f4 IS.

YouTube - Canon Lens Production 1
YouTube - Canon Lens Production 2
YouTube - Canon Lens Production 3


----------



## mr_baseball_08

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Interesting. The 17mm lens is perhaps worth considering as a general purpose ultra wide angle, but the price tag of Euro 2,499 is a bit scary! Wonder what it will cost in the US market? The other choices that I've been considering are:

 .
 .
 .


 After CanJam, I'm planning to head up to Alaska for most of the summer. I'm really not sure if the budget will allow for any new lenses (or the 5D II) between now and then. But at the same time, they would be nice to have!_

 

Wow Wayne! Quite a gear list. Once college graduation rolls around I'll be picking up a 5D Mk II and a 16-35 as well. 

 I didn't know you were a photog, where is your online gallery?


----------



## krmathis

Yeah, quite some nice Canon rigs in here. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I am waiting for the spring, so I could spend some time outdoors shooting some nice motives. Tired of all this snow and cold weather...


----------



## Azazel90x

Just ordered a Canon G10, should be here by the end of the week, ill post pics when it arrives! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 heres a placeholder for now


----------



## archosman

First of April all Canon lenses are going up in price. And no... it's not a joke. Might be a good idea to pick up what you want now.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_First of April all Canon lenses are going up in price. And no... it's not a joke. Might be a good idea to pick up what you want now._

 

Nikon lenses already went up in price. Sad to see.


----------



## majid

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Interesting. The 17mm lens is perhaps worth considering as a general purpose ultra wide angle, but the price tag of Euro 2,499 is a bit scary! Wonder what it will cost in the US market? The other choices that I've been considering are:

 EF 16-35 f/2.8L II USM ($1,450 at B&H)
 EF 14 f/2.8L II USM ($2,020 at B&H)

 To be honest, of the 3 of them, I'm leaning toward the prime, but could be convinced otherwise.

 I'm using a 40D but plan to pick up a 5D II in the near future and keep the 40D as a second body. I'm not intending to use the 5D II video capabilities on a regular basis. I've got a Sony PMW EX-1 XDCAM for that purpose._

 

I have the old 24mm TS-E (with a 5D and 5DII). Remember, they are manual-focus lenses. I don't think the viewfinder on the 50D is good enough for manual focusing unless you constantly set the lens to infinity focus or use a viewfinder magnifier like the discontinued Magnifier S or the Angle Finder C. Even on the 5D/5DII, you should upgrade the focusing screen to the dimmer but sharper Ee-S/Eg-S.

 The 16-35 II has improved the coatings, but keeps the same optical formula. It's not a great lens, not in the same caliber as the other L lenses in your lineup. The 17-40 f/4L is optically superior.

 Keep in mind rectilinear ultra-wide lenses are very hard to control. Shift the lens a little bit from horizontal and you end up with massively skewed perspective. I used to have a VC 12mm Super-Wide Heliar on my Leica, and sold it because the perspective was too extreme. You may find the same with an ultra-wide prime when you graduate to full-frame.

 One lens I would seriously consider if I were you would be the Zeiss Distagon ZE 21mm f/2.8 when it comes out. Sure, it's manual focus like the TS-E, but the optics are stellar. Otherwise, the 24mm f/1.4L seems a logical choice, but you may not want it due to the overlap with your 24-105.

  Quote:


 I'm thinking about selling the 24-105 and replacing it with an EF 85 f/1.2L II USM ($1,870 at B&H). I think with 14, 50 and 85 primes, I'd be more or less covered, although the missing 35 would always nag at me, I suppose. 
 

I have the 35 f/1.4 and the 50 f/1.2, I use the latter far more often. The 24 f/1.4 is different enough to matter.


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *majid* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have the old 24mm TS-E (with a 5D and 5DII). Remember, they are manual-focus lenses. I don't think the viewfinder on the 50D is good enough for manual focusing unless you constantly set the lens to infinity focus or use a viewfinder magnifier like the discontinued Magnifier S or the Angle Finder C. Even on the 5D/5DII, you should upgrade the focusing screen to the dimmer but sharper Ee-S/Eg-S._

 

Thanks for this input. I think I'll stay away from the TS-E lenses for now. Maybe by next summer. In the meantime, I've got plenty of other things that I still need to get my mind around and begin to grow into.

  Quote:


 The 16-35 II has improved the coatings, but keeps the same optical formula. It's not a great lens, not in the same caliber as the other L lenses in your lineup. The 17-40 f/4L is optically superior. 
 

Again, good advice. Thanks for that. I'm really wanting to go with primes anyway.

  Quote:


 Keep in mind rectilinear ultra-wide lenses are very hard to control. Shift the lens a little bit from horizontal and you end up with massively skewed perspective. I used to have a VC 12mm Super-Wide Heliar on my Leica, and sold it because the perspective was too extreme. You may find the same with an ultra-wide prime when you graduate to full-frame. 
 

This is something that I'm willing to deal with. When you get into more specialized lenses, there will be many frustrations that you don't have with the point and click stuff. Even if I visit the Grand Canyon and get nothing but a bunch of washed out pics, I can always go back again! In fact, that's a pretty good excuse.

  Quote:


 One lens I would seriously consider if I were you would be the Zeiss Distagon ZE 21mm f/2.8when it comes out. Sure, it's manual focus like the TS-E, but the optics are stellar. Otherwise, the 24mm f/1.4L seems a logical choice, but you may not want it due to the overlap with your 24-105. 
 

Looks interesting and might be worth a try. Wouldn't hurt to have at least one manual focus lens. If nothing else, it would force me to develop some skills that I don't now have! That's half of the fun, isn't it? Ok, well, not half but at least part of the fun. The results still count for more than half. This lens is quite a bit cheaper than Canon's 14, which is a good thing.

  Quote:


 I have the 35 f/1.4 and the 50 f/1.2, I use the latter far more often. The 24 f/1.4 is different enough to matter. 
 

Sort of what I was thinking when I bought the 50. Figured that a 24 could be added later and be different enough. But since I'm covered down to 24 with my zoom, I figured it might be best to go for broke with the 14 prime. It would be used for 'dedicated' landscape shots, whereas the 24-70 would be more of a walking around type of lens and my 50 prime would be used for indoor and low light shooting.


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's some interesting videos on the creation of one of Canon's super telephoto lenses, 500mm f4 IS.

YouTube - Canon Lens Production 1
YouTube - Canon Lens Production 2
YouTube - Canon Lens Production 3_

 

Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing. Still not going to fork out $5,800 for this bad boy though! Canon | Telephoto EF 500mm f/4.0L IS | 2532A002AA | B&H Photo Free shipping, in case anyone is interested...


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_First of April all Canon lenses are going up in price. And no... it's not a joke. Might be a good idea to pick up what you want now._

 

Thanks for the info!
 I am considering a tele lense for my 50D, and guess its worth hurrying up before April 1st. Hmmm...


----------



## lan

I guess I should wait after April 1st to sell some lenses. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I just got the 300 f4. It's a classic. I'm going to sell my 70-200 2.8 and a 24-105 I think.


----------



## digitalfrog

...and I fell in love with the 24mm f/1.4

 it's pure magic !


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Your second shot is quite powerful.


----------



## laxx

So when are you going to show us some videos lan?


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So when are you going to show us some videos lan?_

 

Haven't had a chance to shoot any for real yet. And when I mean for real I mean on my new computer, with my manual lenses calibrated correctly, and with the right software. Otherwise it's not anything special.


----------



## nirvanaxp

I really want to see some full quality demo video from one of these dslrs. I'm I right that the only canon that does video is the 5d mkII?


----------



## PerformanceFirst

The new Rebel T1i (500D) does too.


----------



## OverlordXenu

From what I've read at the moment it is more of an afterthought than a useful feature, although Canon is supposedly working on an update to fix a lot of issues and add some functionality. Haven't used it myself, so What do I know.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nirvanaxp* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I really want to see some full quality demo video from one of these dslrs. I'm I right that the only canon that does video is the 5d mkII?_

 

Go to Vimeo and search for 5D II videos. There are a ton there.


----------



## roastpuff

Guess what this shot means? I'm taking it with the 450D which also should be in the shot... but I have no other cameras at the moment. Oh, and it was with the 90mm semi-broken macro lens... which is the only one I'm not selling.


----------



## lan

Is this a new camera? If so, congrats! I can't seem to remember who has what anymore. LOL.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is this a new camera? If so, congrats! I can't seem to remember who has what anymore. LOL._

 

I'm planning a move to full-frame... so excited! I've used my friend's 5D extensively before, and I'm hoping to get one of my own (or a Mk2, if I'm so lucky) plus a 24-105 F4L IS for general purpose usage.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm planning a move to full-frame... so excited! I've used my friend's 5D extensively before, and I'm hoping to get one of my own (or a Mk2, if I'm so lucky) plus a 24-105 F4L IS for general purpose usage. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

24-105 is a fun and special lens. One of a kind. It can be your new best friend.


----------



## roastpuff

Just thought I'd share. The 24-105 is with my friend, and I am going to go pick it up tonight.

 EDIT: Straight out of camera, ISO3200 because of poor lighting. I used a mirror and then flipped it in Photobucket.


----------



## lan

Got lucky eh? Congrats on the camera. What lenses will you be using?


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Got lucky eh? Congrats on the camera. What lenses will you be using?_

 

Indeed I did - my parents loaned me the extra I needed. I have the 24-105IS right now, and my semi-broken (needs rechipping I think) Sigma 90mm f2.8 Macro. 

 Looking to get a 70-200 f2.8IS eventually, but in the meantime will probably aim for a 35L, or a 17-40L, or... so many choices!


----------



## lan

The 24-105 is a great all around lens. 

 There are indeed many choices. Beware, once you get used to primes, though, the zooms might be "lacking". I don't use 70-200 2.8 much since I have primes now. The f4 IS version is better and is more convenient since it's lighter. Of course if you need a 2.8 zoom then function > image quality.


----------



## midget

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_





 Just thought I'd share. The 24-105 is with my friend, and I am going to go pick it up tonight.

 EDIT: Straight out of camera, ISO3200 because of poor lighting. I used a mirror and then flipped it in Photobucket._

 

lucky indeed! enjoy the new body.


----------



## roastpuff

Argh, I have dust on my focusing screen and it won't blow off! I was taking pictures outside today when I noticed the visible dust in the viewfinder... so annoying! 

 I'm going to go back and exchange the body for one that's clean... good thing it's not on the sensor itself.


----------



## lan

Don't bother. You're going to keep getting this.


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Don't bother. You're going to keep getting this._

 

It's really bad, though - there's this one huge speck that's very visible. Won't move even with my rocket blower. Roughly half the size of one of the focus points...


----------



## jude

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roastpuff* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's really bad, though - there's this one huge speck that's very visible. Won't move even with my rocket blower. Roughly half the size of one of the focus points..._

 

If you have a 5D MkII, I'm assuming you know where to aim the rocket blower, but, just in case, where exactly are you aiming it?


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you have a 5D MkII, I'm assuming you know where to aim the rocket blower, but, just in case, where exactly are you aiming it?_

 

The mirror, then the focus screen, then I pop the focus screen open to blow @ the focus point screen. They're stubborn, don't want to move...


----------



## lan

That IS pretty big if it's the size you describe it. :/

 Can you easily return it and get another one where you are?


----------



## roastpuff

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That IS pretty big if it's the size you describe it. :/

 Can you easily return it and get another one where you are?_

 

Yeah, I just have to go with my friend who works there as he's the one who "bought" it in the first place and he's the one who has to do the exchange. Planning to do it on Saturday, since he's free then.

 It's still taking great pictures, just annoying to me.


----------



## mr_baseball_08

So sadly, I've actually been debating selling off my Canon stuff and picking up a D700 instead of a 5D Mark II after graduation.

 I don't really need the video function the 5D provides although it is a cool feature. I doubt I would use it much.

 I know MP's aren't everything but 21 is A LOT more than 12 for pretty much the same price.

 Ian, have you used both bodies or have an opinion? The 51 focus points on the D700 is phenomenal for low light situations, but it would be nice to have those extra focus points. 

 I realize lens quality are probably a trade-off either way, but am I correct to assume Nikon lenses cost a bit more?


----------



## lan

What's the motivation for the move? Switching systems is a money and time consumer but if you're not wed into one system and something makes the D700 more appealing, it's fine.

 I think the D700 is a better overall camera. If I'd choose one camera, it would be this one. But I routinely use a 5D, 5D II, and a D300 so don't have to make that choice. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I used to have a D700 for a little before but sold it since it didn't offer me much more than the D300.

 >>>I know MP's aren't everything but 21 is A LOT more than 12 for pretty much the same price.

 I think it's mostly relevant at ISO6400 and ability to crop. If you use noise reduction, you will lose sharpness but 21MP is just more info so you maintain sharpness better. You can also use sRAW mode 1 which yields 10MP if you are afraid of dealing with files which are too large. It does become a problem if your computer isn't fast enough or if you have enough storage space. Forget working on that video on a slow computer also.

 D700 won't get you as many pixels on your far away subjects. So if you need more range, you'll need more telephoto lens.

 >>>The 51 focus points on the D700 is phenomenal for low light situations, but it would be nice to have those extra focus points. It's effectively cheaper to use 200 2.8L (cheapest L) for telephoto needs than 300 f4 or anything larger.

 I don't really see why you consider the 51 points being good for low light situations. They and the extra fps are good combo for sports. For lowlight I like the assist light on the body but that only works when choosing the center point and single frame AF.

 >>>I realize lens quality are probably a trade-off either way, but am I correct to assume Nikon lenses cost a bit more?

 It depends which one but yeah Nikon's are a bit more expensive. Nikon's cheaper primes I find better in image quality though.

 Nikon 24-70 2.8 is nearly $600 more than Canon 24-70
 Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR is about $200 more than Canon version
 Nikon 17-35 2.8 is $300 more than Canon 16-35 2.8 II
 but Nikon 85 1.4 is $600 less than Canon 85 1.2

 Then there are system specific advantages.

 Canon has Ultrasonic motor "pro" primes.
 Canon 17-40 f4, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f4. There are no Nikon equivalents.
 Nikon 14-24 2.8, there is no Canon equivalent.
 Canon EF can mount many lenses with adapters.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_>>>The 51 focus points on the D700 is phenomenal for low light situations, but it would be nice to have those extra focus points. It's effectively cheaper to use 200 2.8L (cheapest L) for telephoto needs than 300 f4 or anything larger.

 I don't really see why you consider the 51 points being good for low light situations. They and the extra fps are good combo for sports. For lowlight I like the assist light on the body but that only works when choosing the center point and single frame AF._

 

Very true, particularly when only the center three columns are made up of cross-AF sensors. The peripheral sensors will be much less sensitive, especially in low-light. Nikon should've spread those cross-type sensors out across the frame like Canon and the rest of the competition.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Very true, particularly when only the center three columns are made up of cross-AF sensors. The peripheral sensors will be much less sensitive, especially in low-light. Nikon should've spread those cross-type sensors out across the frame like Canon and the rest of the competition._

 

Yeah the full frame cameras sensors don't go across the frame. In portrait mode, the ones near the eye are not cross-type. I'd just use focus and recompose


----------



## mr_baseball_08

Well as it stands I have all Canon equipment except for off camera flashes. So it would be akin to starting fresh with nothing which does seem like quite the undertaking. Another reason I've been considering the switch is Nikon's Flash system (to my eyes and understanding) is more intuitive and provides more control which is one arena where Canon seems to be slacking, IMO. 

 Ultimately, I probably won't make the switch. I like the lenses I have now and it would be more costly to switch to Nikon at this point plus I would lose those extra 9 MP's and video capability.


----------



## lan

Yeah you have to consider the costs...

 I use my camera more manually so it doesn't matter what it is but if I were to use full automatic, I believe the Nikon would do better. The auto ISO feature of Nikon is one which I really enjoy using. 

 I like my D300 for events. The primes are smaller, I can use the grip without batteries, all in all making it more lightweight and portable. I use it instead of a 1D.


----------



## wanderman

35mm f/2 does anyone have experience with this lens. I want to get a "normal" walk around lens. I was looking at sigma 1.4 but it is a bit to big and pricey.


----------



## laxx

I've borrowed my friend's 35 f2 plenty of times. I like the lens, tiny and super light. Pretty sharp at f2, but slow to focus. Fine for almost everything except when I was taking pics of a sparring match between friends. That was the only time AF speed was not good enough.

 I like this pic because it looks like it's out of a movie set.


----------



## wanderman

mirror lens. I got this thing for 20bucks to play with. It is 500mm f8. So I am limited to tripod/daytime use. I grabbed a couple shots with it but it is such a pita to use. the contrast is real bad oh well. I need to borrow a tripod and see what this can really do.


----------



## raptor84

oo mirror lens 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 WHere else can you get a 500mm that short light and cheap?


----------



## wanderman

ebay, but I think this lens can also be found on amazon.


----------



## gilency

just bought a Canon T1i. Did not even read the instructions and was using it in full manual within a couple of minutes. Very easy and intuitive to use. I have an old non-digital SLR Canon with several lenses and filters. Unfortunately the old lenses are not compatible with my new camera. The CanonT1i is a great entry level camera.
 Is there a market for old non digital SLR's?


----------



## lan

I sold my old EOS film camera to a photography student. Otherwise, most people are only interested in digital nowadays.


----------



## Punnisher

A quick question for prime lens users:

 I recently got to try the Canon 50mm 1.8 lens at a wedding and really enjoyed using it for a few minutes. My camera is a 400d and I was able to take decent pictures with and without a flash. Plus the small size was nice. It felt so nimble compared to my Tamron 17-50.

 My question is whether or not it's worth it to go for the 50mm 1.4? Despite what I hear about it's softness wide open I am interested in it.

 Also, is 50mm on my camera going to be too much for all-around shooting? Should I go for something closer to 35-40mm?

 Thanks
 Nate


----------



## wanderman

if you like the "normal" perspective I would get the 35 from canon or the 30 from sigma. 

 I would try locking your zoom to 30, 35, and 50mm to see if you can pull out picture you want to decide if it is worth going prime.


----------



## Punnisher

Thanks. I will look into those as well as try locking my lens to 50mm or 30mm to see which I like best. Would this be the same as using a 30mm prime? Would the field of view be identical?


----------



## lan

Yes a zoom at 30 is like a prime at 30 and so forth.


----------



## LapTop006

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes a zoom at 30 is like a prime at 30 and so forth._

 

Except, of course, for the apeture.

 I have the Sigma 30/1.4, it's a wonderful look, and on older cams (eg, my backup 300D) the best way to shoot indoors.

 Generally if you want below f/2.8 you're going to need a prime, and even if you don't think you'll use it the Canon 50/1.8 is an awesome deal.

 Three of Canon's best lenses (in my mind, I do own all three) simply couldn't be made as zoom's, the 50/1.2, 85/1.2 and 200/1.8 are all amazing, and the latter two compete (again IMHO) for the best portrait lenses out there.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LapTop006* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Except, of course, for the apeture.

 Three of Canon's best lenses (in my mind, I do own all three) simply couldn't be made as zoom's, the 50/1.2, 85/1.2 and 200/1.8 are all amazing, and the latter two compete (again IMHO) for the best portrait lenses out there._

 

He mentioned only the field of view though so the zoom at 30 is same as prime at 30.

 BTW have you compared 200 1.8 with 200 2.0 IS?


----------



## wanderman

On a full frame couldn't 70-200 2.8 is perform nearly as well as the 85 1.2 and 200 1.8.


----------



## midget

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_On a full frame couldn't 70-200 2.8 is perform nearly as well as the 85 1.2 and 200 1.8._

 

the 70-200 is, regardless of what its on, wont be as sharp as either of those primes, nor will it go to f1.8, let alone 1.2


----------



## wanderman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *midget* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the 70-200 is, regardless of what its on, wont be as sharp as either of those primes, nor will it go to f1.8, let alone 1.2_

 

even at the pixel level is it possible to notice the difference between the two lenses at a similar aperture? I am not familiar with those two pieces of glass.


----------



## gilency

Just got the 70-200 F 2.8L Canon Ultrasonic with image stabilizer.
 Kind of big but sweet looking. Have not used it. Just got it.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_even at the pixel level is it possible to notice the difference between the two lenses at a similar aperture? I am not familiar with those two pieces of glass._

 

70-200 2.8 IS is weak @ 200mm @ 2.8.

 All of the L primes are sharper @ 2.8 than their zoom counterparts.

 Here is 85 1.2 vs 70-200 2.8 IS @ 2.8
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

 and 200 1.8 vs 70-200 2.8 IS @ 2.8
Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results


----------



## wanderman

than lan. that helped alot.


----------



## gilency

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_70-200 2.8 IS is weak @ 200mm @ 2.8.

 All of the L primes are sharper @ 2.8 than their zoom counterparts.

 Here is 85 1.2 vs 70-200 2.8 IS @ 2.8
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

 and 200 1.8 vs 70-200 2.8 IS @ 2.8
Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results_

 

That may be true. Mine says L IS USM. I paid about 900.00. I am not a professional and would not be willing to pay more for what I want it for. I really like it.
 Same as my Canon T1i. I think is a great camera for my needs, smaller in size (my wife really likes that) and very intuitive and easy to use.


----------



## Punnisher

Well I think I am going to go for the Canon 50mm 1.4. $350 is pretty reasonable for what you get. Build quality, usm, better lens hood mounting, etc.

 Lenses that are wider seem to be either much slower or much more expensive.

 At any rate, I'll likely be using this lens for portraits, so the fact that it won't end up being a "true" 50mm view doesn't bother me much.

 Edit: Though I can't deny that having a fast wide-angle would be fantastic. Oh my aching wallet.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gilency* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That may be true. Mine says L IS USM. I paid about 900.00. I am not a professional and would not be willing to pay more for what I want it for. I really like it.
 Same as my Canon T1i. I think is a great camera for my needs, smaller in size (my wife really likes that) and very intuitive and easy to use._

 

$900 for the 2.8 IS used is an unbelievable price!

 Don't worry about those primes being better. They are about nearly $2000 and 200 1.8 is discontinued and 200 2.0 IS is nearly $5000.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Punnisher* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well I think I am going to go for the Canon 50mm 1.4. $350 is pretty reasonable for what you get. Build quality, usm, better lens hood mounting, etc._

 

The build quality isn't that good and the USM is not true USM but micro-USM. That motor is the weak spot and fails. Poll at POTN form show an uncomfortable amount of people with with issues. My 50 1.4 doesn't focus anymore and I have to send it in for fixing. So you should baby it.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_70-200 2.8 IS is weak @ 200mm @ 2.8.

 All of the L primes are sharper @ 2.8 than their zoom counterparts.

 Here is 85 1.2 vs 70-200 2.8 IS @ 2.8
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

 and 200 1.8 vs 70-200 2.8 IS @ 2.8
Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM Lens - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results_

 

The new 70-200/4 L IS is far better optically than the 70-200/2.8 L IS. It also competes very well against the Canon primes in that range. (Some of the primes don't approach the sharpness of the zoom until stopped down to at least f/4) Throw in 4-stop IS and you have a pretty amazing lens.

 I've been considering selling my 70-200/4 L non-IS and picking up one of these. The non-IS f/4 lens is no slouch, but the new one is definitely better.

 Edit: If you want a 50/1.4 you can shoot wide open, take a look at the Sigma. It costs more, but it's significantly better than the Canon. I tend to shoot my fast glass wide open or close to it a lot. I've used the Canon 50/1.4 a few times, and I don't care much for it above f/2 or so. And if you can't shoot a fast lens wide open, it's not really worth the money.


----------



## jordanross

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Punnisher* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well I think I am going to go for the Canon 50mm 1.4. $350 is pretty reasonable for what you get. Build quality, usm, better lens hood mounting, etc._

 

I agree I just got this lens the build quality is far superior to the 50mm F1.8...

 Very excited about this thread, I bought a 50D recently but I found the high ISO performance atrocious. I was gonna upgrade to the 5D MkII, and extra $1600 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Instead by happenstance I found someone who wanted to do a straight trade for a MINT 5D MkI 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 He wanted a cropped sensor for some of his EF-S lenses. So it worked out for both of us. I am very excited to have this camera, the high ISO on this camera is amazing at iso 3200 it looks like natural film grain


----------



## Punnisher

I'd like a 35mm 1.4 lens but Canon's is $1500. It's strange that a 30 1.4 and 50 1.4 are way cheaper, about 300-400. Any thoughts on this matter?

 Having a fast all-around prime is really what I'm after.


----------



## onform

It's all to do with the red rubber band my friend..


----------



## Punnisher

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *onform* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's all to do with the red rubber band my friend.._

 

I know L lenses are very expensive. Perhaps I'm being to picky about getting that 50mm viewpoint and should just go with the Sigma 30 1.4? It's so hard to decide.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Punnisher* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'd like a 35mm 1.4 lens but Canon's is $1500. It's strange that a 30 1.4 and 50 1.4 are way cheaper, about 300-400. Any thoughts on this matter?_

 

The Sigma 30 1.4 is a crop sensor lens not full frame. The Canon 50 1.4 is weaker wide open, less contrast, resolution, doesn't have real USM, etc.

 Canon 35 1.4 is 1250 not 1500.


----------



## brotherlen

The Sigma EX lenses are a great buy. I've used the 12-24 in Afghanistan, it held up great and took good pictures. The Canon L lenses are also great, but when it comes to price/amount of lens you get, Sigma EX takes it. They have a decent build to them and usually give you a real padded case and lens hood. I was mad when I purchased two L lenses and they gave me a cheap lens hood and a suede sack for my 24-70L and a half assed nylon thing for my 70-200L IS, I mean, for 1700 USD, I would like at least a decent lens hood to match the body of the lens, which was built like a tank.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jordanross* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I found someone who wanted to do a straight trade for a MINT 5D MkI 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 He wanted a cropped sensor for some of his EF-S lenses. So it worked out for both of us. I am very excited to have this camera, the high ISO on this camera is amazing at iso 3200 it looks like natural film grain 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Congrats on moving to full frame. BTW 3200 is not real on the 5D. It's 1600 pushed. Nevertheless, exposed well, it's useable with a little noise reduction.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *beerguy0* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The new 70-200/4 L IS is far better optically than the 70-200/2.8 L IS.

 Edit: If you want a 50/1.4 you can shoot wide open, take a look at the Sigma. It costs more, but it's significantly better than the Canon._

 

Yes agreed the f4 L IS variant is better. I have that one.

 Some people have had issues with the Sigma focusing. As with any purchase, I recommend really checking out it's performance within the allotted return period.


----------



## jordanross

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Congrats on moving to full frame. BTW 3200 is not real on the 5D. It's 1600 pushed. Nevertheless, exposed well, it's useable with a little noise reduction._

 

Man once you go to full frame you can never go back 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Oh I know. Just proving a point the high ISO of my xti was better than the 50D it made me really sad...


----------



## lan

The XTi better than 50D in high ISO? That's insane. Maybe you had a dud.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jordanross* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Man once you go to full frame you can never go back 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Oh I know. Just proving a point the high ISO of my xti was better than the 50D it made me really sad..._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The XTi better than 50D in high ISO? That's insane. Maybe you had a dud._

 

x2. Samples or it didn't happen.

 From DPReview:

 400D, ISO 1600





 50D, ISO 1600





 The 50D is clearly better at ISO 1600 than the 400D. At ISO 3200, it's more or less a tie, but the 400D doesn't do 3200.

 50D, ISO 3200


----------



## PerformanceFirst

The 50D's disappointing performance is probably due to them packing the pixels on.

EXCLUSIVE: Canon engineers held back by marketing department's "megapixel race" : Tech Digest

 Edit: I don't know about that, actually. The article actually mentions they were hoping to apply 50D tech to the 5DII.


----------



## h.rav

The number of pixels on the 50D outresolves every lens on the market.
 The diffraction limit is also smaller than the 40D. They should have made it 12mps...


----------



## OverlordXenu

It's not about the megapixels...

 Stop looking at 100% crops guys, seriously. It does nothing to improve your craft.


----------



## jordanross

This was my test... Object if you will. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanross/3605901289/


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's not about the megapixels...

 Stop looking at 100% crops guys, seriously. It does nothing to improve your craft._

 


 True. Read a pretty good explanation about this a while back. Essentially what the camera companies are doing is creating a higher megapixel on the exact same size sensor. Unfortunately the drawback to this is you're making smaller pixels that in turn get less light which then creates more noise, ect. Seems like the expensive full-frame sensor cameras are the way to go. Higher megapixel counts don't necessarily make a better picture. Then again it's really who's behind the camera that makes the difference too.

 The 40D is better than the 50D in IQ.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *PerformanceFirst* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 50D's disappointing performance is probably due to them packing the pixels on.

EXCLUSIVE: Canon engineers held back by marketing department's "megapixel race" : Tech Digest

 Edit: I don't know about that, actually. The article actually mentions they were hoping to apply 50D tech to the 5DII._

 

This, I totally agree with. The fact that the 50D is as good as it is, with the pixel density of the sensor, is a tribute to how far the technology has progressed. That being said, I would have liked the 50D much better if they had held it to 12MP or so. Consumers being generally clueless, they just keep packing them in. (Pixels, that is.) It's not that the 50D sucks, just that it could have been a lot better.

 I want to upgrade from my 20D, but the newer cameras aren't much better as far as image quality. Hopefully Canon pulls their head from their butts one of these days and stops with the MP wars.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jordanross* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This was my test... Object if you will. 

50D vs Xti High ISO comparison on Flickr - Photo Sharing!_

 

I don't see a lot of difference, but I will just mention that at high ISO, correct exposure is critical. Those images look very dark to me, so I really wouldn't consider that a valid test.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *beerguy0* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I want to upgrade from my 20D, but the newer cameras aren't much better as far as image quality. Hopefully Canon pulls their head from their butts one of these days and stops with the MP wars._

 

Funny thing, I ceased buying the XXD cameras since my 10D. They just weren't worth it IMO, until the 50D. I would've gotten a 50D but I already have a D300. I think the better AF, AF adjustment, 14bit, and more resolution are worthy upgrades for me.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Funny thing, I ceased buying the XXD cameras since my 10D. They just weren't worth it IMO, until the 50D. I would've gotten a 50D but I already have a D300. I think the better AF, AF adjustment, 14bit, and more resolution are worthy upgrades for me._

 

I'll probably wind up with a 50D, just because of the added features, like improved AF, self-cleaning sensor, bigger/higher res LCD, etc. It's just kind of annoying that Canon compromised the IQ to the degree that they did just so Marketing can claim more MP. I print 13x19 with my 20D, and it's easy to upres in PS if you need more pixels. The 50D has gone to the point that only the very best glass can make use of the sensor. Plus, they've degraded the diffraction limiting, so it makes it harder to get deep DOF without losing image sharpness.

 Eventually I want to go FF, but that means I'll have to buy a 16-35 to replace my 17-40, since the corners of the 17-40 aren't that good on a FF body.


----------



## wanderman

Quick question canon guys. Would it be better to get 50mm 1.8 on a full frame sensor or a 30mm 1.4 on a crop sensor.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Quick question canon guys. Would it be better to get 50mm 1.8 on a full frame sensor or a 30mm 1.4 on a crop sensor._

 

I'd go for the 30/1.4 on the crop. Much better IQ than the 50/1.8.


----------



## onform

It really does depend on what you want it for... However I think the 50 1.4 is better option if you are strapped for cash, it has a great balance of image Q and build for the price. I f you want to go the prime route you might want to consider both!

 50mm 1.4 at f2 on 5D classic..


----------



## WittyzTH

After reading about 50D and IQ, I'm curious about the Ti also since it has 14MP and mostly same function as 50D. Will the Xsi beat the Ti regarding of the IQ like 40D does 50D?


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *WittyzTH* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_After reading about 50D and IQ, I'm curious about the Ti also since it has 14MP and mostly same function as 50D. Will the Xsi beat the Ti regarding of the IQ like 40D does 50D?_

 

This just in:

Canon EOS 500D / Digital Rebel T1i Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review


----------



## WittyzTH

wow! I thought I was gonna get the 500D or 50D, but I may get 40D instead.


----------



## lan

Here's how to make your own Canon pen holder.

 LOL.

YouTube - Canon 24-105mm disassembly


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's how to make your own Canon pen holder.

 LOL.

YouTube - Canon 24-105mm disassembly_

 

I remember posting that one on another forum a while back. Evidently the story is he sent it in to Canon and there was no way to fix it. Pretty expensive paperweight.

 Can't make up my mind if I should get the 24-70mm brick or the 24-105mm.


----------



## LapTop006

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_BTW have you compared 200 1.8 with 200 2.0 IS?_

 

I haven't, but a (newspaper) Pro friend who I've currently loaned it to has and found that the extra 1/3 stop was worth more then the IS to him when doing sports.

 He's had a horrible time with CPS promising him they'd find one, then build one, and now they're trying to give up, but the newspaper is trying to force them to make good.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I remember posting that one on another forum a while back. Evidently the story is he sent it in to Canon and there was no way to fix it. Pretty expensive paperweight.

 Can't make up my mind if I should get the 24-70mm brick or the 24-105mm._

 

How was it damaged?

 If you still can't make up your mind then you probably don't need it immediately. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 24-70 is too limited a range for me.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LapTop006* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I haven't, but a (newspaper) Pro friend who I've currently loaned it to has and found that the extra 1/3 stop was worth more then the IS to him when doing sports.

 He's had a horrible time with CPS promising him they'd find one, then build one, and now they're trying to give up, but the newspaper is trying to force them to make good._

 

I thought they'd ceased building those so I don't know why they told him that. Yeah you have to go on the used market to find one. Adorama used to have 4 a few months ago.


----------



## Punnisher

I have decided to go with the Canon 50mm 1.4.

 I figure in low light, I will mainly be taking pictures of people so the crop factor on my camera won't bother me. If I want truly wide angle shots, more often than not I won't need such a fast lens. My tamron 17-50 will take care of that.

 Too bad it's not in stock on amazon for 350 with free shipping.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How was it damaged?

 If you still can't make up your mind then you probably don't need it immediately. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 24-70 is too limited a range for me._

 


 I can't remember off the top of my head what was wrong with it.

 Not going to buy anything with money being tight at the moment!


----------



## beerguy0

So, I just rented a Canon 90mm TS-E from Lensrentals.com. It should ship tomorrow. I'm renting it for three weeks to see if I want to buy one. I'm not sure how well it's going to work with the 20D - I read a comment on Fred Miranda that the 20D, because of the small mirror box, can cause image cutoff with certain movements. A friend of mine has a 40D and a 5DII , so I may borrow his 40D to see how that works. (Coincidentally, has two of my Nikkor large format lenses, so I don't think I'll have a problem prying the 40D loose for bit 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




).

 Looking forward to trying this lens out for flower pics. You get fantastic control over DOF with this lens, plus the optics are top-notch.


----------



## wanderman

So I played with a d700 and sigma 50 1.4. I am going full frame. My 5d mk1 should get here monday. I am going to have to use my 50 1.8 while I shop for a 1.4.


----------



## wanderman

any 5dmk2 users played with magic lantern yet?

Magic Lantern Firmware Wiki


----------



## OverlordXenu

How's the 28/1.8? I'm thinking of picking one up used.


----------



## barqy

any of you guys getting in on this deal?

Canon Digital Photography Forums


 would love to take an 8gb off your hands if so


----------



## ast

I love 50/1.2. it brings out the artistic and creative side of me whenever I put it on.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How's the 28/1.8? I'm thinking of picking one up used._

 

The 28/1.8 isn't a bad lens. It doesn't get a lot of respect, and it's an old design, but I love it for low light shots indoors.

 Sample shot:
 20D, 1/15s@f/1.8, ISO 1600 (no sharpening applied)


----------



## wanderman

What camera bag/s do you guys use? I need a small bag that can fit a gripped body and 2/3 lenses. Pictures of your camera bags would be great too. I have looked and crumpler and lowepro, but are there other brands I should consider?


----------



## OverlordXenu

Think Tank Photo Urban Disguise. And an ancient army medic bag.


----------



## krmathis

I have a Lowepro Slingshot 200AW, and am well pleased with it.
 Easy camera access, as you just slide the bag over to your front and open the zipper. Fit camera with lens, some 2-3 more lenses, and some accessories (charger, CF cards, wipe, ...).


----------



## wanderman

@krmathis nice kit. That bag would be perfect but I always carry a backpack.

 @overlordxenu do you have any pictures of that army medic bag?


----------



## OverlordXenu

I don't have a DSLR on me, but I'll take some crappy pics later.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_@krmathis nice kit. That bag would be perfect but I always carry a backpack._

 

Seems like one of us misunderstood.
 The 200AW is a backpack (see here). But now it seems like you want a bag to pack inside your regular backpack.


----------



## wanderman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Seems like one of us misunderstood.
 The 200AW is a backpack (see here). But now it seems like you want a bag to pack inside your regular backpack._

 

Oh know. I wanted a messenger style pack that would be convenient to carry when I have a backpack. I got a good deal on a new crumpler 5mdh which is decent for my walk around kit. 5d + 50mm 1.8 + 500mm reflex.


----------



## Tapiozona

50mm 1.8, iso 400
 My favorite model.


----------



## laxx

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh know. I wanted a messenger style pack that would be convenient to carry when I have a backpack. I got a good deal on a new crumpler 5mdh which is decent for my walk around kit. 5d + 50mm 1.8 + 500mm reflex._

 

I have a 6MDH and I stopped using it because my bag just got too heavy and it was putting a strain on my one shoulder. =[


----------



## brotherlen

Did anybody take part in international photo walk today? I was in the South Philadelphia one.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *brotherlen* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Did anybody take part in international photo walk today? I was in the South Philadelphia one._

 

If I only knew earlier, as now it rains too much to leave the house...


----------



## lan

No photo walk for me I had a photoshoot.


----------



## skyline889

Do you guys think the 20D is still a good buy? You can pick one up for under $300 now which seems like a pretty good bargain. I was thinking about buying one to use in tandem with my Nikon D50 (Only used for telephoto duty).


----------



## Mr. B

I would try for a 30D if you can find it for a similar price. Both models are very similar but upgrades like the larger display and spot metering were worth it to me. A direct specs comparison is located here: Canon EOS 30D Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review


----------



## OverlordXenu

Man, I'm loving my Canon EOS-3. It is so comfortable, and addressed all the issues I had with my Nikon. And the 28/1.8 is a freaking dream. I'm in love. The 100mm ƒ/2 is also on its way.


----------



## bigshot

SD880 at the San Diego Comic-Con...













 Not bad for a p&s!


----------



## krmathis

Took my EOS 50D & EF-S17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM out for a spin tonight. First night shots...
 Think these turned out quite nice.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Took my EOS 50D & EF-S17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM out for a spin tonight. First night shots...
 Think these turned out quite nice.









_

 

Try setting your WB to tungsten for these kinds of shots. Artificial lighting comes out much cleaner. If you shot in RAW, you can change it in PP.


----------



## krmathis

.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *beerguy0* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Try setting your WB to tungsten for these kinds of shots. Artificial lighting comes out much cleaner. If you shot in RAW, you can change it in PP._

 

Thanks for the comments! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I shoot in RAW, and use Apple Aperture for post-processing/archiving.
 Adjusted the white balance, but it is not as easy as it impact the blue color. So more tweaking were needed to keep the blue tone more natural.

 How about now?










 I will look into white balance camera settings, for future shots like this.


----------



## wanderman

hurm I reprocessed some pics, and I am looking for some new glass. Hopefully by the end of the year my kit will be 85mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4 and 17-40mm f/4. Do you think that kit will be decent for basket ball or will I need something longer?


----------



## OverlordXenu

I'd get a 100mm or 200mm, or even 300mm for sports.


----------



## wanderman

a 200 or 300 would be nice for football, but I hate shooting football; I am also still a poor college student . I still have the 500mm f8 for my football portrait glass, but I need some basketball lenses.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks for the comments! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I shoot in RAW, and use Apple Aperture for post-processing/archiving.
 Adjusted the white balance, but it is not as easy as it impact the blue color. So more tweaking were needed to keep the blue tone more natural.

 How about now?










 I will look into white balance camera settings, for future shots like this._

 

Much better. Personally, I don't have a problem with the blue tint in night shots. I used to do a lot of night shooting on 4x5, and I always used tungsten film. The blue is much less offensive to the eye than the yellow/brown tones from the artificial light sources. Sodium vapor lighting is especially bad, since it has a discontinuous spectrum. 

 Shooting RAW is the best way to handle mixed light sources. That way, you can choose the best WB for the scene. You can even do multiple captures with different WB and blend them in PS.


----------



## bigshot

The first one is much better with the contrast of yellow against blue.


----------



## suo

x2 on the first set, krmathis. Who needs realism anyways?


----------



## Mr. B

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_hurm I reprocessed some pics, and I am looking for some new glass. Hopefully by the end of the year my kit will be 85mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4 and 17-40mm f/4. Do you think that kit will be decent for basket ball or will I need something longer?_

 

Unless the arena has great lighting or you have remote flashes, F/4 is going to be real tough to pull off.


----------



## inspecality

I just got a brand new XS kit for $420! Pretty excited, my first DSLR.


----------



## OverlordXenu

I've had my EOS-3, 28/1.8, and 100/2 for a while now...And I'm in love. I just wish the focus was better...AF seems slightly messed up. I'd send my stuff in to Canon, but I need it. Manual has been fine, and I prefer it, anyway.


----------



## PerformanceFirst

Could someone help me out printing photos? I'm not doing anything fancy, just using a typical HP inkjet and some HP photo paper. My prints come out very flat looking and lacking in contrast, desaturated, etc. I don't have a calibrated monitor or anything, but the same thing happens with photos straight from memory card out of the camera. Should I try shooting in AdobeRGB? I doubt it will help with a consumer level printer, but it's all I can think of. Thank you.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


 just using a typical HP inkjet and some HP photo paper 
 

Problem: found.

 Use a service similar to what Adorama provides. Messing with colorspace won't help unless you can calibrate your monitor, printer, and use a printer that actually has inks that can actually show the colorspace.


----------



## ParadigmPenguin

Bought an XSi kit recently, also have a G9 that's served me faithfully. Canon makes superb cameras, and prices sure have dropped recently.


----------



## wanderman

bah. first time shooting volleyball + first time using sigma 70-200 2.8 + 5d classic + me = mediocre volleyball shots. I was at iso 1600-3200 the entire time. bah



















 I have more photos to go through but it is not looking to good. AI servo failed hard while I was on the floor.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_AI servo failed hard while I was on the floor._

 

Is that why you didn't like some of the photos? They were just not in focus?


----------



## wanderman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is that why you didn't like some of the photos? They were just not in focus?_

 

I missed alot of shots because of AI servo but once I switched to AI focus it was okay. The last time I shot sports I had a 40d which was a much better experience. The 3fps of the 5d was probably the most annoying thing.


----------



## lan

5D isn't a sports camera though. It's slow and the AF isn't as good as more modern camera. Why did you decide to use it?


----------



## wanderman

it is the only camera I have, but boy do I have some d700 lust now.


----------



## beerguy0

Translated from Chinese...sounds like an amazing camera, hope the rumored price of $1700 USD is right. If so, I'm getting one as soon as it's available. Definitely time to upgrade the 20D.

Google Translate


----------



## wanderman

with the 7d canon finally has a camera that can compete with the d300


----------



## M0T0XGUY

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_with the 7d canon finally has a camera that can compete with the d300_

 

Not so sure about that. Unless the new 7D has better high-ISO performance than the 40D, I'd say the extra _8 megapixels_ it offers over the latter will be wasted. For what it's worth, I've always thought the 40D very comparable in terms of image quality to the D300.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_with the 7d canon finally has a camera that can compete with the d300_

 

But, the D300 is discontinued.... ^_^


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_it is the only camera I have, but boy do I have some d700 lust now._

 

If you can handle the lenses AF slower then possibly. 


 7D sounds ok. I havn't no need for it though. A 3D would be more interesting. I'm not going back to crop camera.


----------



## wanderman

what would be in a 3d? I just can't see canon releasing a camera that bests the 5dmk2 in every aspect and not call it a 1d


----------



## lan

7D announced, Canon unveils EOS 7D high-end digital SLR: Digital Photography Review

 Well just like Nikon has D700 vs. D3, I wish Canon had a small body camera with nearly the same pro features. The 1 series can remain the 1 series.

 D300s has dual memory slots so that even further erodes differences D300 had vs D3.

 It would be nice to have better AF but I've just relegated the 5DII as model/location/studio cam so don't really use it in auto anything (except focus).


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_what would be in a 3d? I just can't see canon releasing a camera that bests the 5dmk2 in every aspect and not call it a 1d_

 

Well in the current scheme of things no. But they did just release the 7D which is a new moniker so here's to hoping although I wouldn't be interested in getting another camera. I want to see how the dust settles from a video standpoint since I use that a bit more now.

 1Ds, high res, advanced full frame
 1D, high speed
 5D, basic full frame
 7D, high speed, high res crop
 xxD, prosumer
 XXXD, consumer
 XXXXD, entry level


----------



## Towert7

Hm... I hadn't read anything about the 7D, so when I saw it mentioned in this thread I guessed it was going to be either a revised 5D mk2 or a more advanced 5D mk2.
 I see it is a crop sensor, which makes me wonder why they didn't just call it something like the canon 60D.....


----------



## wanderman

7d preview is up Canon EOS 7D Hands-on Preview: 3. What's New: Digital Photography Review

 @lan I would love to see a 3d/7ds.


----------



## lan

ISO 800 on the beta cam doesn't look too hot in this particular image here. I'll be eager to see other images from the final camera.

Rob Galbraith DPI: Canon announces 17.92 million image pixel, 8fps EOS 7D


----------



## WittyzTH

I really love to see new EF lenses too, but too bad it is only the 100L Macro.


----------



## beerguy0

I pulled the trigger and pre-ordered one from Canoga Camera. I've got a feeling that this camera might be hard to get down the road.


----------



## milkpowder

The specs do look great, but I really don't know why they had to shove in so many pixels. The beta cam's images aren't that convincing at high ISOs. Canon seems to think that the output is quite clean though seeing as they offer a rather impressive max sensitivity. I'm silently jealous that you'll be getting one


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ISO 800 on the beta cam doesn't look too hot in this particular image here. I'll be eager to see other images from the final camera.

Rob Galbraith DPI: Canon announces 17.92 million image pixel, 8fps EOS 7D_

 

I ran across a posting on the Fred Miranda forum that said Rob Galbraith's tests of the 5DII showed far more noise than users are actually seeing, so I'm taking his 7D results with a grain of salt. 

 Image Resource has controlled comparison images that look much better. I'm optimistic that the IQ of this camera will be worth it, despite all the griping on the DPReview forums.


----------



## wanderman

I just wish this thing was full frame/aps-h. ughh


----------



## leftnose

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I just wish this thing was full frame/aps-h. ughh_

 

x a billion.

 I would buy one today if it were full frame at that price.

 I REALLY like the electronic level.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leftnose* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_x a billion.

 I would buy one today if it were full frame at that price.

 I REALLY like the electronic level._

 

Maybe another generation or two (a couple of years) at the most, then will we see full frame at D300s/7D prices. I sure hope they'll keep churning out professional level APS-C cameras though because it's a godsend for those without a wallet that an handle super telephotos.

 I expect electronic level to be introduced into lower end cameras very soon. All it is is an accelerometer, and many phones have it already so it can't be that tricky to implement.


----------



## lan

Would I be interested in a more pro AF version of a 5D? Sure but not at higher price than the current 5D. The 7D if it did have full frame sensor would be more expensive. That would put it in a strange spot below 1D.


----------



## cheemo

Hi, not to derail your current conversation of the 7D but I need some advice in purchasing a camera bag for my GF. She has a Canon rebel xsi and has two lenses and a flash, I would like to keep it under $100 Any suggestions are appreciated.

 Thanks in advance.


----------



## raptor84

You can check out the Kata range of bags 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Not very fashionable but good all the same.

 New addition to my aresenal.. a 18 year old 24mm f/2.8






 Size compared to a 85mm f/1.8


----------



## Kane-DK

Just checking in. 

 Got my very first DSLR a few days ago - a Canon 40D, with the kit lens 17-85mm to start with. It just seems very well build and fits my hand perfect. 

 Any good advice on flashes?


----------



## Mr. B

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kane-DK* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Any good advice on flashes?_

 

Pretend they don't exist.


----------



## Mr. B

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cheemo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi, not to derail your current conversation of the 7D but I need some advice in purchasing a camera bag for my GF..._

 

It would help to know the type of bag she has in mind as well as the size of her lenses.

 In Head-Fi tradition I can espouse something I own. I have a Lowepro Sling Shot 200 and it suits my needs very well. It holds a camera with grip, zoom lens as well as smaller lenses and a handful of accessories. The "sling" nature lets you wear it like a backpack and slide the case in front of you to pull things out when necessary (demonstrated in video). It comes in four sizes.

 I've owned other Lowepro products that were very well made but didn't suit me like the sling pack does.


----------



## cheemo

Thank you fellas for the recommendations of the Kata and Lowepro bags. I was actually looking at the Lowepro and they have it at Bestbuy, she did mention that her preference were a backpack/sling style as opposed to a messenger type.

 Can't comment on the lens size as I am totally ignorant on photography. I am actually gaining interest in this hobby and may purchase my own camera. I do like the new Canon G11 but I think I should start off with a full body dslr and work my way up.

 Great thread and I have been lurking back and forth between the Canon and Nikon threads for info.

 Photography can make headphones a rather cheap hobby


----------



## lan

Go 7D go!

Canon 7D Test video (17-55IS) on Vimeo

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *raptor84* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_New addition to my aresenal.. a 18 year old 24mm f/2.8_

 

How do you like that lens? I hated it. hhaha..


----------



## wanderman

hurm the 5d classic auto focuses is pretty old but I think I am getting the hang of it






 the second the last frame is OOF though but the next frame is in focus. Probably camera shake on my part.


----------



## lan

5d classic does have hidden AF points around center though.


----------



## wanderman

yeah it seems that way. The 5d is definitely not a sports body, but I don't want to give up full frame.


----------



## OverlordXenu

What are you using to make gifs?


----------



## wanderman

cs4


----------



## OverlordXenu

How?


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How?_

 

File > Save as > .gif





 (joking, of course)

 Adobe photoshop usually comes with Image Ready, which is a program for taking multiple photos and making animated gif's out of them (among other things).


----------



## wanderman

you can do it all in photoshop you don't need image ready. 

 window>animation. Each layer must be a unique frame of your animation and just save as a gif.


----------



## bcpk

You can also make animations using GIMP. There's an option for saving as animation when you choose GIF. You can also specify individual layer timing by adding a millisecond value in parentheses after the layer name.

 Anyway ... The Canon Thread! Uh, I want Canon to release a pocket HD camcorder like _everyone else_ (HD youtubecams are the new netbook...), except one with OIS and less wobble when panning. For €150. Please, Canon?


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_yeah it seems that way. The 5d is definitely not a sports body, but I don't want to give up full frame._

 

So get a D700 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I do dig your GIF's


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So get a D700 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

D3 and 1D to me are snappier cameras. Some of the Nikon lenses also AF slower which is sometimes annoying.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Bah, cameras with vertical grips are so MASSIVE and HEAVY. I could only fathom using one if I was already on a tripod/monopod with a supertele, or something.


----------



## Bob_McBob

Anyone here have the new 100mm IS macro yet?


----------



## beerguy0

Shipped from Canoga yesterday via free 2-day air, will be arriving tomorrow 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 I'm taking the day off, since I have to be home to sign for it. I'll charge the battery while I read the manual, then it's testing time. I also bought a 430 EX II flash, now that Canon has finally built in a wireless flash control in the7D. 

 Hopefully the weather isn't too heinous, or I may wind up testing mostly the weatherproofing.


----------



## lan

Congrats on the acquisition.

 It's a Canon, no need to read the manual. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was thinking of getting more flashes myself but they are expensive.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Congrats on the acquisition.

 It's a Canon, no need to read the manual. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I was thinking of getting more flashes myself but they are expensive._

 

I have a 420 EX, but it doesn't have the manual power ratio settings the 430/580 have. Now that the 7D has wireless flash control, no need to spend the extra $150 for the 580 EX.


----------



## Mr. B

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Bah, cameras with vertical grips are so MASSIVE and HEAVY. I could only fathom using one if I was already on a tripod/monopod with a supertele, or something._

 

A vertical grip would be useless with a tripod since you wouldn't be "vertically gripping." I love using one though, I lie my camera to have weight, especially whena big zoom lens is mounted. It feels better balanced that way.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *beerguy0* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a 420 EX, but it doesn't have the manual power ratio settings the 430/580 have. Now that the 7D has wireless flash control, no need to spend the extra $150 for the 580 EX._

 

I still like the manual physical controls though as well as the extra power for times outside.


----------



## Bob_McBob

I ordered one of the new 100/2.8 IS macros when they popped up in stock at B&H on Thursday night. Paid for UPS next day to get it by the weekend, but unfortunately B&H didn't ship my order 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They used to be pretty good about getting next day orders shipped quickly, but not so much lately...

 Anyone want an original 100/2.8 macro with hood?


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *beerguy0* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have a 420 EX, but it doesn't have the manual power ratio settings the 430/580 have. Now that the 7D has wireless flash control, no need to spend the extra $150 for the 580 EX._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I still like the manual physical controls though as well as the extra power for times outside._

 

The 430EX has the same physical controls as the 580EX, just lower power. My point on the 580 was that the 7D now has wireless master control built in, so you don't have to buy a 580 to have a master flash. I can now use my 430EX and 420EX in slave mode with the 7D as a controller.

 I spent the $150 I saved on the flash on a RRS L-bracket for the 7D.


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *beerguy0* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The 430EX has the same physical controls as the 580EX, just lower power. My point on the 580 was that the 7D now has wireless master control built in, so you don't have to buy a 580 to have a master flash. I can now use my 430EX and 420EX in slave mode with the 7D as a controller._

 

I wonder how easy it is and how you can control from the 7D. I tried an ST-E2 vs my 580 and experience is totally different.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Bob_McBob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I ordered one of the new 100/2.8 IS macros when they popped up in stock at B&H on Thursday night. Paid for UPS next day to get it by the weekend, but unfortunately B&H didn't ship my order 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They used to be pretty good about getting next day orders shipped quickly, but not so much lately...

 Anyone want an original 100/2.8 macro with hood? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Friday is Sukkot...


----------



## Bob_McBob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Friday is Sukkot..._

 

I meant to write that I ordered it on Wednesday night, and they didnt ship it on Thursday. They shipped it Friday, right before closing. I know about their holiday closing schedue, through many years of experience...


----------



## Dimitris

I took the plunge last month and got a 5DmkII with a 200LmkII and the 24mm TS-E. I had the 35L and 85LmkII and I really love the 5D with all of them. Prior to the 5D I had the 1DsmkI and the 5DmkII is definitely an upgrade. I still miss the 1Ds viewfinder, focusing and metering consistency however image quality and the features of the 5D are impressive. Glad I am back to taking photos!


----------



## wanderman

does anyone have a suggestions for a cheap wide angle (non fish eye) that can fit on a 5d. I am talking about manual focus cheap...


----------



## blegeg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I took the plunge last month and got a 5DmkII with a 200LmkII and the 24mm TS-E. I had the 35L and 85LmkII and I really love the 5D with all of them. Prior to the 5D I had the 1DsmkI and the 5DmkII is definitely an upgrade. I still miss the 1Ds viewfinder, focusing and metering consistency however image quality and the features of the 5D are impressive. Glad I am back to taking photos!_

 

That's a nice setup you got there! I'd love to have the 5DmkII with your glass.

 Currently I have the intro setup from the canon offers a little earlier this year. The XSi + IS Kit Lens + 55-250mm IS 4-5.6 lens. I added on a 50mm 1.8 and have been having a blast. I'm sure I'm not even getting the most out of my modest kit as is, but practice practice practice.


----------



## Dimitris

Yes practicing and actually using the gear is the most fun.


----------



## Dimitris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_does anyone have a suggestions for a cheap wide angle (non fish eye) that can fit on a 5d. I am talking about manual focus cheap..._

 

You can look for a Nikkor 28mm f2.8 Ais. They usually sell for around $200 and they great lenses. Also look for Zuiko's and old Contax.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

We need some cool shots from your 24 TS-E!


----------



## lan

I forgot to rave here about the new 100L.

 I'm considering getting rid of my 100 3.5 cosina and 135 /2 L for this new macro lens. The image stabilization is insane.

 Here's a test sample at f/2.8 on 1DS Mark 3 at 1/6th of a second. 

 Warning 21MP image. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7634/1ds3100lmacro.jpg


----------



## Bob_McBob

I'm also loving the new 100mm IS macro. I was shooting a wedding a couple of months ago, and every time I pulled out my 100/2.8, I kept thinking how awesome it would be if it had IS. Cue the Canon announcement a couple of weeks later. I resisted for a bit, but it arrived from B&H on Monday 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 It's absolutely amazing how much of a difference IS makes with this lens. I own a couple of other IS lenses, but it's never been so apparent before.


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Here's a test sample at f/2.8 on 1DS Mark 3 at 1/6th of a second. 

 Warning 21MP image. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7634/1ds3100lmacro.jpg_

 

Very sharp indeed. I had no idea you'd become a statue since we last met


----------



## wanderman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You can look for a Nikkor 28mm f2.8 Ais. They usually sell for around $200 and they great lenses. Also look for Zuiko's and old Contax._

 

that is what I ended up getting. I got zuiko 28mm 3.5


----------



## lan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Very sharp indeed. I had no idea you'd become a statue since we last met 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I'm good at doing feign death.


----------



## Dimitris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Iron_Dreamer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We need some cool shots from your 24 TS-E! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Here are a few taken with my 5D. I really like the tilt and shift functions and I think I will upgrade to the new 24mm Ts-E soon. There is a lot to learn still so sorry if the photos are not that great.

Download _MG_0082.CR2 from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way
Download _MG_0105.CR2 from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way
Download _MG_0215.CR2 from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way
Download _MG_0198.CR2 from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way
Download _MG_0096.CR2 from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way


----------



## DeusEx

Hi, I'm considering the Nikon D90 - is there a comparable Canon?


----------



## Wmcmanus

I'm still drooling over the 14 F2.8L II but the dang price went up! I guess it was part of the increase that Canon announced several months ago, which were to average about 8% as I recall. Went up from $2,020 to $2,199 at B&H, which is closer to 10%, but hey, if you want it you've gotta pay for it.

 I'm back in Cayman for the fall and winter and want to do some beach stuff, both from land and from sea. My biggest concern about the 14 (besides the price) is the fact that you can't protect the lens with a filter. That really sucks, and I don't know if I'd be comfortable with it. Lens cap on, off, on, off, all day long. Hard to avoid scratching it with the lens protruding out, sand all around you, and non-expert lens cleaning skills. It would be my first journey into any attempt to clean an actual lens!

 Of course, there are alternatives. There are cheaper UWA lenses from Canon and other companies, and there is the 16-35L II, but the more I read about this lens, the more I drool. There would be so many ways to put it to creative use. Plus, it might help me to hold off on making a much more expensive Ducati purchase, and maybe keep me alive for a while longer as well.


----------



## Bob_McBob

It doesn't help with your filter issue, but I'd probably be inclined to get the Nikon 14-24/2.8 with an adapter. Too bad those 16-9.net adapters are so stupidly expensive now.


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Bob_McBob* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It doesn't help with your filter issue, but I'd probably be inclined to get the Nikon 14-24/2.8 with an adapter. Too bad those 16-9.net adapters are so stupidly expensive now._

 

I had actually given that some thought. I'd like the zoom flexibility and most folks seem to think the Nikon is the better lens.

 Another thought is to save a bundle and get the Canon fisheye 15 f/2.8 (for $699 at B&H) and another prime. I mean, I really don't like the idea of a "fishy" lens, but saving $1,500 to spend on other toys is certainly appealing. 

 The 15 fishy gives a 180 degree field of view, as compared to 146 degrees with the 14, and the sharpness is pretty close. But every single snap with a fishy is forever "branded" as such, so it kind of eliminates itself as a "serious" lens and thus sits in the bag 99% of the time until you want to do some oddball shots at a wedding or of your dog, etc.

 As for the additional prime, it would be either the 135 f/2L or 85 f/1.2L. I've got a 50 f/1.2L and use it more than either of my zooms (24-105 f/4L IS USM and 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM) but I do like the 24-105 a lot because of the IS. So I pretty much use the 50 indoors and the 24-105 outdoors when I'd like to have the zoom flexibility and light is not an issue. 

 The 70-200 is way too bulky, heavy, and attention drawing. Not the kind of thing you want to lug around all day, especially if it will eventually come off of the camera when it's time for another lens. Thus, I'd be more likely to use the 135, given my current bag, plus it's way cheaper ($1,069 for the 135 versus $2k for the 85) and the IQ seems quite comparable, not to mention that the 135 is quicker focusing and not likely to cause any confusion on my part as to when to use it versus my 50.

 If I pick up a 135, I could leave the 70-200 mounted on my 40D, perhaps even with a 1.4 or 2.0 extender. That way, on a nature walk if I wanted an extreme close up, I could take advantage of the crop factor and not worry so much about sharpness (big drop off with the 2.0 but not so much with the 1.4). In any case, there would be some flexibility there and having that lens mounted and available would mean that is would get much more use than it does now.

 The 5D II would then be used for the 24-105, 50, 135, and occasionally the 15. Unless I go completely nuts and get the 135 and 14, which is definitely a possibility. 

 I might try the 15 fishy and see if I have fun with it. I can always sell it without much of a loss and go for the 14 (or the Nikon 14-24 and adapter) if need be. Decisions...


----------



## Dimitris

There is a mint one in fredmiranda for $1900. I agree with you though. Unless you really need tha rectilinear 14mm I would get the new 16-35mm. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm still drooling over the 14 F2.8L II but the dang price went up! I guess it was part of the increase that Canon announced several months ago, which were to average about 8% as I recall. Went up from $2,020 to $2,199 at B&H, which is closer to 10%, but hey, if you want it you've gotta pay for it.

 I'm back in Cayman for the fall and winter and want to do some beach stuff, both from land and from sea. My biggest concern about the 14 (besides the price) is the fact that you can't protect the lens with a filter. That really sucks, and I don't know if I'd be comfortable with it. Lens cap on, off, on, off, all day long. Hard to avoid scratching it with the lens protruding out, sand all around you, and non-expert lens cleaning skills. It would be my first journey into any attempt to clean an actual lens!

 Of course, there are alternatives. There are cheaper UWA lenses from Canon and other companies, and there is the 16-35L II, but the more I read about this lens, the more I drool. There would be so many ways to put it to creative use. Plus, it might help me to hold off on making a much more expensive Ducati purchase, and maybe keep me alive for a while longer as well._


----------



## Iron_Dreamer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wmcmanus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm back in Cayman for the fall and winter and want to do some beach stuff, both from land and from sea. My biggest concern about the 14 (besides the price) is the fact that you can't protect the lens with a filter. That really sucks, and I don't know if I'd be comfortable with it. Lens cap on, off, on, off, all day long. Hard to avoid scratching it with the lens protruding out, sand all around you, and non-expert lens cleaning skills. It would be my first journey into any attempt to clean an actual lens!_

 

Wayne, I use the Sigma 12-24, and it has a similarly bulbous and permanently exposed front element. I think worrying about damaging your front element is overrated. The built-in lens hood prevents all but small items from being able to contact the element in the first place. I haven't had any cleaning problems, the front doesn't get that dusty anyway, and when some does accumulate, a quick trip to the microfiber cloth is sufficient.

 My only concern would be prolonged exposure to sea spray. If that is a situation you think you'd be using the lens in, frequently, perhaps a filter-capable lens with a UV filter would be better off.


----------



## beerguy0

The long awaited 7D review...actually, not all that long, but to hear some people you'd think the camera had been out for six months.

Canon EOS 7D Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review


----------



## Steggy

So, I picked up a Canon T1i a few weeks ago. Snagged it for 720 for the kit. I felt it was a pretty good deal. I'm now just throwing a little list of cheapish accesseries for potential xmas gifts from the 'rents. looking for C&C

Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens: Electronics

Amazon.com: Opteka 10x 58mm HD² Professional Macro Lens for Canon EOS / EF: Electronics

 i can't decide between these 2 fisheye addons though.

Amazon.com: Opteka .35x HD² Super Wide Angle Panoramic Macro Fisheye Lens for Canon EOS / EF: Electronics

 or

Amazon.com: 0.42X FISHEYE LENS W/ MACRO FOR CANON EOS DIGITAL REBEL: Electronics

Amazon.com: Canon Speedlite 270EX Flash for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Electronics

 I was also looking for filters but those aren't very expensive so i guess i come to you guys for a recommendation there as well ha.


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *beerguy0* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The long awaited 7D review...actually, not all that long, but to hear some people you'd think the camera had been out for six months.

Canon EOS 7D Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review_

 




 It's still a crop. My next one will be full frame.


----------



## LeonWho

Hello!

 I need a lens recommendation.

 I'm currently using a Canon EF 50mm 1.8 Prime as a walkaround (I know, don't kill me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





) for my Canon Digital Rebel XTi , and I hate the kit lens.

 So, I'm wondering. What's the next step for me?

 I probably need a better walkaround lens with a bigger range. I don't need to much on the wide angle side since I've learned to "walk instead of zoom" with the prime. 28mm is plenty. My budget is around $400 MAX.

 Oh, and here's my photo portfolio: http://leonhu.carbonmade.com
 The photos are absolutely untouched except for that one HDR. Please comment! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Thanks,
 Leon


----------



## ast

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I took the plunge last month and got a 5DmkII with a 200LmkII and the 24mm TS-E. I had the 35L and 85LmkII and I really love the 5D with all of them. Prior to the 5D I had the 1DsmkI and the 5DmkII is definitely an upgrade. I still miss the 1Ds viewfinder, focusing and metering consistency however image quality and the features of the 5D are impressive. Glad I am back to taking photos!_

 

Is it TS-E 24L II ?


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *archosman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's still a crop. My next one will be full frame._

 

Depending on ones needs, a FF camera is not always the right tool for the job. I get the benefit of making my long lenses longer, and the pixel density of the 7D 18MP sensor goves very high resolution. (Amazing resolution, actually). 

 Then there is the simple fact that a FF camera with the 7D specifications/features is over $6000. (And it's still only 5 FPS vs. 8 FPS). Totally unrealistic for me. A 5D mkII is $2700, and lacks the sophisticated AF of the 7D. For me, the 7D was the most cost effective solution. Plus, I still have some money left for another lens, and I would much rather spend my money on glass wherever possible.

 FF is definitely in my future, but right now, the state of the DSLR is such that you have to choose what you want to spend your money on: feature set or sensor size. Unless your budget is pretty much unlimited, which mine is not.

 And BTW, if you have nothing to contribute beyond snide comments, please refrain from commenting at all.


----------



## Dimitris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ast* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is it TS-E 24L II ?









_

 

I originally bought the mkI but I sold it within the month and upgraded to the mkII. The mkI was excellent however the mkII is spectacular. I am one of these people that take forever to upgrade (thus using 1DsmkI up until 2 months ago) but the mkII is definitely a worthy upgrade.


----------



## ast

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dimitris* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I originally bought the mkI but I sold it within the month and upgraded to the mkII. The mkI was excellent however the mkII is spectacular. I am one of these people that take forever to upgrade (thus using 1DsmkI up until 2 months ago) but the mkII is definitely a worthy upgrade._

 






 Just got mine last week -- LOVE it:


----------



## ast

Test shots from TS-E 24mm/3.5L II.


 0 shift/tilt:






 0 shift maximum tilt:


----------



## Dimitris

Congrats. Its a bulky lens for sure. What I like about it is that photos come out perfect which is unreal. No post processing needed.


----------



## wanderman

just playing around with the 7d


----------



## plaidplatypus

What EOS bodies work with USM?


----------



## lan

USM just mean Ultra Sonic Motor. It has nothing to do compatibility with the body. If the lens fits on the body, it will work.


----------



## wanderman

I was bored on saturday and wanted to make a mess. I adore the 7d + 50 1.8 combo


----------



## plaidplatypus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *lan* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_USM just mean Ultra Sonic Motor. It has nothing to do compatibility with the body. If the lens fits on the body, it will work._

 

I did some homework. It appears Canon does not put a motor in the body, every lens has it's own autofocus motor.


----------



## x_lk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LeonWho* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hello!

 I need a lens recommendation.
_

 

Tamron 17-50mm F2.8. Look on ebay, you might find one that fits your budget. Very sharp @ F2.8, good PQ in terms of both color and contrast, usable zoom range, relatively light weight but still feels solid ... however, auto focus is bit slow and loud comparing to Canon USM lens.


----------



## wanderman

I am not sure where to put this but I <3 my 7d. 

 I shot some video with a friend when we went to get some food

Publix Subs on Vimeo


----------



## lan

I love Publix. I wish I had one here.

 Which lens did you use? 7D could really use the 17-55 2.8 or 24-105 for the IS.


----------



## wanderman

whole thing shot with my bread and butter 50mm 1.8. I was so worried about the dof when I went back to a crop body but I have fallen in love with the 80mm equv focal length


----------



## lan

Shooting with non IS handheld is too jerky for my tastes. If you're serious about taking some video, IS is really important IMO. The 50 1.8's bokeh is also not too great. Another thing I don't like about it is the manual focusing. It doesn't feel good and it's not full time manual since it's not a USM lens. So those are other things to consider.

 How was editing and what spec computer did you use? I had to upgrade to core i7 and 64bit windows and 64bit editing to work well with my 5D2 files.


----------



## wanderman

I am planning to build a steadicam/rig over winter break. Manual focusing the the 50 1.8 isn't too bad. Editing was pretty easy because I have my oc'd q6600 (3.6ghz w/ 8gigs of ram) rig, which I will make into a hackintosh over winter break for final cut. I have been 64bit for awhile


----------



## jasongraaf

Some pics to contribute!

 Canon FT ql
















 Canon Rebel XS





















 Canon 1D mkI


----------



## Pincher

Great pic in this thread. 

 Beyonce with Canon 50D and 100/2.8 Macro. ISO..umm 500 I think, 1/80 f2.8 or close to that. Image is cropped a little.


----------



## Pincher

Another.


----------



## Pincher

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *plaidplatypus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What EOS bodies work with USM?_

 


 Any Canon lens with USM will work on any Canon EOS camera body.


----------



## archosman

Very nice Pincher...


----------



## Steggy

Hey guys, I have a canon 500d, and am looking for a new lens to accompany my kit lens and 50mm 1.8. i kind of want to use it in mostly natural lighting and outside, so i'm looking for something that can perform well in that aspect. i also want to use it for video as well so while i have been looking at the 24-85mm or 28-105mm, i'm apprehensive on how it will perform without IS. any suggestions?


----------



## laxx

Dammit, I can't find the charger for my 40D. Anyone here have an extra Canon CG-580 (charger for BP-511 battery)? PM me what you want for it.


----------



## Pincher

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steggy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hey guys, I have a canon 500d, and am looking for a new lens to accompany my kit lens and 50mm 1.8. i kind of want to use it in mostly natural lighting and outside, so i'm looking for something that can perform well in that aspect. i also want to use it for video as well so while i have been looking at the 24-85mm or 28-105mm, i'm apprehensive on how it will perform without IS. any suggestions?_

 

I want to sugest the EF 35mm f1.4L. It's a great lens and performs well in low natural light; I really love mine and don't regret its massive cost. I can't comment much about its use for video. I've read that an f4 lens is too slow for some video, so keep that in mind when you do more research.


----------



## laxx

Guess no one has an extra battery charger.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Guess no one has an extra battery charger._

 

How about posting a WTB thread in the appropriate sub-forum?


----------



## Steggy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Pincher* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I want to sugest the EF 35mm f1.4L. It's a great lens and performs well in low natural light; I really love mine and don't regret its massive cost. I can't comment much about its use for video. I've read that an f4 lens is too slow for some video, so keep that in mind when you do more research._

 

That's a LIL expensive. I believe i am going to just go with the 28-105 for a go to lens. then i was thinking of getting a 70-300 is usm lens, but then saw that a 70-200 usm L series was pretty much the same price. is L the way to go for the 50 bucks more and the less range + no IS?


----------



## archosman

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *laxx* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Guess no one has an extra battery charger._

 



 Although I wouldn't pay their markup Wolf Camera carries one that will fit that battery. Your local camera shop may have one too. If you're lucky they'll carry 3rd party...


----------



## PerformanceFirst

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steggy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's a LIL expensive. I believe i am going to just go with the 28-105 for a go to lens. then i was thinking of getting a 70-300 is usm lens, but then saw that a 70-200 usm L series was pretty much the same price. is L the way to go for the 50 bucks more and the less range + no IS?_

 


 I own neither, but people overwhelmingly recommend the 70-200L over the 70-300IS on POTN. The 55-250IS is also very well received, and cheap. Of course it will be an outdoors lens and have slower AF, cheaper build quality, etc...


----------



## Pincher

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steggy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's a LIL expensive. I believe i am going to just go with the 28-105 for a go to lens. then i was thinking of getting a 70-300 is usm lens, but then saw that a 70-200 usm L series was pretty much the same price. is L the way to go for the 50 bucks more and the less range + no IS?_

 



 The 70-300 is ok, but so slow. I once owned the basic 75-300 lens, it really cheap and poor at the long end. I feel most people don't need beyond 200mm. The 70-200L base (non-IS f4) is a well loved lens. It's also available as a 70-200 f4 IS; 70-200 f2.8; 70-200 f2.8 IS; all for an extra cost.


----------



## Steggy

wow i didn't think the 50mm 1.8 would be so tiny. it almost has the same effect as when i am holding one of those little nips of liqueur, i feel like Andre the giant haha.


----------



## Pincher

Yes, it's a small lens.


----------



## plaidplatypus

Here's a smaller one.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...mm_Pancake.jpg


----------



## sportster44

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steggy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's a LIL expensive. I believe i am going to just go with the 28-105 for a go to lens. then i was thinking of getting a 70-300 is usm lens, but then saw that a 70-200 usm L series was pretty much the same price. is L the way to go for the 50 bucks more and the less range + no IS?_

 


 The 70-200 f4 L is a sensational lense, VERY sharp and fast focussing. It doesn't come with the little red ring for nothing. you might want to check out Fred Miranda reviews to see what other think of your possibilities


----------



## Pincher

The Canon efs-10-22.


----------



## Steve_72

Can anyone offer any input on the G11 or S90 models? I'm looking into either as my first unit for my foray into casual photography.


----------



## TheMarchingMule

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steve_72* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can anyone offer any input on the G11 or S90 models? I'm looking into either as my first unit for my foray into casual photography._

 

Canon Digital Photography Forums - Powered by vBulletin

 Bam.

*EDIT:* I didn't end up getting a S90, and I'm glad I held one in person before going ahead and buying a SD780 IS instead anyway. The back wheel is free-scrolling, and your thumb can easily move it when you're trying to stabilize the camera for a shot. And I'm still very far from impressed from its 100% crop shots; I guess I'm too greedy after having a XSi DSLR.


----------



## Wsh

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steve_72* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can anyone offer any input on the G11 or S90 models? I'm looking into either as my first unit for my foray into casual photography._

 

I own a Canon G10 and looked into upgrading to a G11, however after doing some extensive research on it, it's not a heafty upgrade past my G10.

 With that said, it really depends on what type of things you want to shoot. The G series of cameras are remarkable. They do everything their big brothers (EOS - DSLRs) do but in a compact form. It's a bit bulkier than your average point and shoot, but it's still very portable. Also it does not have interchangeable lenses.

 The S90 is great if you don't plan on having a hot shoe flash later on. I own a 220EX that offers bounce capabilities, great portable flash for the G-Series.

 Both cameras provide RAW format just in case you like to work with that.

 If you value portability more than the ability for an external flash, then by all means get the S90. It's also much lighter than the G series of cameras.

 Keep in mind that the G11 has a swivel LCD screen which allows you to shoot from various angles. It also has an optical viewfinder instead of the pure LCD screen of the S90 (no ovf).


----------



## PerformanceFirst

Possible world record - FM Forums Thought everyone would find this interesting.


----------



## paaj

I recently traded one of my paintings for my mothers 20D. Anyone got a clue how it holds up to todays camera's? 
 All I know is that it us much more fun to make pictures than with my older Samsung compact camera


----------



## Lil_JV

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *paaj* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I recently traded one of my paintings for my mothers 20D. Anyone got a clue how it holds up to todays camera's? 
 All I know is that it us much more fun to make pictures than with my older Samsung compact camera 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It's a great camera. Probably not entirely up to par with today's DSLRs, but a great way to learn photography.

 I'd take that over a point and shoot any day.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *paaj* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone got a clue how it holds up to todays camera's? _

 

Depends on who's behind the camera.


----------



## paaj

of course 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 still got to learn things, but I like being in control of the settings. Didn't really have depth options with the compact camera, no control of where to focus (or really buggy focus, look-away method).


----------



## Lumient

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *paaj* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_of course 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 still got to learn things, but I like being in control of the settings. Didn't really have depth options with the compact camera, no control of where to focus (or really buggy focus, look-away method)._

 

Be careful with the camera hobby, it can lead you to the same road of financial disaster as headphones do...


----------



## XxATOLxX

Quick question for you Canon guys in here:

 What kind of DSLR would I be able to trade my Canon HV20 for?


----------



## lan

I guess that depends what you can sell it for and what prices of still cameras are. I think you can probably get a 20D or 30D.


----------



## plaidplatypus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steve_72* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can anyone offer any input on the G11 or S90 models? I'm looking into either as my first unit for my foray into casual photography._

 

I think B&H covered all the basics. 

A First look at Canon's PowerShot G11 & S90 | B&H Photo Video Pro Audio_

 For me, the S90 is the more attractive model because of the small size. The G11 costs as much as some digital SLRs. You should also look at super-zooms like this: Canon | PowerShot SX20 IS Digital Camera | 3633B001 | B&H Photo


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Lil_JV* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's a great camera. Probably not entirely up to par with today's DSLRs, but a great way to learn photography.

 I'd take that over a point and shoot any day._

 

From an IQ standpoint, the 20D is still an excellent camera, even up to ISO 1600. I upgraded to the 7D, mostly because of the improvements in the viewfinder, LCD, Live View, improved AF, etc. My 20D sits on the shelf now, but it's a good backup or a second body when needed.


----------



## spartan123

I have this canon equipment:

 -------------------
 Digital Camera's
 -------------------
 Canon 5D
 Canon 1DMKII
 Canon 1D
 Canon 10D X 2
 Canon S70
 Canon SD 780IS
 Canon Digital Rebel (300D)

 -------------------
 Auto Focus Lenses
 -------------------
 Sigma AF 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF
 Tokina AT-X 20-35mm f/2.8 AF PRO 
 Sigma AF 24mm f/1.8 EX DG Aspherical Macro
 Canon EF 22-55mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
 Sigma AF 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF
 Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
 Canon EF 28MM f/2.8 (metal mount)
 Canon EF 28-90 f/4.0-5.6 II USM
 Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (X2)
 Sigma AF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 DL Aspherical HSM
 Sigma AF 30mm f/1.4 HSM
 Canon EF 35mm f/2.0
 Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 III
 Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
 Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 (metal mount) 
 Sigma AF 50mm EX f/2.8 EX Macro 1:1
 Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM
 Sigma AF 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM
 Sigma AF 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 EX OS APO
 Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro
 Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM
 Sigma AF 100-300mm f/4.0 EX IF APO HSM
 Sigma AF 105mm f/2.8 EX Macro 1:1
 Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM
 Canon Ef 135MM f/2.8 (SF) USM
 Sigma AF 150mm f/2.8 EX APO Macro IF HSM
 Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L MKII USM
 Sigma EX 300mm f/4.0 APO HSM Macro (re-chipped)
 Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM
 Sigma AF 300mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM 
 Sigma AF 400mm f/5.6 APO (re-chipped)
 Canon 1.4X II Teleconvertor (X2)
 Canon 2X II Teleconvertor
 Sigma 1.4X Teleconvertor (X2)
 Sigma 2X Teleconvertor
 Canon Speedlite Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX 
 Canon 580 EX Flash
 Canon Extension tubes for macro work (X2)


 ---------------------------------------------------------------

 Just sold my 300f/2.8 IS and 500 f/4 IS lenses. Didn't use them enough to have that much money sitting around....


 You guys wouldn't believe the manual lenses i have for my cameras... Collect some really nice older lenses and the adapters.....

 Here are some of my 300mm lenses and test shots I did for a comparison article for a photo web site a few years back. http://www.pbase.com/sparky14/300mm_lens_test


----------



## mr_baseball_08

Why so much glass? Surely you don't use it ALL on a regular basis?


----------



## Wmcmanus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mr_baseball_08* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why so much glass? Surely you don't use it ALL on a regular basis?_

 

Hobbyist, perhaps? Surely we can understand that!


----------



## spartan123

I am a pretty busy semi-pro photog. so some of the glass I use a lot. but some of it is an investment / just had to have and try. Especially the MF lenses. never lost money on them even in this economy. (as long as your buy right)


----------



## AVU

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *onform* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah tanks I had that already but I'm a little confused over whether you focus at the hyper-focal distance or on the subject????_

 

you focus on the subject.

 good god this thread is long. I'm a photographer and thought it might be fun to check out the photo section of headfi, but my god, it would take days to go through all the canon posts! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Anyway, I'll try to answer questions if anyone has any. Used most of canon's mid-level gear (not the $5000+ level sports tele's). Here's the gear I use:

 for serious work:
 Linhof Master Technika, Schneider 47/5.6 XL with center filter and 95mm linear polarizer, Nikkor 90/8, cammed Rodenstock Sironar 150/5.6, Ektar 203/7.7 and Ronar 300/9, Linhof viewfinder, Maxwell Screen, Velvia 50 and NPS 160 Quickloads, Crumpler bag, Benro CF tripod with Linhof 3-way Head, Metz CL-60 Flash

 for fun:
 3.5F Zeiss Planar Rolleiflex TLR

 for everyday:
 Canon 5D, 24-70/2.8L, 135/2L


----------



## AVU

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *paaj* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I recently traded one of my paintings for my mothers 20D. Anyone got a clue how it holds up to todays camera's? 
 All I know is that it us much more fun to make pictures than with my older Samsung compact camera 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It's actually quite similar to Canon's top of the line cameras. More similar than different. Stick with that camera and get some good lenses and you'll be fine. The only major reasons to upgrade would be shooting fast subjects or making huge prints (and for the later, a DSLR isn't your best choice anyway - go with a cheapo large format and a cheapo scanner - for $250 you'll blow away canon's top of the line DSLR)


----------



## gore.rubicon

Anyone know where to buy 2nd hand lenses? Currently got a Canon EF, and one 35-105m, so atm im in the market for dirt cheap FD lenses.


----------



## plaidplatypus

Do you have a body that takes FD mount?

 Edit: Of course you do!


----------



## gore.rubicon

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *plaidplatypus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you have a body that takes FD mount?_

 

Canon EF 35mm =D


----------



## Steggy

whaddya guys think?




 Focal Length: 55mm
 Shutterspeed: 1/15
 Aperture: F5.6
 ISO: 3200
 Onboard Flash


----------



## gore.rubicon

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steggy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_whaddya guys think?




 Focal Length: 55mm
 Shutterspeed: 1/15
 Aperture: F5.6
 ISO: 3200
 Onboard Flash_

 

Whoa I just took a photo like this!, except my cartidge is white 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, nice shot!


----------



## AVU

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gore.rubicon* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Anyone know where to buy 2nd hand lenses? Currently got a Canon EF, and one 35-105m, so atm im in the market for dirt cheap FD lenses._

 

Buy & Sell New & Used Cameras â€“ Canon, Nikon, Hasselblad, Leica & More - KEH.com


----------



## brotherlen

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steggy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_whaddya guys think?

 Focal Length: 55mm
 Shutterspeed: 1/15
 Aperture: F5.6
 ISO: 3200
 Onboard Flash_

 

iso 3200? Where's the noise? That looks great, what are you shooting with?


----------



## Steggy

I use a T1i(500d). The 3200 iso was actually unintentional. I just forgot to dial it down. I started taking more pictures with a lower iso, but i liked the positioning/lighting of that one the best so I said whatevah.


----------



## brotherlen

That's a pretty good job, I'm assuming you have noise reduction turned on. I've heard good things about the t1, I'm currently using the 5d, I think I may switch to the 7d though, 8fps sounds awfully good.


----------



## wanderman

I shot some baseball today, and finally got an opportunity to shoot some baseball with my 50 dollar reflex lens. 500mm f8 on a crop body is unwieldy and even with live view this is probably as sharp as these pictures will get. Still super fun.

 I got some "safe" and super sharp shots with my 70-200, but manual focusing sports is far more satisfying.


----------



## brotherlen

manual focus for sports is impressive.


----------



## beerguy0

Just ordered the 15-85 EF-S. I've been needing to fill in the gap between the 17-40 and 70-200. I was tempted by the 24-105, but the IQ of the 15-85 is just as good. The 24mm equivalent at the wide end of the 15-85 gives me a one-lens solution that will cover many shooting situations, and let me leave the tripod in the car at least some of the time.


----------



## rhythmdevils

just got an S90. It's the first point and shoot I've ever owned (I've used large format film, and DSLR's) and it's fantastic! Haven't done much with the images yet, but maybe I'll post some when I get around to it. I love the manual mode, with the two rotating dials so you don't have to go into the menu to change shutter speed/aperture. And the programable button to instantly bring up ISO. I saw a pretty nice 16x20 print made with the G11 which has the same sensor. 

 It's also great to have a camera with me all the time. All these years taking pictures and I've never had that luxury!


----------



## wanderman

s90 looks so awesome. If I didn't already bring my camera everywhere I think I would get one. 

 I think I am going to sell off all my glass and finally get some decent stuff. I am thinking about getting 17-40, 30 f1.4, 50 f1.4, and a 300 f2.8. I am planning a long trip to nigeria at the end of the year, and want to bring some strobes along too. I have just a tiny bit of experience with off camera lighting. I want to get two get two strobes (sb600+sb900 or 430ex+580ex) and trigger them wirelessly with the 7d.

 I am probably getting all the glass, strobes, and accessories in may and buying the 300 in august. 

 Does anyone have experience with this gear? Where could I go to learn more about off camera lighting? Storbist and zack arias are my only sources.


----------



## rhythmdevils

Honestly, going to someplace like Nigeria, I wouldn't worry about all those lenses and strobes, they aren't going to make your pictures better, they'll just weigh you down and distract you cause you'll be futzing with gear and lights instead of enjoying your travels and making good pictures. I'd suggest instead investing in a light but strong small tripod like a small gitzo. and then just take 2 primes, a wide and a neutral perspective. 

 Just my advice, from a lot of experience shooting and traveling


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rhythmdevils* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Honestly, going to someplace like Nigeria, I wouldn't worry about all those lenses and strobes, they aren't going to make your pictures better, they'll just weigh you down and distract you cause you'll be futzing with gear and lights instead of enjoying your travels and making good pictures. I'd suggest instead investing in a light but strong small tripod like a small gitzo. and then just take 2 primes, a wide and a neutral perspective. 

 Just my advice, from a lot of experience shooting and traveling 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

When I read your post wanderman, this was my thoughts as well [what rhythmdevils wrote], but I didn't want to say it because it seemed like you had your mind made up.

 Either way,
 Careful in Nigeria. Might want to bring protection, stuff your sock soles with money, and keep a low profile. My hunch is a lot of the Nigerians will not be too thrilled to see some well dressed person carrying around all this fancy camera equipment. I wouldn't flaunt the gear, but keep it very inconspicuous. Keeping a low profile is best advice I can give (however you achieve it).


----------



## rhythmdevils

^ hope I didn't sound pushy. Everyone's got their own way, so do what you gotta do. This is an equipment forum afterall!


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_s90 looks so awesome. If I didn't already bring my camera everywhere I think I would get one. 

 I think I am going to sell off all my glass and finally get some decent stuff. I am thinking about getting 17-40, 30 f1.4, 50 f1.4, and a 300 f2.8. I am planning a long trip to nigeria at the end of the year, and want to bring some strobes along too. I have just a tiny bit of experience with off camera lighting. I want to get two get two strobes (sb600+sb900 or 430ex+580ex) and trigger them wirelessly with the 7d.

 I am probably getting all the glass, strobes, and accessories in may and buying the 300 in august. 

 Does anyone have experience with this gear? Where could I go to learn more about off camera lighting? Storbist and zack arias are my only sources._

 

I just found this site the other day. Deals exclusively with Canon Speedlights.

Speedliting -Speedlighting - 580EX - 430EX - Speedliters Intensive - Learn Flash Photography - Canon Speedlites - Off Camera Flash - Syl Arena


----------



## AVU

don't know what glass you have currently, and everyone's shooting style is different, but personally, I'd agree with those advising a minimalist approach. First for theft, second for speed. I love primes, but I found that my 24-70 2.8L pretty much handles 90% of my needs when running around. Using a crop sensor like the 7D, you'd probably want the new crop lens canon just released. (problem with those is lack of weather sealing - another issue in travelling to Africa- I know people like the crop frame cameras, but the weather sealing on the 5D and the L lenses is why professional journalists keep to them - that and better low light ability)

 Yes, a zoom is heavier, esp the 24-70, but you dont have to have an extra bag and be constantly screwing around w changing lenses. Just keep a 50/1.8 for no light and you're good.

 And frankly, Id be wary of the 300/2.8 - I kind of think of it as neither fish nor fowl. It's basically a long portrait lens, not a gaming lens. You're going to want at least a 1.4x extender (and probably a 2x) to do good wildlife shooting, and your focus on the 7d is going to be very poor - esp w/out a good tripod. Something like the 200/2.8 is less than half the size, and with a 1.4 extender would get you close with less weight and visibility. Also, I'd probably want an armed bodyguard if I was travelling anywhere interesting with one of canon's big white telephotos.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_s90 looks so awesome. If I didn't already bring my camera everywhere I think I would get one. 

 I think I am going to sell off all my glass and finally get some decent stuff. I am thinking about getting 17-40, 30 f1.4, 50 f1.4, and a 300 f2.8. I am planning a long trip to nigeria at the end of the year, and want to bring some strobes along too. I have just a tiny bit of experience with off camera lighting. I want to get two get two strobes (sb600+sb900 or 430ex+580ex) and trigger them wirelessly with the 7d.

 I am probably getting all the glass, strobes, and accessories in may and buying the 300 in august. 

 Does anyone have experience with this gear? Where could I go to learn more about off camera lighting? Storbist and zack arias are my only sources._


----------



## wanderman

Oh. I am nigerian, so I already understand the related safety concerns. The 300 f2.8 is not for big game but for ACC football. The 17-40 would be the only "new" purchase, and everything else we be an upgrade. 70-200 2.8 to 300 2.8, 28 to 30, and 50 1.8 to 50 1.4. I don't think I will buy the canon 50 1.4 anymore. I finally got to look at my pictures from the boston college game... 

 I am probably going to sell off everything and just get the 30mm 1.4 and strobes at the beginning of the summer and the 300 when college football season starts.

 edit: I going to spending most of time shooting family, friends, and nightlife in lagos.


----------



## Towert7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh. I am nigerian, so I already understand the related safety concerns. The 300 f2.8 is not for big game but for ACC football. The 17-40 would be the only "new" purchase, and everything else we be an upgrade. 70-200 2.8 to 300 2.8, 28 to 30, and 50 1.8 to 50 1.4. I don't think I will buy the canon 50 1.4 anymore. I finally got to look at my pictures from the boston college game... 

 I am probably going to sell off everything and just get the 30mm 1.4 and strobes at the beginning of the summer and the 300 when college football season starts.

 edit: I going to spending most of time shooting family, friends, and nightlife in lagos._

 

Sounds to me like you have things figured out. That's a lens wishlist to die for. LUCKY!


----------



## AVU

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *wanderman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh. I am nigerian, so I already understand the related safety concerns. The 300 f2.8 is not for big game but for ACC football. The 17-40 would be the only "new" purchase, and everything else we be an upgrade. edit: I going to spending most of time shooting family, friends, and nightlife in lagos._

 

When I read ACC football my first thought was WORLD CUP!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I would die to do that. But if you have a crop camera, you might want to try this out:

EOS (SLR) Camera Systems - Standard Zoom - Standard Zoom Lens - EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - Canon USA Consumer Products

 just came out, and looks quite nice. A little slow, of course, but could be interesting. 

 I shoot portraits myself, and my all time favorite lens - of any canon lens I've ever owned (about 20) is the 135/2 L . But on a crop camera like the 7D, the 85/1.8 is darn close at like half the cost. If you don't have that prime, I'd seriously consider it. I loved it on my old 20D.


----------



## laxx

Picked up a S90 on Saturday. Waiting on the custom grip that should be coming in by the end of the week!


----------



## Teerawit

Well I'm finally selling my T1i and looking to upgrade. It's coming down to the 7D vs. 1D mark III for action photography. Leaning toward the 1D mark III....even though I'm not a pro, holding it definitely makes you feel like one


----------



## patalp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *paaj* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I recently traded one of my paintings for my mothers 20D. Anyone got a clue how it holds up to todays camera's? 
 All I know is that it us much more fun to make pictures than with my older Samsung compact camera 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Here's one of the last images from my 20D before I retired it for my new camera. (Linked, as it is more than 800px size)
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7236/img0003rw.jpg


----------



## Steggy

So, I have enough money for a 430ex II for my T1i now. Best price I've seen online is 250 on amazon. Would anybody happen to know any lower prices online, or is what i'm looking at as attractive as it will get?

 I was contemplating giving a call to a friend who works at best buy to see if i could get an employee discount or whatever , but idk.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Steggy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, I have enough money for a 430ex II for my T1i now. Best price I've seen online is 250 on amazon. Would anybody happen to know any lower prices online, or is what i'm looking at as attractive as it will get?

 I was contemplating giving a call to a friend who works at best buy to see if i could get an employee discount or whatever , but idk._

 

I've not seen a lower price for the 430EX II. Try Googling "buy Canon 430EX II flash" and see what you get. Depending on your location, you may find a slightly lower price, but shipping and sales tax will make a difference. $250 is still a really good price, though. I paid more than that for mine, but I got free shipping when I got my 7D.


----------



## Teerawit

New toys came in!!


----------



## jnsaudiophile

Wooo. Is that one of those f5.6L telephoto from canon?
   
   
  Contributing:
   
  50mm f1.8 @ f3.5 1/4000 sec iso-400


----------



## laxx

Took these with my S90 on Monday. I was pretty far back, and was decently happy with my pics. I would have went into the mosh and tried to get closer if I didn't have fresh stitches on my right arm. I'm sure I the S90 could have given me really awesome pics!


----------



## rosgr63

I am a Canon user as well.
  135/2L is one of the sharpest lenses I had. Amazing Lens.
  Also liked my 17-40/4L and 70-200/4L IS.


----------



## sportster44

Canon user here too. My sharpest lenses in no particular order are: 100mm f2, 180 f3.5L Macro, and my 70-200 f4L. Would love to upgarde my 70-200 to the 2.8 but I'm saving my pennies for a EOs 1D MkIII


----------



## mitkooo

Canon here too. My sharpest lens to date is 50mm 1.8. I also own and love both my tamron 17-50 and Canon 70-200 f4 (my favourite). as sportster44 above, I really want to upgrade to f2.8 as well, but saving for a new camera and possible 24-105


----------



## DomaPhone

Earlier this year i got my hands on a Powershot SX20 IS and I couldn't be happier with it.
   
  All these were taken with:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bunnyphone/
   
  But honestly, I've owned a few SLR canons in the past, and nothing has let me down. The SX20 IS will be in my possession for a long time; it's seriously an amazing camera.


----------



## Bob_McBob

I've tentatively ordered a 5D Mark II.  I love my 1D Mark III, but I recently realized I pretty much stopped taking photos for personal enjoyment because it's so large and heavy 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Doesn't seem like 500g and a couple inches of height would make much difference, but I feel like I'm tied to a boat achor when I'm using it for non-paid work.
   
  Now I have to decide whether to wait for the store to get in the 24-105 kits, and use the lens or possibly re-sell it for a small profit to put towards the body.  I've never owned a "do everything" lens, and I'm not sure how well I'd get along with an f/4 zoom, especially when I could pick up a used 135/2 for not much more.


----------



## LapTop006

The 200 f/1.8L is beautiful if you ever get a chance, however it's long discontinued and Canon seem unable to even ship the replacement f/2L at all here in Australia (pro friend has my 200 1.8 until Canon ship his 200 2, almost up to two years...)
   
  The 85 1.2L is also wonderful, I use the old FD mount version on my EP-1 and got many of my best shots with that combination over my Canon DSLR's.
   
  Quote: 





mitkooo said:


> Canon here too. My sharpest lens to date is 50mm 1.8. I also own and love both my tamron 17-50 and Canon 70-200 f4 (my favourite). as sportster44 above, I really want to upgrade to f2.8 as well, but saving for a new camera and possible 24-105


----------



## Bob_McBob

Quote: 





bob_mcbob said:


> Now I have to decide whether to wait for the store to get in the 24-105 kits, and use the lens or possibly re-sell it for a small profit to put towards the body.  I've never owned a "do everything" lens, and I'm not sure how well I'd get along with an f/4 zoom, especially when I could pick up a used 135/2 for not much more.


 

 I decided I might as well get the 24-105 kit since I can easily re-sell the lens for more than it costs, and it gives me an opportunity to try it out and see if I like it.  Only problem is it's out of stock *everywhere* in Canada.  The 5D2 body is also very hard to find.  Apparently the huge rebate (ending today) pretty much cleared out stock.  Luckily my camera store was able to grab one kit from Canon, so I should have it next week.


----------



## Kane-DK

Just bought a EF-S 10-22 for my 40D body and a S90. Both are awesome!
   
  Now I'm looking in to something with a bit more reach (also have the nifty fifty and a 85mm f1.8). But I have a hard time decide if I should go with 135L and a 1.4 TC or the 200 f2.8. Anybody got a good recommendation?


----------



## Teerawit

What would you be using the 135 or 200 for?


----------



## Kane-DK

Quote: 





teerawit said:


> What would you be using the 135 or 200 for?


 


 Mostly capturing the kids playing without disturbing them, also getting some streetlife shoots when travelling again without being in peoples faces. I had the 70-200 f4 and tended to use the longer end. I really liked the IQ, but not that is was white. So I think the 135L + tc or the 200 2.8L are my only options - the first being the more versatile but expensive option.


----------



## Teerawit

135L, IMO.


----------



## blackbird

Hi, I'm trying to get a used 20d right now. How much should I offer for it. It is flawless and has 17k actuations.
  Includes all the accessories, except the lens.


----------



## Bob_McBob

$250-275


----------



## biomedengineer

I just ordered a Canon 40D...welcome me to 2008 everyone! 
   
  Can't wait for it to arrive.  I've been using a Rebel XT for the past 5 years and the 40D will be first move out of an entry-level system.  Any 40D owners wanna share your experiences with that camera?


----------



## deadie

Finally picked up the 430EXii flash.  Looking forward to faster recharges, and better / quicker accuracy with autofocus.
   
  Me has the oldskoo 70-200 F/4L as well as the 17-40mm F/4L.  Love 'em both - bought and sold at least 8 other lenses before arriving at those two.


----------



## Cabbs

I currently shoot with my almost 2 year old Rebel XSi (450D). The only two lenses I have are the 18-55 IS kit lens and the 50MM F/ 1.8 (original, not the new plastic one). I would have more lenses and equipment, but I have too many expensive hobbies


----------



## hmai18

Just replaced my SD870IS with an S90. I was going to hold out for the new Nikon DSLRs, but given that my favourite subject matter is architecture, still life, and abstract, I didn't need the speed of the SLR. That, and the S90 is so much easier to cram into my pocket as a daily carry camera.


----------



## mierenneuker

I bought a full frame Canon last day





  With ductape for extra grip.


----------



## raptor84

The S90 is an awesome camera for landscapes and macro IMO


----------



## y3110w

I bought my first DSLR two weeks ago. It's Canon T1i, I have the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm. Got any advice for me about the camera or technique? Before this I was using my mom's Canon SD30 and Minolta X700 film.


----------



## midget

the 40d is a fantastically capable body, and with used prices where they are, a fantastic deal. enjoy yours as i have mine for nearly 3 years now
  Quote: 





biomedengineer said:


> I just ordered a Canon 40D...welcome me to 2008 everyone!
> 
> Can't wait for it to arrive.  I've been using a Rebel XT for the past 5 years and the 40D will be first move out of an entry-level system.  Any 40D owners wanna share your experiences with that camera?


----------



## uofmtiger

What are your thoughts on the 60D?  I was thinking about getting one, but I am disappointed that they left out the AF micro adjustment.  Is there anyone that feels that this feature is an absolute necessity?  I am coming from a 20D and I would really like the adjustable LCD.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





uofmtiger said:


> What are your thoughts on the 60D?  I was thinking about getting one, but I am disappointed that they left out the AF micro adjustment.  Is there anyone that feels that this feature is an absolute necessity?  I am coming from a 20D and I would really like the adjustable LCD.


 


 If you're coming from a 20D, IMHO I think you'd be more familiar and better off with a 40D, 50D or 7D.
   
  After the 50D, it feels to me that Canon has made a fork (either intentional or unintentional) in the ##D product line with the introduction of the 7D -- where the 7D is a step "up" towards the pro line (1D, 1Ds, etc) and in order not to overshadow it, the 60D is the step "down" of that fork (i.e. towards the consumer line 500D, etc).


----------



## clou91

I've been learning on my dad's old XTi lately, and was wondering if I should get a t1i or make the jump right to the 50d? One of my friends is heavily into photography and he was under the impression I'd outgrow the t1i too quickly. Thoughts?


----------



## revolink24

Quote: 





clou91 said:


> I've been learning on my dad's old XTi lately, and was wondering if I should get a t1i or make the jump right to the 50d? One of my friends is heavily into photography and he was under the impression I'd outgrow the t1i too quickly. Thoughts?


 

 That decision really depends on which body design you prefer. The image quality is comparable, the 50d is in a more prosumer body. The T1i is in a Rebel body, my least favorite of any DSLR.


----------



## raymondlin

I have all the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 135/2.0
   
  The 135L is the BEST for IQ, bokeh and wow factor, 85/1.8 is best bang for buck and 50/1.4 is just more versatile. 
   
  EDIT - that was to the OP (didnt see the date on the post!)
   
  just got this today.


----------



## Towert7

Quote: 





raymondlin said:


> just got this today.


 


  Ah, L'oreal revita life.


----------



## PYROphonez

I inherited my Dad's Canon SLR years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it, but I've now officially purchased my own Canon DSLR.
   
  Now the proud owner of:
  Canon T2i
  18-55mm kit lens
  EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
  EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
   
  Haven't had much time to shoot yet, but it's been fantastic so far.


----------



## s30l28

Currently shooting with the:
   
  1D Mark II N
  1Ds
   
  24-70mm f/2.8L
  70-200mm f/2.8L
  135mm f/2L
  50mm 1.4
   
  430EX II
  5 Vivitar HV 285s
   
  I'll need to post pics later tomorrow. It's time for bed now.


----------



## revolink24

Quote: 





s30l28 said:


> Currently shooting with the:
> 
> 1D Mark II N
> 1Ds
> ...


 

 Wow. Commencing jealousy.


----------



## FunToys

Anyone here shooting the Canon 135mm f/2L on a crop sensor? I've got a T2i and have been considering springing for one, but not sure how something of that length looks/feels on APS-C. I shoot mostly street stuff, so I'd like the flexibility to do outdoor portraits from a distance. Sample pics would be awesome


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





revolink24 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Personally, I LOVE the t1i, t2i's body for how much smaller and lighter they are compared to even 60D.  What good is a great camera or L lenses if you don't have it with you?  I can pop in a t2i with my Tokina 11-16mm wide angle attached and a Canon prime into a Caselogic 201 case and have it with me anywhere.  T2i with Canon 35mm or 50mm prime on it is so small and light that I actually need a much smaller case than the Caselogic.  Any good case rec's?


----------



## Teerawit

Quote: 





funtoys said:


> Anyone here shooting the Canon 135mm f/2L on a crop sensor? I've got a T2i and have been considering springing for one, but not sure how something of that length looks/feels on APS-C. I shoot mostly street stuff, so I'd like the flexibility to do outdoor portraits from a distance. Sample pics would be awesome


 


  It's VERY great on the cropped sensor, espescially if you like the telephoto perspective compression. Sharpness, colors, and contrast are all superb.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





funtoys said:


> Anyone here shooting the Canon 135mm f/2L on a crop sensor? I've got a T2i and have been considering springing for one, but not sure how something of that length looks/feels on APS-C. I shoot mostly street stuff, so I'd like the flexibility to do outdoor portraits from a distance. Sample pics would be awesome


 


  It depends a lot on your preferences on shooting distance. Although I don't have a 135, I have shot with 85, 150 and 70-200 on a 40D and I find the minimum distance in order to get good framing a little difficult. Plus at longer shooting distances you have to tolerate people walking into your frame.
   
  But the 135/2L is a beautiful lens, that one's a given.


----------



## fhuang

Quote: 





madcow said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


  so i should get the 7d over 60d if i can pay the extra?


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





fhuang said:


> so i should get the 7d over 60d if i can pay the extra?


 

 Personally I'd pick the 7D over 60D. Better focusing, better body build/construction.


----------



## Vandal

Ah. A Canon thread! Consider me joined. I own two Canon clickers. An older but much loved Powershot A710IS (point-n-shoot) and an EOS 7D (dSLR).
   



   
  Uploaded with ImageShack.us
   



   
  Uploaded with ImageShack.us
   
  I love the 7D.


----------



## Vandal

^Fhuang, 7D any day. If you can afford the extra, don't even look at the 60D.


----------



## fhuang

ok 7d but isn't it a bit out of date?  should i wait for a while if i can?


----------



## MadCow

It's a camera. It's not gonna get old and obsolete just because a newer model succeeds it.


----------



## laxx

I've been really wanting a macro to play with. =[
   
  Debating Canon 60mm or 100mm macro.


----------



## fhuang

Quote: 





madcow said:


> It's a camera. It's not gonna get old and obsolete just because a newer model succeeds it.


 


  i know nothing about this.  i'm only getting this as a present for my girlfriend.  one more thing, do i need to get a battery grip?


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





laxx said:


> I've been really wanting a macro to play with. =[
> 
> Debating Canon 60mm or 100mm macro.


 


 If you're on a budget, and/or are only shooting still life, then the 60mm would be sufficient.
   
  Otherwise, you'd want the greater minimum focusing distances offered by 100mm (and longer) lenses.
   


  Quote: 





fhuang said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


 Well... it depends. One one hand, the grip makes the camera bigger and bulkier. On the other hand, you get longer battery life (if both battery compartments are used), provides an additional set of buttons for portrait mode, and balances the weight of the camera when used with bigger/heavier lenses and flashes. And some people get the grip so that they can look like a pro.


----------



## FunToys

Done got my 135mm L
   

   
  She's a beaut! Now Seattle rain just needs to let up for a bit so I can go out and shoot!


----------



## fhuang

Quote: 





> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

  
  got my girl 7d, didn't get the battery grip and she seems to like it.  thanks.


----------



## Teerawit

100L 

  
  Quote: 





laxx said:


> I've been really wanting a macro to play with. =[
> 
> Debating Canon 60mm or 100mm macro.


----------



## laxx

Been a long time bro! How you been?
   
  Yea, I've thought about it, but I don't use my camera enough to justify it. I've recently been trying and if that works out, I might just splurge a few months down the line. I'd have to prove to myself that I'm willing to lug the weight around and actually put it to use!
   
  Quote: 





teerawit said:


> 100L
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...


----------



## uofmtiger

madcow said:


> Personally I'd pick the 7D over 60D. Better focusing, better body build/construction.





 
I got a chance to use my dad's 7D for several days with some of his prime lenses. It definitely has a lot of features I don't have on my 20d, so a move up will still require a lot of learning.. I was hoping they would come out with something of similar quality with the flip LCD before I jumped in, though. I just think it would be a great feature for macros.

That being said, unless I read rumors about something like that coming out soon, I will probably end up with a 7D. I decided against the 60d after a buddy bought it and complained about the picture quality.

As for primes, I think I prefer zooms. His 17-55mm was not much of a trade off in picture quality, but it gave me more flexibility when I was out and about. It will probably be my next lens.


----------



## Steggy

Hm, don't recall if I ever put my final setup in this thread, I remember I was poking aroudn here when I was shopping around, but my bag is as follows.
   
  Canon 500D(Gripped)
  Kit lens (meh)
  50mm f1.8
  430 EX II
  Caselogic SLR/Laptop backpack
   
  If you couldn't guess my next purchase is going to be a new lens.


----------



## Jon L

Canon 85mm F/1.2L II just showed up today


----------



## Teerawit

Indeed it has  I've been out of the head-fi scene and into the photography scene 
  
  Quote: 





laxx said:


> Been a long time bro! How you been?
> 
> Yea, I've thought about it, but I don't use my camera enough to justify it. I've recently been trying and if that works out, I might just splurge a few months down the line. I'd have to prove to myself that I'm willing to lug the weight around and actually put it to use!
> 
> ...


----------



## nileuuhw

laxx said:
			
		

> /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I have a Rebel XT with kit lense and BG-E3 battery grip. I'm currently shopping for an everyday lense (I think you guys convinced me on the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 in another thread, especially at <$300 used). I'll also be getting a 70-200 in some variant and I should know which one by Thursday or Friday depending on price (waiting on discount list). And by mid July, I should have a monopod and either a 430EX or 580EX flash.
> 
> ...






It's very detailed, It's helpful to me, Thanks for your effort!


----------



## Farelistic

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Canon 85mm F/1.2L II just showed up today


 
   
  How gorgeous. is that a film body?


----------



## Farelistic

yeaaah, so glad I found this thread


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





farelistic said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 It sure is gorgeous.  Yup, it's the film body Canon EOS-1V HS, the best they made.


----------



## beerguy0

Quote: 





uofmtiger said:


> I got a chance to use my dad's 7D for several days with some of his prime lenses. It definitely has a lot of features I don't have on my 20d, so a move up will still require a lot of learning.. I was hoping they would come out with something of similar quality with the flip LCD before I jumped in, though. I just think it would be a great feature for macros.That being said, unless I read rumors about something like that coming out soon, I will probably end up with a 7D. I decided against the 60d after a buddy bought it and complained about the picture quality.As for primes, I think I prefer zooms. His 17-55mm was not much of a trade off in picture quality, but it gave me more flexibility when I was out and about. It will probably be my next lens.


 

 60D and 7D use the same sensor. If your friend has issues with image quality, I'd say it's most likely an user issue, not the camera. 7D is a great camera, but the 60D's articulated LCD make it an excellent camera for macro and video.


----------



## Farelistic

Yup, 7D quality is solid.


----------



## dizolit

Quote: 





beerguy0 said:


> 60D and 7D use the same sensor. If your friend has issues with image quality, I'd say it's most likely an user issue, not the camera. 7D is a great camera, but the 60D's articulated LCD make it an excellent camera for macro and video.


 

 Agreed, here are a few I took with my 60d:


----------



## midoo1990

so,i got myself a used D30 with the 18-55 kit lens...my first DSLR.
  great camera but i am not thrilled with the stock lens.i am looking for a currently inexpensive lens for general purpose since i am travelling to Germany and will take alot of landscape and portrait pics.
  i was thinking of the EF 50mm.what do you guys think?anyone can give me some insights on it?
   
  my budget is pretty tight for the moment,so no more than $250.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





midoo1990 said:


> so,i got myself a used D30 with the 18-55 kit lens...my first DSLR.
> great camera but i am not thrilled with the stock lens.i am looking for a currently inexpensive lens for general purpose since i am travelling to Germany and will take alot of landscape and portrait pics.
> i was thinking of the EF 50mm.what do you guys think?anyone can give me some insights on it?
> 
> my budget is pretty tight for the moment,so no more than $250.


 


 What do you find lacking with the 18-55?
   
  I am not sure a 50mm prime would be a good replacement for general purpose, unless you meant to compliment the 18-55 instead of replacing it?


----------



## Steggy

Quote: 





madcow said:


> What do you find lacking with the 18-55?
> 
> I am not sure a 50mm prime would be a good replacement for general purpose, unless you meant to compliment the 18-55 instead of replacing it?


 

 the 50mm I think is a really good first lens to start out with if you're serious about learning the foundations of photography. The 18-55 is a nice all around lens, it does many functions _okay_, and a lot of people are content when they stick with just that lens for their camera, _maybe_ they get a 70-300mm or 55-250mm, but the type of people who stick with just the kit lens also stick with the automatic settings haha. I think that the 50mm 1.8 is great because the ability to go to 1.8 can really display depth of field and the effect of setting aperture on your camera when shooting, which is pretty critical to learn and not as evident when you're dealing with a 3.5-5.6 i think the 18-55's are. Some consider the fact that the prime keeps it from being a good all around camera, but moving around to change the framing of your picture makes someone become more aware of their composition as well, which is another critical foundation to learn with photography. It's a great starting off point when going into lens buying, I would suggest anyone to go with that for a 2nd lens if not skipping the 18-55 completely. I just wish the lens market wasn't eh right now, I got my 50mm 1.8 a while back for 68 dollars I want to say? Seeing it for 125 on amazon... :'(


----------



## caracara08

my point and shoot just broke so i figured id finally try out a dslr. 
  purhcased a t3i with stock lens  + a f1.8 50mm solely based on research.  im a total beginner but hope i learn fast.
  any suggestions for an absolute beginner?


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





caracara08 said:


> my point and shoot just broke so i figured id finally try out a dslr.
> purhcased a t3i with stock lens  + a f1.8 50mm solely based on research.  im a total beginner but hope i learn fast.
> any suggestions for an absolute beginner?


 

  
  Great choice.  Don't ever sell the 50 f1.8 and shoot as much as you can with that lens; it's a great lens regardless of the low price.  After a while, don't be afraid to shoot in RAW just because you are a beginner.  Canon digital photo pro software is very easy to learn and does great RAW conversion with usually better JPEG results with some practice.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





steggy said:


> the 50mm I think is a really good first lens to start out with if you're serious about learning the foundations of photography. The 18-55 is a nice all around lens, it does many functions _okay_, and a lot of people are content when they stick with just that lens for their camera, _maybe_ they get a 70-300mm or 55-250mm, but the type of people who stick with just the kit lens also stick with the automatic settings haha. I think that the 50mm 1.8 is great because the ability to go to 1.8 can really display depth of field and the effect of setting aperture on your camera when shooting, which is pretty critical to learn and not as evident when you're dealing with a 3.5-5.6 i think the 18-55's are. Some consider the fact that the prime keeps it from being a good all around camera, but moving around to change the framing of your picture makes someone become more aware of their composition as well, which is another critical foundation to learn with photography. It's a great starting off point when going into lens buying, I would suggest anyone to go with that for a 2nd lens if not skipping the 18-55 completely. I just wish the lens market wasn't eh right now, I got my 50mm 1.8 a while back for 68 dollars I want to say? Seeing it for 125 on amazon... :'(


 


 Well, my point was that a 50mm alone for general purpose photography is a bit unsuitable, as its FOV is in the short telephoto range for a camera with APS-C sensor. For standalone use, I think a 24, 28 or 35 would be more useful, and the 35/2 is still a relatively cheap lens.
   
  However, to complement a 18-55 kit, then yeah the 50/1.8 is a great lens for a beginner to grow.


----------



## caracara08

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Great choice.  Don't ever sell the 50 f1.8 and shoot as much as you can with that lens; it's a great lens regardless of the low price.  After a while, don't be afraid to shoot in RAW just because you are a beginner.  Canon digital photo pro software is very easy to learn and does great RAW conversion with usually better JPEG results with some practice.


 

 thanks! i cant wait to get it in.  my dad and brother both have nicer lens so thats why i chose to go with canon vs nikon.  i think i can use their telephoto lens and stuff.  sometimes i think maybe i should have gone more entry level since i probably wont even know the difference but oh well. i wont have to upgrade for a long time!


----------



## fatcat28037

I currently own a Canon Powershot S5 but would like to step up to a DSLR. I've done some research and think the Canon EOS Rebel T3i with the 18-135mm lens is the way I should go. B&H has it for $1099 but then I found Digital Hunter who sells it for $999.
   
  Two questions;
  1) Is there any reason to consider a Canon other than the T3i?
   
  2) Has anyone dealt with Digital Hunter, if so, what was your experience?


----------



## caracara08

i went through amazon and paid 879.99 with full USA warranty. 
  from my research, the T2i is the same thing but without as good a movie mode and without the multi angle screen.  its smaller, and one reviewer said shoots faster. but i went with the t3i because i wanted the movie mode and screen. 
   
  2. sorryi have not. i buy almost everything on amazon.  make sure you see the seller and make sure theyre authorized dealers. not all resellers on amazon are.
   
  edit: im not sure which lens it came with. so if your lens is an upgraded one, it might be worth it then.


----------



## fatcat28037

Quote: 





caracara08 said:


> i went through amazon and paid 879.99 with full USA warranty.
> from my research, the T2i is the same thing but without as good a movie mode and without the multi angle screen.  its smaller, and one reviewer said shoots faster. but i went with the t3i because i wanted the movie mode and screen.
> 
> 2. sorryi have not. i buy almost everything on amazon.  make sure you see the seller and make sure theyre authorized dealers. not all resellers on amazon are.
> ...


 


 Being able to angle the screen is a big help, like when shooting with a tripod. My S5 has it. The lens I'm want is the 18-135mm which is an upgrade from the standard 18-55mm, that's where the extra bucks are.


----------



## caracara08

oh yea. i was considering that one, but i went with the 50mm f1.8 + the standard.  i think the 18-135mm was 199 and the f1.8 was 124.


----------



## fatcat28037

I ordered the T3i from B&H this morning. I asked if they'd match Digital Hunters price, they wouldn't. The sales guy asked me to look at Resellerratings.com and search for Digital Hunter. I did that while he was on the phone and found DH had only two reviews and both were in the last week. Not a good sign because B&H has over 18,000 reviews. So I paid the $100 more but still got it at a good price. I also ordered a 16gb Kingston Extreme memory card, a UV filter and a Lowepro bag. The box should be here Wednesday, I'm Psyched.


----------



## caracara08

i got the lowepro 102 which did u get??
   
  also, can you tell me more about the uv filter? i saw them but didnt buy one. should i?


----------



## fatcat28037

With film cameras the UV filter filters out Ultraviolet rays that can effect film, on a digital camera you use one to protect the lens. Better to scratch a $16.00 filter that your lens. I bought the Lowepro Toploader zoom 50 AW. It's the one several retailers recommended for the T3i


----------



## MadCow

On some forums, the benefits of UV filters are a controversial topic. The pro-filter side claims protection from the elements, the anti-filter side claims all filters degrade image quality and a lens hood is better protection.
   
  Anyways, in my opinion cheap UV filters do more harm than good. They introduce flare and reduce contrast, while expensive multi-coated filters are desirable to protect the lens without image degradation.
   
  Here's a comparison of various UV filters, you can notice that the very basic ones (such as the Tiffen in the review) introduce very bad flare:
  http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test_Introduction.html


----------



## music_man

i'd just like to say the s90/95 is pretty amazing given the size. flame suit on but i think it competes nicely with the pen and @nex. so long as you can deal with the one lens. sure, i have a way higher end dslr but everything stuffed in the lowpro backpack weighs like 30 pounds! so for less than half a pound i think it is the only game in town. if you don't trust me, go see what ken rockwell has to say about it. i have lenses that are twenty times the size of the s90 lol. i think it is the ultimate thing for candid shots which is what i use it for. of course, it is not the ultimate camera if size is not a consideration.


----------



## fatcat28037

My new T3i arrived today. I've been spending time with the owners manual and playing a bit with the camera. Tomorrow I'll get outside and shoot some test pics. Fun for me!


----------



## caracara08

guess i should look through the manual too lol. 
   
  very, very crisp pictures.  i love it.  trying out the 50mm lens... i thought it would be more of a lens i can just leave on there but i dono.. i thikn i feel more comfortable with the stock lens. but i have been only taking pictures indoors.  i love the bag tho... so nice!


----------



## ArrigoShred

Got my first L Lens today!

 50mm F/1.2L USM 

 Loving it!


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





arrigoshred said:


> Got my first L Lens today!
> 
> 50mm F/1.2L USM
> 
> Loving it!


 

 50 1.2L is an interesting lens to buy as your first L.  If you have any other 50mm lenses (50 f1.8, f1.4, etc), I would love to see some side by side comparisons with the 50 1.2L!


----------



## qweasd

To L or not to L has been in my mind ever so long... kept forcing myself to ignore them ie just focusing on my current sigma f1.4 BUT still cant resist the temptations..
  
  Quote: 





jon l said:


> 50 1.2L is an interesting lens to buy as your first L.  If you have any other 50mm lenses (50 f1.8, f1.4, etc), I would love to see some side by side comparisons with the 50 1.2L!


----------



## caracara08

L... but of course.


----------



## qweasd

yea gotta agree if i have the extra dough


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





qweasd said:


> f
> To L or not to L has been in my mind ever so long... kept forcing myself to ignore them ie just focusing on my current sigma f1.4 BUT still cant resist the temptations..


 
  Sigma 50 f1.4 is a nice lens.  I once compared the Sigma 50 f.1.4 to Canon 50 f1.4 and 50 f1.8, and honestly, for shooting real subjects and not test charts, all are great.  The only thing is the difference in bokeh character, but that can be somewhat of a personal preference thing, with some people actually liking some funky bokeh.  
   
  The problem with the whole "L" mystique IMO is just that, mystique.  Canon's marketing and folklore has assigned some mystical qualities to all the L glass, but some of them are much better than other L.  Attaching L glass doesn't suddenly turn your photos into magic, that's for sure.  
   
  Having said that, I love primes and ended up with some L primes anyway, as it's hard to beat their build quality.


----------



## calipilot227

I love my EOS 10D with a 28-135mm IS USM lens. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 It's about 10 years old, but I can't see myself replacing it anytime soon.


----------



## Jon L

With the recent addition of 135L, we have achieved the "Holy Trinity."


----------



## fatcat28037

I picked this up at B&N, I find it a lot easier to deal with than the supplied user manual.
   
 
	

   
  I haven't been able to spend as much time with the new T3i as I'd hoped. I herniated a disk, between L4/L5, spent a few days in the hospital and am now at home convalescing for who-knows-how-long. I can walk and sit again but must spent large parts of the day on my back. Getting old sucks.


----------



## Jon L

4th of July sale at Canon, 20% off accessories and free shipping if over $100.
   
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/subCategory_10051_10051_-1_12052?WT.mc_id=EM1107ES05013&RID=1-27R2WW&CON=1-2K3L-554&PRO=&CID=1-24SNQ3


----------



## authistic

Thinking of buying a 35L for my crop body.
  A good idea? Heard it's the "worst" of the L Primes


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





authistic said:


> Thinking of buying a 35L for my crop body.
> A good idea? Heard it's the "worst" of the L Primes


 

 I've never read 35L referred to as "worst" of L primes.  In fact, 35L is one of the Canon "Holy Trinity," 35L, 85L, and 135L.  
  For crop body, 35L is in fact the most useful length, being 56mm equivalent, and is my "walkaround lens."  
   
  A walkaround shot from yesterday.


----------



## authistic

Thank you, ofc i don't think the 35L is bad but I often read it's the worst because 85L and 135L seem to be the top-of-line on the affordable primes, and the supertelephoto primes seem to get even sharper (200, 300, 400 etc.).. so the worst in terms of sharpness and contrast would be 50L and 35L. I just think about if it's worth the price.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





authistic said:


> Thank you, ofc i don't think the 35L is bad but I often read it's the worst because 85L and 135L seem to be the top-of-line on the affordable primes, and the supertelephoto primes seem to get even sharper (200, 300, 400 etc.).. so the worst in terms of sharpness and contrast would be 50L and 35L. I just think about if it's worth the price.


 
   
  Actually, most people report that 35L's strong points are contrast, detail, and color pop, which is not the case for 50L, which IMO really needs to be redone to improve sharpness, especially wide-open.  
   
  While I agree 85L and 135L are stupendous (I own them too), when I walk out of my house and can only take one lens for all-round shooting, I carry the 35L without regrets..


----------



## castleofargh

coming in late, but i ve seen a lot of unkind comments on the 35mm too . mostly imo because there are so many 35mm in the world and lot of them are marvels. (non canon lenses)
   
  with time i ve sold my 200/2.8 and 135/2 to get a 85/1.2 and a 16-35/2.8. that last one is my only lazy choice as i m a real prime fan. and if i'm pleased with the 16-35 for it's versatillity i must confess that without dxo i would have sent the lens back. corners are more than often distorted and blurred. with dxo it gets miraculously ok, but not great.
   
  all this to say that the 35L is still a real good lens. the real bargain for canon is to get any 50mm you can. they re cheap and give amazing results. the fabric is also cheap but who cares when you can get pro results with it. and as jon L mentioned, the 50/1.2 is only really better in respect of bokeh.


----------



## liamstrain

The 35mm is limited by the retrofocus design needed for the optics. These same complaints will be true for most 35mm lenses on the SLR market, at any price. Sharpness (and contrast) will always be affected when you need additional optics to push the image further back (to allow the mirror to clear). 
   
  I really like the 35L - they did a lot to mitigate the shortcomings inherent in the requirements. Likewise the 24 3.5 T/S did a lot to bring sharpness back under challenging wide/angle optical requirements.


----------



## calipilot227

Took my uncle's 70-200mm L-series lens for a spin at Fleet Week in San Francisco a few weeks ago:


----------



## liamstrain

mmm... sonic shock waves. 
   
  I didn't think they were allowed to break the sound barrier for recreational/show flying?


----------



## Texpect

Well, I own Canon EOS 550D by myself, getting some new lenses soon as possible.
   
  Photographing is a great way to get relaxed by the way.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





texpect said:


> Well, I own Canon EOS 550D by myself, getting some new lenses soon as possible.
> 
> Photographing is a great way to get relaxed by the way.


 

 Canon has instant rebates on certain lenses going on until 1/7/12  For example, $300 instant rebate on Canon's mighty 70-200mm f/2.8 MkII 
   
  **EDIT**
  Oh, Snap!  I just found a better deal on the 70-200 MkII with $400 instant rebate.  I shouldn't, but this is too good a deal to pass up, especially since I expect I can get more $ for this lens later on the used market.  Ordered one!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&SID=227683&sku=832149&AID=10605978&PID=404255&is=USA&A=details&Q=


----------



## Texpect

I can get that 1800 USD. Finland only, sorry 
  
  Quote: 





jon l said:


> Canon has instant rebates on certain lenses going on until 1/7/12  For example, $300 instant rebate on Canon's mighty 70-200mm f/2.8 MkII
> 
> **EDIT**
> Oh, Snap!  I just found a better deal on the 70-200 MkII with $400 instant rebate.  I shouldn't, but this is too good a deal to pass up, especially since I expect I can get more $ for this lens later on the used market.  Ordered one!
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&SID=227683&sku=832149&AID=10605978&PID=404255&is=USA&A=details&Q=


----------



## reiserFS

Still happy with my 70-200 2.8 that I got for $500. Man, that was a once in a lifetime deal.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





reiserfs said:


> Still happy with my 70-200 2.8 that I got for $500. Man, that was a once in a lifetime deal.


 


  $500 is awesome for 70-200 f2.8 MkI.  
   
  B&H Photo is really going for it because in addition to the 70-200 f2.8 MkII deal, now they have the Canon 580EX II flash for $399!
   
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?InitialSearch=yes&PID=404255&Q=&O=&Ntt=EMBL1130CA58&A=endecaSearch&SID=228324&N=0&AID=10605978


----------



## MadCow

I recently got the 100L macro lens and it is amazing! Razor-sharp wide open and very smooth bokeh. The weight is just nice to balance with mid-range bodies (5D2, 7D) without grip, and the IS is very useful even at close distances (not at near 1:1 though -- tripod still needed here). Just need a 24/1.4 now to complete my 24/50/100 trinity.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





madcow said:


> I recently got the 100L macro lens and it is amazing! Razor-sharp wide open and very smooth bokeh. The weight is just nice to balance with mid-range bodies (5D2, 7D) without grip, and the IS is very useful even at close distances (not at near 1:1 though -- tripod still needed here). Just need a 24/1.4 now to complete my 24/50/100 trinity.


 

  
  Hey, congrats.  The 100L Macro is a real beauty.  I presume you have the 50L, which is the only L prime I have not pursued due to so many people complaining of back-focusing issues and lack of corner sharpness, etc.  I *am* curious about it, though.  What do you think about the 50L?


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





jon l said:


> I presume you have the 50L, which is the only L prime I have not pursued due to so many people complaining of back-focusing issues and lack of corner sharpness, etc.  I *am* curious about it, though.  What do you think about the 50L?


 


 Yes, I have the 50L. It is quite a controversial lens that you'd either love or hate.
   
  There is no "back-focusing" issue, but more of a case of residual spherical abberations (or focus shift) around f/1.2-2.8 which is demonstrated in the Photozone review: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1
   
  However, the problem seems to be less of an issue on newer models (2008 and up?), and/or there may be sample variations about. My copy (lens code UY) exhibits only a very minor amount of shift (a few milimeters from 1.2 to 2.8), and at near minimum distance, so it's practically a non-issue to me.
   
  As for sharpness, I agree it doesn't get to razor-sharpness levels that one sees in other L-grade lenses like the 100L or 135L. Stopped down to 1.6-2.0, it gets pretty good but nowhere near the really sharp performers but to me, sharpness is just one aspect of the lens to consider. Build quality, bokeh, ability to shoot at 1.2, and the focal length itself are also important to me. So I guess it depends one's priorities.
   
  Here's one at 1.2:

   
   
  And 100% crop:


----------



## Jon L

My problem is that I really like the 50mm focal length on crop bodies.  I have tried the Canon 50 f/1.8 II, 50 f/1.4, and Sigma 50 f/1.4 and feel I have not really found the holy grail 50mm lens for Canon.  They are all pretty nice but not 85L-nice   
   
  I guess my solution will be to move to full frame (whenever Canon decides to Finally release 5D III) and use the 85L on FF 
   
  *EDIT*
  Speaking of 50mm love, finally some reviews of Sony NEX-7 plus E-Mount 50mm f/1.8 lens.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/12/10/the-sony-50-1-8-oss-e-mount-nex-lens-review-on-the-nex-7/
   
  Unless Canon gets off their behind and gives us a fantastic mirrorless interchangeable lens camera like NEX-5N or 7, they are going to lose a lot of customers who are looking for portable solutions!


----------



## MadCow

I am trying out Topaz Adjust and Detail. Downloaded the trial versions and played around a bit (please don't mind the dust specks):
   
 
 
   
  The first shot is with the 100L plus a stack of extension tubes (68mm worth of tubes) and the 1.4x extender on a 7D. The other shots are all 100L at 1:1 only.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





jon l said:


> *EDIT*
> Speaking of 50mm love, finally some reviews of Sony NEX-7 plus E-Mount 50mm f/1.8 lens.
> http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/12/10/the-sony-50-1-8-oss-e-mount-nex-lens-review-on-the-nex-7/


 
   
  I am also highly intrigued by the NEX-7 and am watching it closely. The high price is somewhat disappointing, but not entirely unexpected, but I love the high res viewfinder, rangefinder-like design and the availability of third-party mounts so I can also mount all my L glass on it. Next year would be a very interesting year for compact mirrorless systems though, so I'm just going to wait patiently and see what everyone has to offer. Hopefully Canon will have interesting announcements to make, plus I am also very curious to see what Fujifilm has up their sleeves.


----------



## super nova

any rumors of if Canon is gonna join the mirrorless market?


----------



## calipilot227

Quote: 





super nova said:


> any rumors of if Canon is gonna join the mirrorless market?


 
   
  +1 Sad as it may be, I know my trusty EOS 10D is not going to last forever. I've been eyeing the Panasonic micro 4/3rds system cameras, but I wonder what the tradeoff will be in terms of image quality. After all, you don't get something for nothing.


----------



## motrix

Quote: 





calipilot227 said:


> +1 Sad as it may be, I know my trusty EOS 10D is not going to last forever. I've been eyeing the Panasonic micro 4/3rds system cameras, but I wonder what the tradeoff will be in terms of image quality. After all, you don't get something for nothing.


 

 I shoot with the 5DMKII but carrying that around was not fun.  My daily camera now it the Panny G3 (also have the GF1) with the 20mm f1.7.  Image quality, unless i'm blowing something up i'm just fine with my panny.  Love it and throwing it in my bag is much easier that the canon.  Picked up the fotodiox EF-->m4/3 adaptor and have the best of both worlds. i must say the GF1 mounted with my 70-200LII looks quite ridiculous.


----------



## calipilot227

Quote: 





motrix said:


> I shoot with the 5DMKII but carrying that around was not fun.  My daily camera now it the Panny G3 (also have the GF1) with the 20mm f1.7.  Image quality, unless i'm blowing something up i'm just fine with my panny.  Love it and throwing it in my bag is much easier that the canon.  Picked up the fotodiox EF-->m4/3 adaptor and have the best of both worlds. i must say the GF1 mounted with my 70-200LII looks quite ridiculous.


 

 That brings me to the one issue I have with my DSLR: size and weight. What good is a nice camera if you leave it home half the time because it's too big and heavy? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  There appear to be some very good lenses for the Pannies at a comparable cost to their Canon counterparts. Nevertheless, I would be dropping around $1,000 on the camera and lenses I need, so I definitely won't be upgrading for a while


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





calipilot227 said:


> That brings me to the one issue I have with my DSLR: size and weight. What good is a nice camera if you leave it home half the time because it's too big and heavy?


 

 First look at the stunning new Fuji X-Pro 1!
   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkjbSLl0Yaw


----------



## super nova

Yep it would be nice if Canon comes out with a mirrorless camera with an efs mount without making a whole new mount system like the other brands


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





super nova said:


> Yep it would be nice if Canon comes out with a mirrorless camera with an efs mount without making a whole new mount system like the other brands


 

 Wouldn't THAT be nice..  It's amazing to me that Canon would allow Sony NEX and Fuji X series to be so established and entrenched as de-facto mirrorless leaders.


----------



## MadCow

X-Pro 1 is nice, but I'm not too keen on the currently-approximated price. Also, no word on AF speed as well as responsiveness of the MF ring, which are two of my main beefs with the X100.
   
  I highly doubt Canon would use the existing EF or EF-s mount for a mirrorless though, the minimum registration distance for the mount specification is too long to make a compact body, and if the body isn't compact enough the mirror box might as well stay put.


----------



## music_man

the g1x seems like a joke for $800. same money,about same size you get a micro 4/3rd's which should walk all over the g1x. agree,disagree?


----------



## Jon L

It's not a "joke," just disappointing due to non-interchangeable lens. But Canon is betting there's a bunch of potential customers who want a large sensor with a zoom lens that covers a large range (28-112mm). G1X sensor is actually larger than micro 4/3rds, and the conjecture is it's basically the same high-quality sensor as found in Canon 7D, just 20% smaller and 20% less megapixels.


----------



## lan

Quote:  





> I highly doubt Canon would use the existing EF or EF-s mount for a mirrorless though, the minimum registration distance for the mount specification is too long to make a compact body, and if the body isn't compact enough the mirror box might as well stay put.


 

  
  Agreed. Have you seen the new Pentax released that accepts their normal lenses? It's not much smaller than their regular DSLRs.


----------



## LiIy

Which is the best of the "T" series? Image quality wise.


----------



## music_man

i do see the attraction of the g1x is the sensor. at that size the no interchange kills it for me. i'd love it if it was the size of a s100. does anyone make something like the g1x with interchangeable glass?


----------



## Jon L

Canon has finally announced the new 24-70 MKII IS ($2300), 24 f/2.8 IS ($850), and 28 f/2.8 IS ($800), and as feared, they jacked up the price sky high 
   
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2012/02/new-gear-canon-ef-24-70-f28l-ii-usm-and-two-wide-angle-primes


----------



## daigo

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Canon has finally announced the new 24-70 MKII IS ($2300), 24 f/2.8 IS ($850), and 28 f/2.8 IS ($800), and as feared, they jacked up the price sky high
> 
> http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2012/02/new-gear-canon-ef-24-70-f28l-ii-usm-and-two-wide-angle-primes


 

  
  I don't believe the new 24-70L MKII has IS.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





daigo said:


> I don't believe the new 24-70L MKII has IS.


 


  Oops, typo.  No, it doesn't, which makes it even harder to swallow the $2300 price.  I am hoping they don't go crazy with their 35L Mk II and 50 f/1.4 II by adding IS and again going crazy with price.


----------



## MadCow

Wow, the new 24-70L looks like a really promising beast, despite its price. It's making me rethink if I still want to get the 24L... or to forget about the prime and just sell off my current 24-70 to get the Mark II.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





madcow said:


> Wow, the new 24-70L looks like a really promising beast, despite its price. It's making me rethink if I still want to get the 24L... or to forget about the prime and just sell off my current 24-70 to get the Mark II.


 

 I just don't see the justification for $2300 when they haven't even added IS.  Might be worth it for me if Canon could just stretch it little more to get something along 18-70 mm..


----------



## calipilot227

Just picked up an A540 on Craigslist, for free! Perfect beater camera for the times when I don't feel like hauling around my DSLR. Pop in an SD card and two AA batteries, and you're good to go. Budget photography at its best


----------



## MadCow

Well I finally made up my mind about my prime lineup and got the 24L today, after visiting two stores over the weekend to test their copies for AF issues. Who cares about new but slow f/2.8 lenses....


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





madcow said:


> Well I finally made up my mind about my prime lineup and got the 24L today, after visiting two stores over the weekend to test their copies for AF issues. Who cares about new but slow f/2.8 lenses....


 

 That 24 f1.4 L II pretty much owns that focal length between f/4 to f/8.  I do wish Canon would work a little more sharpness into their 16-35 II somehow when they do a mk III, as I would love to have a sweet wide zoom with a little more range than my Tokina 11-16.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





jon l said:


> That 24 f1.4 L II pretty much owns that focal length between f/4 to f/8.  I do wish Canon would work a little more sharpness into their 16-35 II somehow when they do a mk III, as I would love to have a sweet wide zoom with a little more range than my Tokina 11-16.


 


 I thought the TS-E version was better suited for that title.... I was even considering it initially, but then finally decided the f1.4 would be more useful for my style of photography.
   
  I agree Canon is quite weak in their ultrawide zoom department. I have the Mark I and have not considered upgrading to a Mark II because it's not that much different, from what I've read online -- it's better in some areas but worse in others.


----------



## Jon L

Would love to play with TS-E 24mm II, but I feel it's too expensive for non-AF lens.  Besides, we have to save our pennies for the 5D MkIII, which is supposed to launch in next few hours..


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Would love to play with TS-E 24mm II, but I feel it's too expensive for non-AF lens.  Besides, we have to save our pennies for the 5D MkIII, which is supposed to launch in next few hours..


 


  aaaand, it's out.
   
  All looking good, especially the AF system, but the price is worrisome.
   
  Hopefully by the time I manage to sell off enough stuff to fund the 5DIII, the price would have gone down to more reasonable levels.


----------



## Jon L

Not that patient.  Just placed the preorder.  I mean, what the heck would I buy otherwise in Canon land right now?  
   
  Here's hands-on experience from real-world pro.  
http://blog.jeffascough.com/photographers/2012/03/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-review.html


----------



## Jon L

Almost dropped my coffee when I saw this on eBay!


----------



## tomscy2000

Speaking of third-party lenses, the upcoming Tamron 24-70/2.8 Di VC USD is looking very promising. I've always liked Tamron lenses; they're optically excellent and affordable, just a bit under-built. The non-VC 17-50 has served me very well for several years on my 40D, but now that I plan on moving to the 5D3, this yet-to-be-released lens is going to be my frontrunner for an affordable alternative to the prohibitively expensive 24-70L II.
   
  The Tammy promises better build quality and weather resistance this time around, and has that (for better or for worse) three-axis vibration compensation mechanism. I've never needed IS for anything; with the 5D3, I can even shoot at ISO 25600 no problem! I'm only worried whether or not that extra lens element will compromise IQ...
   
  EDIT: I guess I can use the VC for HD video use... handheld shots at 70mm will definitely benefit from image stabilization.


----------



## dyl1dyl

5D Mark 3!!!


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





tomscy2000 said:


> Speaking of third-party lenses, the upcoming Tamron 24-70/2.8 Di VC USD is looking very promising. I've always liked Tamron lenses; they're optically excellent and affordable, just a bit under-built. The non-VC 17-50 has served me very well for several years on my 40D, but now that I plan on moving to the 5D3, this yet-to-be-released lens is going to be my frontrunner for an affordable alternative to the prohibitively expensive 24-70L II.
> 
> The Tammy promises better build quality and weather resistance this time around, and has that (for better or for worse) three-axis vibration compensation mechanism. I've never needed IS for anything; with the 5D3, I can even shoot at ISO 25600 no problem! I'm only worried whether or not that extra lens element will compromise IQ...
> 
> EDIT: I guess I can use the VC for HD video use... handheld shots at 70mm will definitely benefit from image stabilization.


 
   
  That is the first Tamron I am seriously considering.  However, I have a feeling the pricing will not be as low as many would hope.  I also would have preferred it if they left out image stabilization at these focal lengths and lower the price instead.


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





jon l said:


> That is the first Tamron I am seriously considering.  However, I have a feeling the pricing will not be as low as many would hope.  I also would have preferred it if they left out image stabilization at these focal lengths and lower the price instead.


 

 Well, knowing Tamron, this lens should be under $1000... I'm going to predict: $899 MSRP


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





tomscy2000 said:


> Well, knowing Tamron, this lens should be under $1000... I'm going to predict: $899 MSRP


 

 I doubt that price, but if Tamron can do it for $899, as the first 24-70 with IS with (hopefully) good optics, they can seriously hurt Canon 24-70 mkII sales, which hopefully brings down the street price of Canon


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





jon l said:


> I doubt that price, but if Tamron can do it for $899, as the first 24-70 with IS with (hopefully) good optics, they can seriously hurt Canon 24-70 mkII sales, which hopefully brings down the street price of Canon


 

 Well, Tamron is usually priced slightly below Sigma, and Sigma's 24-70 HSM has an MSRP of $899. Tamron's should hover around that price, as well. It'd be awesome if that crazy $2300 tag goes down. Honestly, though, I value L primes more than their zooms --- I've been eyeing the 35L & 135L for quite some time; too bad I keep spending money on audio-related stuff!


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





tomscy2000 said:


> Well, Tamron is usually priced slightly below Sigma, and Sigma's 24-70 HSM has an MSRP of $899. Tamron's should hover around that price, as well. It'd be awesome if that crazy $2300 tag goes down. Honestly, though, I value L primes more than their zooms --- I've been eyeing the 35L & 135L for quite some time; too bad I keep spending money on audio-related stuff!


 

 $2300 is definitely nuts.  Greedy basterrds.  I love my 35L and 135L, but if I'm going to a desert island (presumably photographing coconuts), 85L II is the one.  In fact, 85L II becomes such a lofty yardstick, it's difficult to buy other lenses afterwards..


----------



## Jon L

Really impressive comparison of 5d mkiii with various cameras including Nikon D3x and D4.  It's almost scary how much better 5d mkiii is over something like Canon 7D and how well it stands up to the much more expensive Nikon D3x and even D4!
   
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiA.HTM


----------



## MadCow

I'm really liking what I'm reading about the AF system. It's using the same AF module as the high end 1DX, but minus the 1DX's higher end metering sensor that aids the AF system in subject recognition.
   
  I'm not too concerned about IQ -- from what I've read and seen, it's already better than the 5D2 and that's good enough for me.
   
  If I have any complaints, it's the change to a fixed focusing screen design of the 7D. I've used the Ef-s on the 40D, and Eg-s on the 5D2... so the focusing screen is a step backwards for me. And it's not like the advanced visual overlay of the 7D explicitly requires a non-removable design -- there are 3rd party screens for the 7D (e.g. KatzEye Optics) that do not impede the 7D's viewfinder information, so I don't see why Canon chose to make the screen non-removable.
   
  Anyway, it's something I'll have to test out at the store (whenever stock arrives) and see if I can live with it or not....


----------



## Jon L

Funniest thing I've seen all week!
   
  "I want a D800"
   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm31O9no34A&feature=related


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





jon l said:


> I doubt that price, but if Tamron can do it for $899, as the first 24-70 with IS with (hopefully) good optics, they can seriously hurt Canon 24-70 mkII sales, which hopefully brings down the street price of Canon


 

 I was wrong... 
  http://fstoppers.com/tamron-announces-availability-of-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-lens


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





tomscy2000 said:


> I was wrong...
> http://fstoppers.com/tamron-announces-availability-of-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-lens


 

 $1299 isn't so bad, at $1000 less than Canons 24-70 II.  On the other hand, Canon 24-70 MkI is selling new for $1399 on Amazon right now, so the Tamron had better at least outperform the Canon MkI.


----------



## tomscy2000

Well, usually Tamron lenses are subject to instant price slashes, so who knows what the street price really is...


----------



## Jon L

After doing some lens microadusting on 5D III, I thought I would do some test shots with Canon's cheapest to most expensive lenses to see if "it's worth it" in real life use. Spot AF with all lenses stopped down 1/3 stop from max aperture.
   
  Canon 35mm f/2
   



   
  Canon 35mm f/1.4L
   



   
  Canon 50mm f/1.4
   



   
  Canon 85mm f/1.8
   



   
  Canon 85mm f/1.2L
   



   
  Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 MkII to mix things up


----------



## MadCow

I am constantly surprised at how well the ol' 35/2 is able to stand toe-to-toe with its more expensive cousin. Besides the lack of f/1.4 and the slightly nervous bokeh (depending on background), a good copy can be as sharp as the L, which is one reason keeping me from upgrading mine.
   
  But in terms of bokeh, the 85L is still king.
   
  50/1.4 looks like the weakest of the bunch, even at websize resolutions I can see the overall softness and lack of microcontrast compared to the other lenses. Even the 35/2.
   
  Time to consider a 50L perhaps?


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





madcow said:


> I am constantly surprised at how well the ol' 35/2 is able to stand toe-to-toe with its more expensive cousin. Besides the lack of f/1.4 and the slightly nervous bokeh (depending on background), a good copy can be as sharp as the L, which is one reason keeping me from upgrading mine.


 
   
  I love the 35 f/2.  35mm on a full frame camera is, by far, my favorite focal length and, in fact, I own both the f/2 and the f/1.4.  I had the f/2 first but didn't sell it when I upgraded.  Even owning both of the lenses, I still use the f/2 a lot.  It is just so small and convenient.  If it had a USM focusing, it would be the perfect lens for me.  There's just something so satisfying about shooting with a prime lens!
   
  Actually, even more, if Canon were to introduce a 35mm f/2.8 IS to match the upcoming 24mm and 28mm lenses, I might sell both lenses, put some cash in my pocket, and get one of those!
   
  Taken with the 35mm f/2 on my 5DII @ ISO 1600:
   

   

   

   
   
  I'm very tempted by the 5DIII, though.  Ambient light photography is my "thing" and I'd love to be able to shoot at ISO6400 with similar results to what I am getting now at 1600.  Maybe after my wallet recovers from my tax bill!


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Actually, even more, if Canon were to introduce a 35mm f/2.8 IS to match the upcoming 24mm and 28mm lenses, I might sell both lenses, put some cash in my pocket, and get one of those!


 

 35 f/2.8 IS is a terrible idea!  Firstly, you really don't need IS at 35mm, and going by Canon pricing for their new IS primes, it will be priced near $900, which would be crazy.  And it will only be a slow f/2.8 prime.  
   
  What Canon really needs to do, in order to gain my confidence again, is to introduce 50 mm f/1.4 MkII with real USM, circular blades for better bokeh, tweaked optics for better contrast, and NOT add IS and jack up the price like they did with 24 and 28 mm f/2.8 IS.  
   
  That, and a 85mm f/`1.4 like Nikon, Sigma, Samyang without the huge size, price, focus-by-wire, and slow AF of 85 f/1.2L II.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





jon l said:


> 35 f/2.8 IS is a terrible idea!  Firstly, you really don't need IS at 35mm, and going by Canon pricing for their new IS primes, it will be priced near $900, which would be crazy.  And it will only be a slow f/2.8 prime.
> 
> ...
> 
> That, and a 85mm f/`1.4 like Nikon, Sigma, Samyang without the huge size, price, focus-by-wire, and slow AF of 85 f/1.2L II.


 


  Depends on how you use the lens.  For indoor handheld architectural work (think touristy stuff inside cathedrals, museums, etc), the IS would be great, especially if its 4-stop IS like most of the current IS systems.  You could conceivably take 1/2 exposures handheld!  You're not wrong that f/2.8 is a bit slow; f/2 would be even better!
  Personally, I hate the 50mm focal length (on full frame).  I think it makes photos look very blah.  But that's just me.  You take your 50mm f/1.4 II and I'll take my 35mm f/2.8 IS. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  What's wrong with the 85mm f/1.8?  It basically meets your requirements other than missing a 1/2-stop of speed.  In fact, I own the f/1.8 and not the f/1.2 for all the reasons you list.  Optically, it is very, very good but it is just missing some of the build quality of the L.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> What's wrong with the 85mm f/1.8?  It basically meets your requirements other than missing a 1/2-stop of speed.  In fact, I own the f/1.8 and not the f/1.2 for all the reasons you list.  Optically, it is very, very good but it is just missing some of the build quality of the L.


 

 85 f/1.8 is a great lens, but as the test shots I posted above show, just a little faster would push the bokehliciousness towards 85L a tad, and that may be enough for me personally to just sell off the 85L with all its qirks and keep one 85mm.  
   
  Having used f/2.8 4-stop IS, the IS does not improve the bokeh nor help stop action for moving subjects in dim light.  I would love it for video use, but otherwise, pound for pound, I'd rather have f/stop over IS.


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





jon l said:


> 85 f/1.8 is a great lens, but as the test shots I posted above show, just a little faster would push the *bokehliciousness* towards 85L a tad, and that may be enough for me personally to just sell off the 85L with all its qirks and keep one 85mm.
> 
> Having used f/2.8 4-stop IS, the IS does not improve the bokeh nor help stop action for moving subjects in dim light.  I would love it for video use, but otherwise, pound for pound, I'd rather have f/stop over IS.


 

 Speaking of which, I really want this shirt: http://www.digitalrev.com/product/bokehlicious-t-shirt/MTAwMDYzMw_A_A


----------



## lungStruck

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> I love the 35 f/2.  35mm on a full frame camera is, by far, my favorite focal length and, in fact, I own both the f/2 and the f/1.4.  I had the f/2 first but didn't sell it when I upgraded.  Even owning both of the lenses, I still use the f/2 a lot.  It is just so small and convenient.  If it had a USM focusing, it would be the perfect lens for me.  There's just something so satisfying about shooting with a prime lens!


 
   
  Those shots look great... nice setup!  Need to save my pennies.


----------



## caracara08

ive been using the stock lens and once in a while a 1.8f as it was pretty cheap. whats a good budget all arounder upgrade from the stock 18-55? to be used with a t3i.  Thanks!


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





lungstruck said:


> Those shots look great... nice setup!  Need to save my pennies.


 
   

 Thanks.  The people shown in the shots are all friends and in such circumstances, I tend to use the f/2 instead of the f/1.4.  When there's a professional photographer in the room I find snaping photos with the little f/2 instead of the huge f/1.4 gets more natural responses from people who know who I am an don't see me as a "threat."  This is also why I don't use a big flash or a battery grip.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





caracara08 said:


> ive been using the stock lens and once in a while a 1.8f as it was pretty cheap. whats a good budget all arounder upgrade from the stock 18-55? to be used with a t3i.  Thanks!


 
   
  Depends on what you find lacking with the 18-55, I suppose.
   
  The 17-55/2.8 is well-regarded, and has IS... but is expensive for an EF-s lens.
   
  Or if you are looking for more zoom range, the 15-85 is also pretty decent.


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





caracara08 said:


> ive been using the stock lens and once in a while a 1.8f as it was pretty cheap. whats a good budget all arounder upgrade from the stock 18-55? to be used with a t3i.  Thanks!


 
  Quote: 





madcow said:


> Depends on what you find lacking with the 18-55, I suppose. The 17-55/2.8 is well-regarded, and has IS... but is expensive for an EF-s lens. Or if you are looking for more zoom range, the 15-85 is also pretty decent.


 
   
  You can consider third-party lenses as well. There are many quality alternatives to the 17-55/2.8 from Tamron and Sigma. For Tamron, I recommend the non-VC version of their 17-50/2.8, but for Sigma I recommend the newer, 17-50/2.8 OS. I find the Tamron to be a very good performer, especially for the price. It doesn't have image stabilization, but it's really not all that necessary if you know what you're doing and keep the shutter speed above 1/80th or so. I don't have experience with the Tokina 16-50, but I've heard it's built like a tank. Having had a Tokina 11-16, I can definitely vouch for that.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





caracara08 said:


> ive been using the stock lens and once in a while a 1.8f as it was pretty cheap. whats a good budget all arounder upgrade from the stock 18-55? to be used with a t3i.  Thanks!


 
   
  Quote: 





madcow said:


> Depends on what you find lacking with the 18-55, I suppose.


 
   
  Also depends on what you consider "budget."  I think the 15-85 as mentioned above is probably the most logical upgrade over the 18-55 as anything EF-S that is a substantial upgrade (17-55) is considerably more expensive.
   
  You might also look at EF full frame lenses like the 28-135 IS.  You will loose quite a bit on the wide end but gain a ton on the telephoto end.  You can also use the lens on any EOS camera should you decide to upgrade your body at some point in the future.


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Depends on how you use the lens.  For indoor handheld architectural work (think touristy stuff inside cathedrals, museums, etc), the IS would be great, especially if its 4-stop IS like most of the current IS systems.  You could conceivably take 1/2 exposures handheld!  You're not wrong that f/2.8 is a bit slow; f/2 would be even better!
> Personally, I hate the 50mm focal length (on full frame).  I think it makes photos look very blah.  But that's just me.  You take your 50mm f/1.4 II and I'll take my 35mm f/2.8 IS.
> 
> 
> ...


 
   

 The newer Canon IS primes are pretty much made to fill the gap Canon's got in the video market for their lenses. For real pro usage, Zeiss has been eating Canon's lunch since the inception of the 5DII. That's why they're in the focal lengths that they're in. Canon is hoping to get the jump on Zeiss by offering their excellent IS for hand-held stuff.  Shooting video at lower than 2.8 is a intensely frustrating due to the insanely thin area that is in focus.
   
  Getting one for still-photography isn't a terrible idea, but it's good to keep in mind the target audience... it's not the best usage of cash. Relying on IS for a steady shot instead of really learning proper posture and moving your craft forward by holding perfectly still during a shot will benefit you so greatly in the future.
   
  I moved slowly up through a variety of primes, and now use the Canon 1.2L as my only lens unless I'm shooting video at work... in which case it's only for VERY specialized types of shots. I shoot only in 1.2 unless I have a reason to do otherwise; the DOF factors very specifically in the kind of work I like to do. I've never wanted IS for any of my ambient light photography since I started shooting 1-2 hours per day with it.
   

   





   
  EDIT: These are direct from camera, by the way. I do not edit, except the occasional crop / tilt when I'm not shooting straight.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





mercuttio said:


> Getting one for still-photography isn't a terrible idea, but it's good to keep in mind the target audience... it's not the best usage of cash. Relying on IS for a steady shot instead of really learning proper posture and moving your craft forward by holding perfectly still during a shot will benefit you so greatly in the future.


 
   
  I'm not sure your comments were aimed at me but you quoted me so I'll comment.  I may be new to this thread but I am not new to photography.  Many years ago, I won a national competition sponsored by Illford and have had significant training all the way through high school and college.  I really do know what I'm doing behind a camera and, occasionally, I luck into a good shot.  My father was actually a student of Walker Evans and I've had a camera in my hands since I was very young and I remember my father telling me to be sure I stood very still while taking a photo with the then new disc film camera he had given me (so this was mid-80s and I was born in '81). I've never posted in this thread because I only have so much time in the day for internet forums and I like to follow the large threads in which I participate.  I believe you and I have had discussions in the watch thread about Speedmasters.
   
  If you review my original comments, I would love to have a 35mm IS for indoor still shots.  I'm not talking about a shot at 1/10; I can do that handheld with a 35mm lens and get a very high percentage of keepers.  I'm talking about taking 1/4 - 1/2 sec. exposures and maybe even slower with a monopod.  I shoot a 5D2 which I don't like to use past ISO 1600.  Can you imagine what you could do taking 1/2 sec. images at ISO 1600?  Even looking at your images above, your style would benefit from it as well as only two of the subjects shown are in motion.
   
  You mention a 1.2L.  50mm or 85mm?  I'll just assume 85mm for the sake of my argument.  Imagine if Canon released an 85L III with faster focusing and 4-stop IS.  You wouldn't jump all over that lens?  That's what a 35mm IS would be for me.
   
  BTW, I do PP my images in Lightroom.  To me, that's half the fun of taking photos and it lets me do the things that I did so many years ago in wet darkrooms with old school contrast adjustments and real burning and dodging.  I don't take my images past Lightroom into Photoshop or anything but I tweak almost all of my keepers.


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> I'm not sure your comments were aimed at me but you quoted me so I'll comment.  I may be new to this thread but I am not new to photography.  Many years ago, I won a national competition sponsored by Illford and have had significant training all the way through high school and college.  I really do know what I'm doing behind a camera and, occasionally, I luck into a good shot.  My father was actually a student of Walker Evans and I've had a camera in my hands since I was very young and I remember my father telling me to be sure I stood very still while taking a photo with the then new disc film camera he had given me (so this was mid-80s and I was born in '81). I've never posted in this thread because I only have so much time in the day for internet forums and I like to follow the large threads in which I participate.  I believe you and I have had discussions in the watch thread about Speedmasters.
> 
> If you review my original comments, I would love to have a 35mm IS for indoor still shots.  I'm not talking about a shot at 1/10; I can do that handheld with a 35mm lens and get a very high percentage of keepers.  I'm talking about taking 1/4 - 1/2 sec. exposures and maybe even slower with a monopod.  I shoot a 5D2 which I don't like to use past ISO 1600.  Can you imagine what you could do taking 1/2 sec. images at ISO 1600?  Even looking at your images above, your style would benefit from it as well as only two of the subjects shown are in motion.
> 
> ...


 
   

 No offense was intended. I probably went a little overboard in advice-mode. I just can't see giving up a movement-stopping F for IS; if I want to do longer exposures I have a tripod for it. I don't shoot posed shots unless I'm in the studio: four out of my above images have moving subjects that aren't holding still for me. The only things I care about IS on are macro lenses and lenses I shoot video with. Anything else, for me, seems like it's just avoiding the way I've been trained to shoot.
   
  I don't like the 85 L because of the focus-by-wire, slow AF, and massive heft. I shoot 50mm, and should have mentioned it. So no, I don't have any interest in a prime with IS unless it's for video. It just doesn't serve a purpose in my work and even going from 1.2 to 1.8 to get it isn't something I care about. I want my primes fast and sharp.
   
  But hey, I shouldn't assume you want what I want. Your shots earlier were really nice, and I didn't mean offense.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





mercuttio said:


> But hey, I shouldn't assume you want what I want. Your shots earlier were really nice, and I didn't mean offense.


 
   
  No, none taken 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Photography, like so many things, becomes a matter of taste.  You're a 50mm guy.  I hate 50mm but adore 35mm.  A few posts ago, I said that I would like a 35mm f/2.8 IS and, in retrospect, this is incorrect.  I wouldn't want the lens to be any slower than f/2 so you're not wrong, motion freeze is important but, for me and the photos I take, it isn't one of the primary requirements of a lens.  
   
  And, of course, the substance of your message is absolutely correct: fancy equipment doesn't make up for poor fundamentals.
   
  Your shots are very nice as well.  I especially like the one of the smoker and I can understand why you would want f/1.2.


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> No, none taken
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   

 Did you check out this? http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/lenses-35l-ii-85l-iii-next-up-cr1/
   
  I'm really curious to see how the new 35L ends up being. The old one definitely could use some of the ruggeder / weatherproofing DNA that newer L's have, but I've never heard anyone complain about the optics and I liked the look of the one I test shot with. Hopefully the price stays around where it is on the old model, which already is at the very top of what I'm willing to pay for a lens. Hey, maybe a new model will drive down prices of the old one?
   
  The big thing I'd love to have in my 50L that the 35L has is the closer focusing distance. That'd be so intensely sweet.
   

 You know, what Canon REALLY needs to do is update their 50 1.4. I couldn't wait to get rid of that thing. Front element that moves out of the housing, noisy and failure-prone AF, sloppy Bokeh. Colors didn't look right for me either. I know they're still making it in Japan where costs are higher, but the build of Nikon's 1.4 is just so much nicer. The Nikon in the hand is just so pleasurable.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





mercuttio said:


> Did you check out this? http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/04/lenses-35l-ii-85l-iii-next-up-cr1/


 
   
  Yeah.  I have the current 35L.  It would take an awful lot for me to upgrade (like IS!).  As a hobbyist, I'm not that tough on my gear and it goes back into the bag if the weather gets nasty.  In fact, I have 35mm covered in 5 different lenses! (35L, 35 f/2, 24-105L, 17-40L, and 28-105 from the mid-90s) and even owning the 35L, I use the 35 f/2 quite frequently.  It's a great stealth lens.
   
  I'm a Canon shooter, no doubt, but the only thing that Nikon has that makes me jealous right now are their wide angle primes.  Canon has been neglecting theirs for too long to update all the telephoto lenses.  Unfortunately for me, I have no use--or money--for a 400 f/2.8 II IS.  It would be nice for them to spend some time on the other end of the focal length spectrum.


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





mercuttio said:


> The only things I care about IS on are macro lenses and lenses I shoot video with.


 
   
  +2.........................


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Imagine if Canon released an 85L III with faster focusing and 4-stop IS.  You wouldn't jump all over that lens?  That's what a 35mm IS would be for me.


 
   
  That would be photography news of the decade for me, and such a beast would likely stay on my camera indefinitely.  
  I really love the 85mm perspective on full frame, which is even useful as walk-around.  The focus-by-wire nonsense has got to go, along with the decent but far-from-ideal AF speed.  Heck, if this is achieved, I would buy it in a heartbeat even without IS.  Add IS, and the price is going to be brutal, going by recent Canon IS lens prices.  
   
  On the 35L, the only thing I wish for is improved chromatic aberration wide open.  One can always work around it, though, so unless 35L II truly improves on IQ substantially, I likely won't "upgrade."  
   
  But most of all, Canon should release their version of the long-rumored 14-24mm, which is really the one place Nikon has eaten Canon's lunch.  
   
  Imagine Canon 14-24, 24-70 MkII, 70-200 MkII lens kit.


----------



## Jon L

Tamron 24-70 VC Review Out (tested with 5D MkII)
   
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f-2-8-vc-usd-lens-review-19056


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Tamron 24-70 VC Review Out (tested with 5D MkII)
> 
> http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f-2-8-vc-usd-lens-review-19056


 
   
  That's pretty excellent. Honestly, of all third party lenses, Tamron makes the best stuff so I shouldn't be surprised. I've professionally used my Tamron Macro on several occasions, and always been impressed with the results.


----------



## daigo

Quote: 





mercuttio said:


> That's pretty excellent. Honestly, of all third party lenses, Tamron makes the best stuff so I shouldn't be surprised. I've professionally used my Tamron Macro on several occasions, and always been impressed with the results.


 
   
  As someone new to photography and having my first two lenses purchased be Sigmas (the 17-50/2.8 and 30/1.4), I'm a little disappointed to hear that.  Both did perform as well as I had hoped on my recent trip through Europe with my 60D though, so I'm still happy to have them.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





daigo said:


> As someone new to photography and having my first two lenses purchased be Sigmas (the 17-50/2.8 and 30/1.4), I'm a little disappointed to hear that.  Both did perform as well as I had hoped on my recent trip through Europe with my 60D though, so I'm still happy to have them.


 
  Sigma makes some better lens than Tamron in certain focal ranges, and vice versa.  Both are top-notch third party lens manufacturers.  Both of your Sigmas are nice lenses, so I wouldn't worry.  If you ever want to try a little longer focal length, Sigma 70 mm f/2.8 Macro lens is a fantastic lens, as good or better than anything from anybody IME.  If you wanted even longer, the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Macro lens is another fabulous lens.


----------



## tomscy2000

FStoppers (a great photography blog) also reviewed it --- http://fstoppers.com/review-tamron-24-70mm-2-8-vc-vs-canon-24-70mm


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Sigma makes some better lens than Tamron in certain focal ranges, and vice versa.  Both are top-notch third party lens manufacturers.  Both of your Sigmas are nice lenses, so I wouldn't worry.  If you ever want to try a little longer focal length, Sigma 70 mm f/2.8 Macro lens is a fantastic lens, as good or better than anything from anybody IME.  If you wanted even longer, the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Macro lens is another fabulous lens.


 
   
  I agree. Both are good Sigma lenses. I wasn't a fan of the crazy coma flaring going on in the 30/1.4, but the 17-50 is a great performer. The 70 macro is great too.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





tomscy2000 said:


> at
> 
> FStoppers (a great photography blog) also reviewed it --- http://fstoppers.com/review-tamron-24-70mm-2-8-vc-vs-canon-24-70mm


 
   
  I liked the Nikonguy series on the Tamron 24-70.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE-2AnTmqo0
   
  For the fstoppers review, I am curious that they only tested the VC for video, not for stills.  For stills comparison, they put all the lenses on tripod, negating the advantage of Tamron's VC, which is why many would buy it, for sharper photos hand-held..
   
  Somebody out there should compare the Tamron 24-70 with decent prime lenses to really see its worth.  Comparing the Canon 24-70 with good primes was a rude awakening for me, which is why I still don't own a midrange zoom lens in my bag.


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





jon l said:


> I liked the Nikonguy series on the Tamron 24-70.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE-2AnTmqo0
> 
> For the fstoppers review, I am curious that they only tested the VC for video, not for stills.  For stills comparison, they put all the lenses on tripod, negating the advantage of Tamron's VC, which is why many would buy it, for sharper photos hand-held..
> 
> Somebody out there should compare the Tamron 24-70 with decent prime lenses to really see its worth.  Comparing the Canon 24-70 with good primes was a rude awakening for me, which is why I still don't own a midrange zoom lens in my bag.


 
   
  I think it's just implied that if the VC function worked well for video, it could easily provide 4 stops of image stabilization. VC is far more critical for video, anyways. They mainly wanted to test the pure performance of the optics in the Tammy vs. the Canon.


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





daigo said:


> As someone new to photography and having my first two lenses purchased be Sigmas (the 17-50/2.8 and 30/1.4), I'm a little disappointed to hear that.  Both did perform as well as I had hoped on my recent trip through Europe with my 60D though, so I'm still happy to have them.


 

 I'm not saying that Sigma makes poor lenses, though I have had bad experiences with their 50mm 1.4 and wouldn't buy another due to it. It could have been an isolated situation. When I managed to get it to nail focus at 1.4 it provided beautiful color and lovely smooth bokeh, but I was frustrated by my failure rate with it. The Canon 1.4 didn't make as nice images, but was more consistent so I stuck with it for a while before my 1.2.
   
  My reasons for not purchasing third party lenses are generally practical, not based on any brand loyalty; I've heard stories of older third party lenses not working properly on newer cameras, and I can't see buying any lens that won't provide me with a decent long-term value. No more, no less.


----------



## daigo

Quote: 





mercuttio said:


> I'm not saying that Sigma makes poor lenses, though I have had bad experiences with their 50mm 1.4 and wouldn't buy another due to it. It could have been an isolated situation. When I managed to get it to nail focus at 1.4 it provided beautiful color and lovely smooth bokeh, but I was frustrated by my failure rate with it. The Canon 1.4 didn't make as nice images, but was more consistent so I stuck with it for a while before my 1.2.
> 
> My reasons for not purchasing third party lenses are generally practical, not based on any brand loyalty; I've heard stories of older third party lenses not working properly on newer cameras, and I can't see buying any lens that won't provide me with a decent long-term value. No more, no less.


 
   
  I can definitely understand your stance.  As I am still learning photography, I was mainly looking for the budget friendly lenses that still provided good IQ and the Sigma lenses offered the best combination of price/performance for my crop body.  Sigma does get its fair share of complaints regarding bad auto focus (especially all the complaints about the 30/1.4), but with their great warranty, I went with them anyway. 
   
  If I were to make the next jump to a full frame camera body, I would also look primarily at Canon's lens offerings as they do hold values the best, as you stated.  But that would mean another very very expensive hobby


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





daigo said:


> I can definitely understand your stance.  As I am still learning photography, I was mainly looking for the budget friendly lenses that still provided good IQ and the Sigma lenses offered the best combination of price/performance for my crop body.  Sigma does get its fair share of complaints regarding bad auto focus (especially all the complaints about the 30/1.4), but with their great warranty, I went with them anyway.
> 
> If I were to make the next jump to a full frame camera body, I would also look primarily at Canon's lens offerings as they do hold values the best, as you stated.  But that would mean another very very expensive hobby


 

 I have such a weird relationship with lenses and lens brands.
   
  I actually like the build and general feel of Sigma a lot, and while I'm a little... confused by the silver shiny 90s plastic on my macro, I cannot argue with its brilliant results. The way the Sigma 1.4 felt in the hand was in every single tactile way superior to the Canon 50mm 1.4, and looked better on my Mark II to boot.
   
  In fact, I'm not terribly sure I like the feel of any Canon non-L lens. I'm picky about the build of stuff and while I really like the image quality of most consumer Canons I've tried, their build and tendency to ingest dust puts me off. I think Nikon aces Canon in the sub $1k category... their newer lenses may be made in China, but the plastics on their primes feel brilliant and the weather sealing is not something I'd ever kick out of bed.
   
  Canon L though, man. I haven't used one I've disliked yet. Image quality and build, there's no downside... apart from the price. I'm not totally convinced that Canon bodies are better built than Nikon bodies (My D200 felt in some ways more durable than my Mark II) but the lenses are what matter, and the L's are just fantastic for me.


----------



## tomscy2000

Yeah, the biggest problem with 3rd party lenses is AF accuracy/speed. It's tough to reverse-engineer the Canon AF algorithm perfectly. I had my Sigma 50/1.4 factory adjusted, so it works pretty well, but prior to that, it had problems with hitting focus, electing to front-focus about 25% of the time. However, I'm just unable to afford the Canon 1.2, so the next best option is the Sigma for me.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





mercuttio said:


> Canon L though, man. I haven't used one I've disliked yet. Image quality and build, there's no downside...


 
  Weight and size!  This is part of the reason why I've held on to the 35 f/2 while also owning the L.  For those days around town when the photography is secondary, the small size and light weight can't be beat. 
   
  Though, having a lens with a secondary purpose as a weapon can be handy. I think I could brain someone pretty easily with my 70-300L and the lens wouldn't skip a beat!


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Weight and size!  This is part of the reason why I've held on to the 35 f/2 while also owning the L.  For those days around town when the photography is secondary, the small size and light weight can't be beat.
> 
> Though, having a lens with a secondary purpose as a weapon can be handy. I think I could brain someone pretty easily with my 70-300L and the lens wouldn't skip a beat!


 
   
  Weight and size are indeed a down-side, though if they were a primary issue for me I'd use my wife's GF1 more I think.


----------



## jjacq

Planning to sell my 17-40 4L for a third party 2.8 lens. Should I do it or will I miss my L lens? I only have a 50mm 1.8 besides the 17-40mm lol.


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





jjacq said:


> Planning to sell my 17-40 4L for a third party 2.8 lens. Should I do it or will I miss my L lens? I only have a 50mm 1.8 besides the 17-40mm lol.


 
   
  Well, is your camera a full frame or no? Is the 2.8 as wide?
   
  I tend to think the 17-40 is a pretty specific use lens (daylight / landscape) that a lot of people buy simply because it is a good range for a cropped camera, and is the cheapest L... not necessarily because it suits their needs.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





jjacq said:


> Planning to sell my 17-40 4L for a third party 2.8 lens. Should I do it or will I miss my L lens? I only have a 50mm 1.8 besides the 17-40mm lol.


 
   
  If Canon could be bothered to improve the bokeh on their 50 f/1.8, it would be a seriously good lens.  I really wish Canon would..
   
  17-40 is something I've been looking at, and people seem to like it very well.  I probably won't buy Canon wide angle zooms until some concrete info appears on the rumored Canon 14-24mm though..
   
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canoneos5dmarkii/discuss/72157629582625248/


----------



## jjacq

Cropped and yeah I want an all-arounder. But should I just keep the 17-40mm then get a third party 2.8? I don't know is that the good way to go?


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





jjacq said:


> Cropped and yeah I want an all-arounder. But should I just keep the 17-40mm then get a third party 2.8? I don't know is that the good way to go?


 
   
  I'd drop the 17-40 and get a good 2.8 (or something with IS, if you don't care about movement) that is in the focal range you want, and feels good in the hand.
   
  Have you considered not doing a Zoom at all, but getting a good prime? The 35mm Canon L is fantastic on a cropped (and full frame) camera, and the only real difference is having to move your feet a little to get the shot you want. The sharpness and low-light performance you get are just wonderful in comparison... and it won't lose much if any value if you buy used.


----------



## jjacq

^thinking of getting a 24mm 2.8 I can't afford L. If that's good enough I'll probably just not use a zoomed lens at all. 24 or 28mm seems pretty nice. I used to have 35mm for Nikon on a cropped body and it still feels a bit too tight.


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





jjacq said:


> ^thinking of getting a 24mm 2.8 I can't afford L. If that's good enough I'll probably just not use a zoomed lens at all. 24 or 28mm seems pretty nice. I used to have 35mm for Nikon on a cropped body and it still feels a bit too tight.


 

 I have to use zooms for work, and never really enjoy them like I do a good prime. Could be the bokeh, could be the natural angle, it could be the fun of creating through restriction.


----------



## MadCow

Sigma 24/1.8 is also another option, very sharp optics, a bit more expensive than Canon's 2.8 but much, much cheaper than the 1.4L... but *if* (and *only* if) you get a good copy that focuses properly on your camera.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





mercuttio said:


> Weight and size are indeed a down-side, though if they were a primary issue for me I'd use my wife's GF1 more I think.


 

 Ha.  The first time I read this yesterday morning in bed on my tablet as I was waking up, I misread it and interpreted it that would use your wife as a camera sherpa!  I've been cast in that role myself a few times.
   
  What I would love and could cause me to sell all of my DSLR gear would be something around the size of a Canon G-Series with at least an APS-C sensor, interchangeable lenses, the ability to shoot RAW, a decent optical viewfinder, and, say 3-5 user selectable AF points with good ISO performance to 1600 or so.  The thing I dislike about most compact cameras is yes, they show you where they're focusing but you can't control the actual location.  If I had even just 3 AF points, I could do pretty much everything I need to do.


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Ha.  The first time I read this yesterday morning in bed on my tablet as I was waking up, I misread it and interpreted it that would use your wife as a camera sherpa!  I've been cast in that role myself a few times.
> 
> What I would love and could cause me to sell all of my DSLR gear would be something around the size of a Canon G-Series with at least an APS-C sensor, interchangeable lenses, the ability to shoot RAW, a decent optical viewfinder, and, say 3-5 user selectable AF points with good ISO performance to 1600 or so.  The thing I dislike about most compact cameras is yes, they show you where they're focusing but you can't control the actual location.  If I had even just 3 AF points, I could do pretty much everything I need to do.


 
   
  I actually tried a Leica M9-P yesterday, and was incredibly impressed by the way it felt and the ease of getting a sharp shot. I suppose it makes sense, it is sort of an ultimate evolution of manual focus.
   
  I was struck by something that made me very sad.
   
  I have no doubt that the price they're charging is fair and reasonable for them given the number they produce and the skill and cost that goes into production. I'm not angry at them for charging what they charge, but it's just such a shame that this is how they must survive. Shooting a rangefinder is a skill that will eventually become a lost art if only a select few people are able to afford it. If I could buy a complete M9 system (camera plus a single f/2 prime) for under $5000, I'd do it in a heartbeat and enjoy the hell out of it. At twice that, it's not something I can ever see myself affording without major sacrifices (selling all of my current audio and photo equipment).
   
  And if I did that, sell everything, I'd have all of my eggs in one basket. The simple fact that I was carrying $10k+ around my neck would make me far less daring with the camera. I probably wouldn't go to the crowded places I like to go in New York to shoot for fear of damaging my expensive baby.


----------



## leftnose

There is nothing in the world like a Leica camera.  My father, over the years, acquired three, an M2, M4, and M5 and several lenses.  I've sort of usurped the M2 with a 35mm pre-ASPH German Summicron.  In fact, this was the first "real" camera I ever used--I still remember my dad saying "you see the shadow? now match it to the object"--but I don't use it very often.  I don't mind at all the MF, Leica rangefinders are super easy to use and, with enough practice, you can learn to zone focus (my ability to do this very much depends on how much I've used the camera lately) but I'm bothered my ME.  I'm just not fast enough with a Luna-Pro and, having grown up in the world of AE, I'm not comfortable setting and forgetting exposure settings. I really feel the need to meter every shot.
   
  I've never tried an M9 (or an M8) but I'm a bit of a stick in the mud on this.  They might be wonderful cameras but, it seems to me that a Leica should be used with Plus-X (or Pan-X but I've never used it so I can't make that stand) or a good reversal film.
   
  You're not wrong that an M9 is pretty much what I describe above but, also, 10K is too much to spend on a camera and one lens.


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> There is nothing in the world like a Leica camera.  My father, over the years, acquired three, an M2, M4, and M5 and several lenses.  I've sort of usurped the M2 with a 35mm pre-ASPH German Summicron.  In fact, this was the first "real" camera I ever used--I still remember my dad saying "you see the shadow? now match it to the object"--but I don't use it very often.  I don't mind at all the MF, Leica rangefinders are super easy to use and, with enough practice, you can learn to zone focus (my ability to do this very much depends on how much I've used the camera lately) but I'm bothered my ME.  I'm just not fast enough with a Luna-Pro and, having grown up in the world of AE, I'm not comfortable setting and forgetting exposure settings. I really feel the need to meter every shot.
> 
> I've never tried an M9 (or an M8) but I'm a bit of a stick in the mud on this.  They might be wonderful cameras but, it seems to me that a Leica should be used with Plus-X (or Pan-X but I've never used it so I can't make that stand) or a good reversal film.
> 
> You're not wrong that an M9 is pretty much what I describe above but, also, 10K is too much to spend on a camera and one lens.


 
   
  I've actually a few times considered getting a film Leica setup, but my film experience with recent Nikon SLRs taught me that I'm awful at getting stuff developed or getting around to doing it myself. I really regret that it's not viable for me; having learned on film I feel like I should be much better with stuff like that.
   
  I think someday I'd like to get a used M9, once the next "big thing" from Leica has hit. I don't feel like it could really replace my 5D for work or certain aspects of the "for me" shooting I do, but it would be just the best companion camera.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





mercuttio said:


> I've actually a few times considered getting a film Leica setup, but my film experience with recent Nikon SLRs taught me that I'm awful at getting stuff developed or getting around to doing it myself. I really regret that it's not viable for me; having learned on film I feel like I should be much better with stuff like that.
> 
> I think someday I'd like to get a used M9, once the next "big thing" from Leica has hit. I don't feel like it could really replace my 5D for work or certain aspects of the "for me" shooting I do, but it would be just the best companion camera.


 
  The issue with film, especially for personal use, is "now what?"  OK, so you shot color print film, you can take it to the drug store and have prints made but you'll look at those prints once before they get filed away in the closet.  And don't even think about shooting reversal.  You might not even drag out the projector to even look at your slides once.  Digital makes it so much easier to work with your photos and share them.  In my mind with cameras like the 5D2 or newer and equivalents, digital has surpassed film EXCEPT for B&W.  Digital, even with PP in programs like SilverEfex, still doesn't have the feel of black and white film.
   
  An SLR is much more versatile than a rangefinder.  I was shooting some birds in my backyard over the weekend and scared them away so I turned to my garden:
   

   
  You just can't do that with a rangefinder.  You lack the precise focus and DOF control, not to mention parallax issues.  At some point you have to have both an SLR and a rangefinder in your bag.


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> The issue with film, especially for personal use, is "now what?"  OK, so you shot color print film, you can take it to the drug store and have prints made but you'll look at those prints once before they get filed away in the closet.  And don't even think about shooting reversal.  You might not even drag out the projector to even look at your slides once.  Digital makes it so much easier to work with your photos and share them.  In my mind with cameras like the 5D2 or newer and equivalents, digital has surpassed film EXCEPT for B&W.  Digital, even with PP in programs like SilverEfex, still doesn't have the feel of black and white film.
> 
> An SLR is much more versatile than a rangefinder.  I was shooting some birds in my backyard over the weekend and scared them away so I turned to my garden:
> 
> ...


 
   
  Have you heard about that Monochrome Leica M9 they might be announcing tomorrow? Some kind of special B&W sensor. Perhaps we'll see something a little closer to B&W. But it'll also most likely be even MORE expensive.


----------



## MadCow

Purple bokeh monster in da house!
   

   
  Man, this thing is SHARP. As in, wide-open 100L macro SHARP! My 50L is extremely jealous right now....
   
  On a side note, I was wondering about the odd placement of the model number on the lens barrel, until later while playing around with the lens more I found out that the entire front barrel rotates along with the focusing ring o.O


----------



## moxxymig

Anybody heard anything new re: the upcoming T4i/650D?  Hadn't seen anything new on canonrumors.  I'm seriously thinking of replacing my aging 40D.


----------



## Jon L

dup


----------



## Jon L

Yes, the 85L will spoil you. Coincidentally, I just received my 50L, which I hope is good enough to keep. At least it's AF seems to be working correctly, not even requiring microadjustment.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





moxxymig said:


> Anybody heard anything new re: the upcoming T4i/650D?  Hadn't seen anything new on canonrumors.  I'm seriously thinking of replacing my aging 40D.


 
   
  Other than an official annoucement from Canon themselves, I doubt anyone will be more informed than canonrumors.
   
  However, I have to say that having owned one, the 40D is still an amazing camera. Not sure why you would want to replace it with a lower end (albeit newer) model, why not wait for a 70D or 7D Mark II instead (or grab a used 60D/7D?).
   
  Quote: 





jon l said:


> Yup, owning the 85L will pretty much spoil you rotten for other lenses.
> Coincidentally, I just received my 50L, which I hope does well enough to stay around.  At least the AF was spot on, not even requiring microadjustment.


 
  AF accuracy is one thing that sets it apart from the other 50mm models, and with the extra-sensitive diagonal cross points of the 5D3 it should nail focus almost all the time.


----------



## daigo

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Yes, the 85L will spoil you. Coincidentally, I just received my 50L, which I hope is good enough to keep. At least it's AF seems to be working correctly, not even requiring microadjustment.


 
   
  Excuse me while I wipe the drool off of my chin.


----------



## Jon L

I have to give it to Canon for their superb glass, notwithstanding the somewhat lackluster sensor DR. As nice as 85L is, I think their TS-E 24mm II is their best glass..


----------



## Mercuttio

I adore T&S. That lens is fantastic, and I really wish I could justify the purchase of it for work. I just have to convince my office that product and location shoots require it...
  Quote: 





jon l said:


> I have to give it to Canon for their superb glass, notwithstanding the somewhat lackluster sensor DR. As nice as 85L is, I think their TS-E 24mm II is their best glass..


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





jon l said:


>


 
   
  I call the 24TS the 'Lilliputianator'... hehe


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





jon l said:


>


 
  Here are two topics where I have to admit complete ignorance: using TS and MF EF lenses.
   
  I've never used a TS lens but I know what one is able to do with them.
   
  However, I am more interested in MF EF lenses.  I understand that you get focus confirmation from the AF system if you have a single point selected?  I'm tempted by the Zeiss ZE lenses but, obviously, the viewfinder in my 5D2 is horrible for MF and I don't want to drag around a tripod to use magnified live view.  With focus confirmation, I might be tempted into a Zeiss 35mm f/2 which would only be my 6th lens for that focal length, but, whatever.


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Here are two topics where I have to admit complete ignorance: using TS and MF EF lenses.
> 
> I've never used a TS lens but I know what one is able to do with them.
> 
> However, I am more interested in MF EF lenses.  I understand that you get focus confirmation from the AF system if you have a single point selected?  I'm tempted by the Zeiss ZE lenses but, obviously, the viewfinder in my 5D2 is horrible for MF and I don't want to drag around a tripod to use magnified live view.  With focus confirmation, I might be tempted into a Zeiss 35mm f/2 which would only be my 6th lens for that focal length, but, whatever.


 

 Which focusing screen are you using? I've heard MF is way easier with this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590458-REG/Canon_3357B001_Eg_S_Super_Precision_Matte.html


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





mercuttio said:


> Which focusing screen are you using? I've heard MF is way easier with this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590458-REG/Canon_3357B001_Eg_S_Super_Precision_Matte.html


 
  I use the standard screen that comes with the camera, whatever that is.
   
  I've see that optional screen before but I have 8 AF EF lenses that I use on a fairly regular basis (and I'm thinking about buying a 100mm Macro) and that matte screen is much darker than the standard. Seeing as how I would probably be too lazy to swap out screens, it seems silly to install a darker screen that is really only suited for 1 out of 10 lenses.


----------



## Jon L

I probably would not recommend the Zeiss 35 f/2 so much. I had one, and I clearly preferred the Canon 35L. You will need to consider the expensive Zeiss 35 f/1.4 in order to slightly outdo Canon but only at wider than f/2.8. Some good comparison photos of all 35mm lenses here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-35mm-f-1.4-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx
   
  Now to something completely different. I just got in the Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 lens with EdMika brass EOS adapter.I'm again reminded how much I hate manual focusing on these modern cameras without split-prism screen, and the viewfinder is essentially useless. To make matters worse, the Dandelion focus confirmation chip is truly worthless, although I have been able to microadjust it to +10 to get semi-decent correlation with actual focus. The all-metal build quality of the FL 55mm as well as the compact, dense size for f/1.2 aperture is something else, however, and I hope Canon's rumored 35L mkII truly steps it up a notch.


----------



## moxxymig

Quote: 





madcow said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  I recently dropped the 40D and busted it. :-D  I'm debating fixing and later selling the 40D to help fund the update, and am considering the T3i/T4i (or a used 60D/7D, as you mentioned). I've had some bad luck with this particular 40D (sent to Canon twice before for ERR99 problems) but am still sticking with Canon because I've been quite happy with my lens set (100 macro, 17-55, 50 1.8), though my experience has made me leery of used bodies...any experience here?
   
  My primary subjects are my kiddos so it'd be nice to pick up the ability to do video with the same camera instead of having to swap back and forth.  I hear the T4i will have some sort of interesting focus features for video so I'm waiting to hear about that.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





moxxymig said:


> am still sticking with Canon because I've been quite happy with my lens set (100 macro, 17-55, 50 1.8), though my experience has made me leery of used bodies...any experience here?


 
  For your purposes, the new Nikon D3200 would have been perfect, at a very modest price even.  Canon currently has NO answer to the D3200 with the wonderful 24 MP Sony sensor, not even close in that price category.  If I personally only had 3 or so Canon lenses, I probably would have switched to Nikon bodies this time around withe the whole 5D III vs D800/e and 1Dx vs. 4D cycle.  But as you can see, I have tons of Canon lenses, so it goes..


----------



## Mad Max

Picked up a Canon ELPH 300HS and lookin' for a lens correction profile for Photoshop CS5.  Any clues?  I'd make my own, but I don't trust my eyes + LCD monitor, lol!  It's really dang hard.


----------



## Jon L

Canon FL55mm f1.2 lens..


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





mercuttio said:


> Have you heard about that Monochrome Leica M9 they might be announcing tomorrow? Some kind of special B&W sensor. Perhaps we'll see something a little closer to B&W. But it'll also most likely be even MORE expensive.


 
  Have you seen the review at: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leica-m-monochrom/
   
  There are a bunch of sample images and, to be honest, I'm not that impressed (with a caveat).  The photos are beautifully sharp and punchy in that unique Leica way but they have WAY too much contrast.  Very harsh.  I don't know if I'm reading between the lines too much but it seems that the author doesn't have a lot of B&W experience.  That's my caveat; I'd like to see results from a user who really knows how to shoot, "develop and print" real B&W to see what can be done.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Canon FL55mm f1.2 lens..


 

 not bad.  shot with a full frame? 
   
  I think I'll upgrade to a 7D in the future.......I can't seem to find definitive posts where people say it's significantly better in picture quality and video quality and color......but to my eyes I feel like I can see it pretty well.  Colors seem way more alive and pictures seem way more crisp---like a full frame.....
   
  currently using a 500D (Rebel T1i).  Lenses make the biggest difference of course.  Have a few really good "budget" ones.   Tamron F2.8 17-50mm, Tamron F4.5-5.6 18-200mm, and Rokinon (Samyang) glass fisheye.  All made only for APS-C sensors....... so I wouldn't want to upgrade to FF and have to buy all new lenses.


----------



## hyogen

don't know why it got resized this small...  took a long long time to upload for some reason..


----------



## Jon L

I don't like the new HTML forum format, as the photo uploads come out kind of unpredictable. A lot has to do with the advertisement bar on the right. Anyways, just trying to practice manual focusing with modern (aka useless-for-manual-focus) viewfinder.


----------



## hyogen

looks good  
   
  I stepped in some dog poo yesterday taking a nature macro shot


----------



## MadCow

What a coincidence, I also stepped on dog poo while taking this:


----------



## hyogen

nice shot 
  
  I feel like my newly acquired Tamron f/3.5-6.3 18-200mm lens is kinda expendable........
   
  don't think i'll be using the zoom too much.  It's nice to have I guess, but for most things I can just get closer with my 17-50mm (f/2.8).  (this lens is super useful from pretty wide angle to bokeh)
   
   
*I've organized my thoughts more and narrowed down to these 3 lenses I think...*
   
  Do you think I should shoot for a Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5+ ultra-wide for about $400 or less?  I can only use APS-C sensor lenses... and if I do I don't have to worry about the crop factor.   
   
  Or perhaps I should get a prime lens....    Perhaps the Sigma f/1.4 30mm?  for around $350-400?   If I do get this ultra wide lens, I could probably do without my fisheye, so that could be another motivating factor. 
   
  How about tamron f/2.8 70-200mm....probably not as useful as the 30mm
   
   
   
  again here are my lenses:  Tamron F2.8 17-50mm, Tamron F4.5-5.6 18-200mm, and Rokinon (Samyang) glass fisheye.  All made only for APS-C sensors......


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> nice shot
> 
> I feel like my newly acquired Tamron f/3.5-6.3 18-200mm lens is kinda expendable........
> 
> ...


 
   
  Honestly, I think you should go out and keep shooting with what you currently have now.
   
  From your post, I feel like you're still indecisive and not really sure what you want. e.g. you're asking about an ultrawide, a standard prime, and a telephoto zoom. All three different focal lengths with nothing in common.
   
  So my suggestion is to go shoot more first until you can be sure of what you are lacking, then decide. I mean... buying something while indecisive may just get you another lens that you aren't fully happy with. So narrow down your style and your needs first.


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> nice shot
> 
> I feel like my newly acquired Tamron f/3.5-6.3 18-200mm lens is kinda expendable........
> 
> ...


 
   
  The thing about lenses is that, 90% of the time, you don't need anything other than a 17-50. You'll be using a fisheye in about 0.5% of the shots you take, but it'll still be nice to have around for those one or two shots that come out nicely with a fisheye lens. These days, I end up shooting 90% of my shots with a 50/1.4; even my standard zoom doesn't get much camera time, except with I need a wide angle shot, or when I need to constantly switch between wide and tele. It all boils down to how you want to shoot. If you're not a wedding/sports/news photographer, you basically do not need a zoom. You also don't need anything <16mm if you're not shooting landscapes all the time.
   
  My vote is for the 30/1.4, and to get rid of the travel lens. You'll end up realizing that the ultrawide is more of a novelty item unless you're shooting landscapes all the time (then why not splurge for a 14 prime) or if you shoot video and need a versatile steadicam lens.


----------



## hyogen

Thank you. I have decided on the 30mm last night but glad you've reaffirmed my choice. I don't travel too much so superwide isn't very necessary.


----------



## hyogen

madcow said:


> hyogen said:
> 
> 
> > nice shot
> ...




Thanks. I know how I shoot, and the 17-50 is perfect. I realized I'd rather do nicer indoor shots and portraits than having more variety.


----------



## Jon L

For Canon fast prime shooters, I would like to share my enthusiasm for Canon DPP's digital lens optimizer (DLO) module. It's incredible what software can do for RAW files these days, and I am stunned what DLO can deliver in terms of getting rid of color fringing and delivering detail. Following are 85L II f/2.8 images with zero sharpening, ~400% crop.
   
  No DLO



   
  DLO set to 60 (out of 100)


----------



## MadCow

I played around with the new DPP for a bit when it came with DLO, but was put off by the size of the downloads, the speed of operation and the increase in RAW file size after processing. Furthermore, my primary software is Capture One so DPP is not part of my workflow process.
   
  But it seems like DPP saves all that huge chunk of extended DLO information in the RAW file, so perhaps once third party converters manage to read and interpret that data, I'll be interested in checking it out again.


----------



## hyogen

OK, I'm really confused now about crop factor.....
   
  I have a crop sensor camera (Rebel T1i).  Lately I've only gotten "only for APS-C" lenses because if I get lenses for Full frame "and/or" crop sensors....then I have to take the crop factor into consideration.....so if it's a 50mm lens...multiply it by 1.6 making it more like:  78 or so.
   
  From what my friend told me (which seems to differ from some reviews--not all--is that if you get a "crop sensor only" lens, what you see is what you get....so 50mm means 50mm).  This seems to make sense to me...........because:
   

 for example, my Rokinon (Samyang) fisheye lens is made only for crop sensors.  The fisheye is normal--like it should be.  If put on a full frame--is is kinda unusable--distorted and I think there is a black ring around the picture--but not like a fisheye that's made for a full frame.
 The lens I have now--Tamron f2.8 17-50mm is a terrific lens that is ONLY made for crop sensor - it is very wide.  In fact a little wider than my standard kit lens 18-55mm that came with the camera......  so does that mean I'm still only seeing 17-50 X 1.6 because of the crop factor??  
 The Tamron f2.8 28-70mm (I think) works on BOTH crop and FF.  28mm was really too narrow to be my all purpose lens.  I had to stand too far back........I'm guessing this is because it's 28mm times the 1.6 crop factor....making it more like........44mm
 I've had the common f1.8 50mm canon lens (I think only for APS-C) and that is pretty narrow.......50mm makes sense when compared to the 44mm (28mm x 1.6) on my previous lens..
   
  So.. this Sigma 30mm f1.4 that I've decided to buy is only made for crop sensor....is it gonna be 30mm?  I've read in some reviews that it'll be more like 50+mm........maybe the reviewer didn't know what he was talking about?  He also recommended the Canon 28mm f1.8 which was more sharp and about the same price, BUT for a crop OR full frame........and I believe he said on a crop sensor it'd be more narrow than the sigma 30mm...
   
  so I'm confused..    I'm guessing it doesn't make sense for me to get the Canon 28mm b/c it'll be way more narrow than the Sigma 30mm......am I correct in assuming this?    People were recommending the 28mm canon if you ever planned on going to full frame....which I dont plan on for probably 10 years......I think once I upgrade to a 7D in the next couple years or so, I'll be set for 10 years...  -_-
   
  Thanks


----------



## leftnose

Short answer: crop factor always applies.
   
  Long answer: anytime light passes from one medium to another (from air into glass or plastic, for example), it bends (refracts).  So, as light passes through a lens, it refracts twice: once as it enters the lens, and once again as it leaves the lens.  Very simply, light refracts around the "nodal points" of a lens (there are two for each lens).  The focal length of a lens is determined by the distance between the rear nodal point and the distance to the image capture plane (film, sensor, whatever).  So, a 135mm lens has a rear nodal point which is 135mm from the film or sensor.  A 50mm lens has a rear nodal point which is 50mm from the sensor.  This is a fixed PHYSICAL attribute.
   
  So, if were talking about Canon EOS cameras, a 50mm EF-mount or EFS-mount lens is always a 50mm lens as the distance from the rear nodal point to the sensor is fixed.  However, a crop sensor camera, whether APS-C or APS-H, has a smaller sensor which only captures light from a portion of the image circle projected by the lens.  So you have crop factor.  This means that an APS-C lens, with a crop factor of 1.6 sees the equivalent of an 80mm image when using  a 50mm lens.  I.E., if you put an 80mm lens on a 35mm film camera (don't confuse 35mm film with a 35mm lens) or full frame digital camera, the amount of "stuff" in the image would be the same as a 50mm lens used on a APS-C camera.
   
  So, the Sigma lens you reference: it is a 30mm lens.  However, it will give the same image as a 48mm full frame lens when used on an APS-C camera.
   
  Confused?  Remember the short answer.  Crop factor always applies.
   
  Me?  I looooove me some wide angle so I couldn't use a crop camera.  Full frame or nothing for me!


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Short answer: crop factor always applies.
> 
> Long answer: anytime light passes from one medium to another (from air into glass or plastic, for example), it bends (refracts).  So, as light passes through a lens, it refracts twice: once as it enters the lens, and once again as it leaves the lens.  Very simply, light refracts around the "nodal points" of a lens (there are two for each lens).  The focal length of a lens is determined by the distance between the rear nodal point and the distance to the image capture plane (film, sensor, whatever).  So, a 135mm lens has a rear nodal point which is 135mm from the film or sensor.  A 50mm lens has a rear nodal point which is 50mm from the sensor.  This is a fixed PHYSICAL attribute.
> 
> ...


 

 thanks for clearing this up....but hmm... I've seen some pretty wide pics using the crop-sensor-only 10-22mm lenses........so the full frame wide angle 10-22mm lenses will be even more wide?? 
   
  so I guess the 28mm canon (full frame and crop sensor) and the 30mm sigma (only crop sensor) will have about the same image, right?


----------



## MadCow

The 10-22's fullframe equivalent is 16-35, and 16mm is plenty wide. There aren't many full frame lenses (rectilinear) that go wider than that -- just a handful that I recall are the Canon 14mm prime, and the Sigma 12-24. But yeah, they exist and are truly ultra-wide.
   
  I wouldn't say 28 vs 30 would give the same image though... very close, but not exactly the same. But the Sigma is only built for crop sensors and wouldn't work on fullframe, whereas the 28 will work on both.


----------



## hyogen

madcow said:


> The 10-22's fullframe equivalent is 16-35, and 16mm is plenty wide. There aren't many full frame lenses (rectilinear) that go wider than that -- just a handful that I recall are the Canon 14mm prime, and the Sigma 12-24. But yeah, they exist and are truly ultra-wide.
> 
> I wouldn't say 28 vs 30 would give the same image though... very close, but not exactly the same. But the Sigma is only built for crop sensors and wouldn't work on fullframe, whereas the 28 will work on both.




It all makes sense now. Thanks


----------



## leftnose

So I bit the bullet and bought a 100 L Macro and a 430 EX II for my 5D2.
   
  Note that I have ZERO experience with macro photography or using an accessory flash with a tilt/swivel head.  But. I played around with the set-up this evening a bit and managed to capture this in the first few minutes.
   

   
  and a 100% crop from the in-focus area (or, at least it was 100% until the forum software did its thing):
   

   
  Click on it to enlarge.
   
  I have a couch which, by coincidence, is pretty close to 18% gray so I laid the subject down on it and bounced the flash off the back of the couch.  I had to take the lens hood off because it was casting shadows.  These JPGs wer generated from the RAWs by LR4 with no post processing other than a slight WB adjustment.
   
  The lens does seem to be front focusing just a bit so some adjustment might be in order there but I need to spend some time with it on a tripod instead of hand holding at such close distances!


----------



## leftnose

More fun!


----------



## hyogen

what do you do to adjust front or back focusing?  I think the sigma 30mm i'm about to get is known for a little backfocusing issue


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> what do you do to adjust front or back focusing?  I think the sigma 30mm i'm about to get is known for a little backfocusing issue


 

 It's a feature of certain bodies, basically the full frame bodies, 50D, and 7D.
   
  Basically, you take a series of photos while changing the MFA (microfocus adjustment) setting on the body.  Dial it in for front or back focus as necessary and voilà, adjusted focus.  Older cameras remember the setting but will apply the same setting to all copies of a given lens model mounted to the body.  The newer bodies, I believe, remember the adjustment for specific copies of lenses and can even adjust for multiple focal lengths of a zoom lens.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> So I bit the bullet and bought a 100 L Macro and a 430 EX II for my 5D2.
> 
> 
> The lens does seem to be front focusing just a bit so some adjustment might be in order there but I need to spend some time with it on a tripod instead of hand holding at such close distances!


 
  Front focusing?  You are not supposed to be using auto focus for macro shots!  Just kidding.  100L's AF actually works decently at Macro distances compared to some others, e.g. Sigma macro.  
   
  I just found out that my Bower (aka Phoenix) macro ring flash does not work with 5D MkIII, with the whole ETTL (which is the only mode avail) going haywire and firing full strength.  A bummer since I found out my Kenko 1.4x extender does not work well with 5D MkIII, either.  
  This should teach me to avoid third party accessories in the future, as there is no guarantee they will continue to work with newer Canon products.  
   
  I'm looking at the Canon ring flash and twin macrolite, which are over $500 and $800 respectively.  Darn, Canon does charge what it likes to charge..


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Front focusing?  You are not supposed to be using auto focus for macro shots!  Just kidding.  100L's AF actually works decently at Macro distances compared to some others, e.g. Sigma macro.
> 
> I just found out that my Bower (aka Phoenix) macro ring flash does not work with 5D MkIII, with the whole ETTL (which is the only mode avail) going haywire and firing full strength.  A bummer since I found out my Kenko 1.4x extender does not work well with 5D MkIII, either.
> This should teach me to avoid third party accessories in the future, as there is no guarantee they will continue to work with newer Canon products.
> ...


 

 If you ever want to attempt an exercise in futility, try hand holding a modern DSLR and MF a high magnification shot.  You can't see the focus through the viewfinder so that leaves live view.  You can't focus with live view unless you zoom in and then you can't compose properly.  Not fun.  I think I see a tripod like a Manfrotto 055XPOB with a tilting center column in my future.
   
  I've acquired my gear slowly over the last 15 years and I've always gone original Canon.  When I first started, 15 years ago, the big complaint about third party lenses was AF speed/accuracy.  Part of the reason why I went Canon over Nikon was for the improved AF--at the time, Nikon still only had AF motors in the body--so I've sort of stuck with Canon lenses ever since.


----------



## daigo

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> what do you do to adjust front or back focusing?  I think the sigma 30mm i'm about to get is known for a little backfocusing issue


 
   
  Only some Canon bodies have micro adjustment on the body.  The full frame cameras, 7D and 50D have it, while newer crop bodies like my 60D and entry level DSLR's like the Rebel series do not have it.  
   
  If you're getting that Sigma 30/f1.4 and have focusing issues, one option is to send your camera body and the lens to Sigma for them to calibrate the lens for you.  Thankfully, my Sigma 30/f1.4 didn't have focus issues and it's been a neat little lens that opens up some good opportunities for creativity.


----------



## hyogen

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/30mm-f14.htm

Looking at this side by side comparison would you strongly not recommend the Sigma? Friend says I should definitely spend 50 more for the canon 28mm f1.8 over the Sigma 30mm 1.4.....or even the canon 35mm f2.0

That the Sigma will be too soft 

The Sigma is aps-C sensor only, bit I don't really plan on upgrading for a long time to a ff... At least 5 maybe 10 years maybe never


----------



## hyogen

daigo said:


> hyogen said:
> 
> 
> > what do you do to adjust front or back focusing?  I think the sigma 30mm i'm about to get is known for a little backfocusing issue
> ...




Oh wow I did not see this. I'm in my car and posting from my phone. Thanks!


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/30mm-f14.htm
> Looking at this side by side comparison would you strongly not recommend the Sigma? Friend says I should definitely spend 50 more for the canon 28mm f1.8 over the Sigma 30mm 1.4.....or even the canon 35mm f2.0... That the Sigma will be too soft... The Sigma is aps-C sensor only, bit I don't really plan on upgrading for a long time to a ff... At least 5 maybe 10 years maybe never


 
   
  See for yourself with The Digital Picture's resolution chart comparisons... Honestly, I wouldn't worry about wide open performance. Even at f/2.8, I'd worry about center performance only. I only start to worry about corner sharpness from f/8-11


----------



## hyogen

tomscy2000 said:


> hyogen said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/30mm-f14.htm
> ...




Thanks. I agree but I'm at least guessing that I'll be using 1.4 a lot. Otherwise why am I getting it when I have a 2.8 17-50mm?


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> Thanks. I agree but I'm at least guessing that I'll be using 1.4 a lot. Otherwise why am I getting it when I have a 2.8 17-50mm?


 
   
_No one_ ever uses 1.4 a lot. I shoot a lot of low light stuff, and I never go under 2.2. Honestly, the biggest benefit of a prime is to give you better discipline in choosing framing, zooming with your feet, etc. It's not about IQ. Yes, primes have 'better' IQ than zooms, but the benefits aren't going to take your photography to the next level. It's the way you shoot that will.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> If you ever want to attempt an exercise in futility, try hand holding a modern DSLR and MF a high magnification shot.  You can't see the focus through the viewfinder so that leaves live view.  You can't focus with live view unless you zoom in and then you can't compose properly.  Not fun.  I think I see a tripod like a Manfrotto 055XPOB with a tilting center column in my future.
> 
> I've acquired my gear slowly over the last 15 years and I've always gone original Canon.  When I first started, 15 years ago, the big complaint about third party lenses was AF speed/accuracy.  Part of the reason why I went Canon over Nikon was for the improved AF--at the time, Nikon still only had AF motors in the body--so I've sort of stuck with Canon lenses ever since.


 
   
  On MF, what you say is true with the stock viewfinder screen. However, there are tricks, e.g. DOF is so thin that you can observe the DOF on the platform that the subject is on (if any). If a butterfly is on a leaf, for example, you can clearly see the DOF on the leaf. Or, if the camera supports interchangable screens, the high precision ones work very well (Eg-S on 5D II, for example).
   
  On tripod, I have the older 055 ProB (where the center column is not automatic, it takes a few extra steps to make it horizontal) and I don't think it is good enough for high magnification macro work. There's a lot of play in the center column when extend it horizontally. For tripod macro work, I'm eyeing one of the Gitzo models that don't have center column, but can extend really low -- and add a dedicated horizontal column separately.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





tomscy2000 said:


> _No one_ ever uses 1.4 a lot. I shoot a lot of low light stuff, and I never go under 2.2. Honestly, the biggest benefit of a prime is to give you better discipline in choosing framing, zooming with your feet, etc. It's not about IQ. Yes, primes have 'better' IQ than zooms, but the benefits aren't going to take your photography to the next level. It's the way you shoot that will.


 
  I don't know if I agree with that first part.  Tons of photogs shoot at f/1.4 or even f/1.2 frequently, especially for people shots with subject in the middle of the frame and a nice background that's melted away by the wide aperture.  I do agree that for landscapes, architecture, etc, stopping down is the norm.  
   
  It's also the case that we often tend not to shoot f/1.4 lenses at f/1.4 due to most (all?) having poor performance fully wide open.  I tend to prefer shooting my f/1.2-1.4 lenses stopped down just a tiny bit at around f/1.6-1.8 to preserve the bokeh (mostly) yet gain a little better IQ.


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





jon l said:


> I don't know if I agree with that first part.  Tons of photogs shoot at f/1.4 or even f/1.2 frequently, especially for people shots with subject in the middle of the frame and a nice background that's melted away by the wide aperture.  I do agree that for landscapes, architecture, etc, stopping down is the norm. It's also the case that we often tend not to shoot f/1.4 lenses at f/1.4 due to most (all?) having poor performance fully wide open.  I tend to prefer shooting my f/1.2-1.4 lenses stopped down just a tiny bit at around f/1.6-1.8 to preserve the bokeh (mostly) yet gain a little better IQ.


 
   
  I'd say that only happens when someone has a 50L, 85L, 135L, or whatever, and I would not say they shoot at that aperture 'frequently', especially if you compare it to all of the f/2.8 or f/8, f/11 shots they have. The number of f/1.2-f/1.4 shots is probably 1% of that... Yes, I stop down to 2.2 because the performance at 1.4 isn't what I like; the only two EF lenses I know of that have no (read: very minor) issues with wide open performance are already mentioned: the 85L and 135L.
   
  My real point was that *hyogen* shouldn't expect the 30/1.4 to be any sort of 'massive' boost in IQ over the 17-50/2.8, because it's really not. Yes, there are definitely noticeable benefits, and having the option to shoot at 1.4 is nice, but is it going to be a day and night difference, no. I have a 17-50; it's no 24-70L, but it's plenty adequate, even for pros. So what is a 30/1.4 going to provide? Well, the prime 'mentality', for one. Ever since I've been shooting with primes, I even shoot my zooms like primes. The last thing is that the 30/1.4 has massive coma flare wide open ---- probably its Achilles' heel.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





tomscy2000 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Well you've given me something to think about.  What in your opinion do you think I can benefit the most from?  the 17-50 f2.8 is super versatile...  my wife uses it a lot for indoor shots--taking pictures of the cat and other household items..  The bokeh is really nice actually, especially when zoomed in.  My thought for this 30mm f/1.4 was for more clear shots and much more blurry backgrounds.  Whether I take portraits or pictures of audio gear or other toys indoors or even outdoor shots.  I know I'll most likely have to step back a little to get the framing I want--I'm not a complete beginner at framing and such--I've been a bit of an enthusiast (not SLR) all my life and take more pics than anyone else I know.  I don't think i really need a prime to teach me how to frame shots..  Before I was into SLR photography i was into waterproof cameras and slow-motion (high speed cameras) and a lot of video.
   
  But anyway, just wanting to get the best bang for my buck right now.  I think I've ruled out the super wide angle 10-22mm because I don't travel that often and don't take too many shots of architecture or wide landscapes..  If I have a baby in the next couple years--I probably don't want to HAVE to buy another lens/camera...  so perhaps the 30mm is for me...or maybe slightly better quality 28mm f/1.8 Canon lens.. 
   
  Do any of you think I should keep my other lens, which I just acquired-- Tamron 18-200mm f3.5-6.3       That takes really sharp pics as does my 17-50...but of course can't really do bokeh unless zoomed in quite a bit.  I've noticed it's hard to keep steady when fully zoomed and needs a tripod (which I rarely take around). 
   
  I'll try to post some sample shots and maybe you'll get a feel for how I shoot--I'm open to improvement/advice!!


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





tomscy2000 said:


> _No one_ ever uses 1.4 a lot. I shoot a lot of low light stuff, and I never go under 2.2. Honestly, the biggest benefit of a prime is to give you better discipline in choosing framing, zooming with your feet, etc. It's not about IQ. Yes, primes have 'better' IQ than zooms, but the benefits aren't going to take your photography to the next level. It's the way you shoot that will.


 
   
  I shoot almost exclusively at 1.2, but that's because I am both a bokeh whore and love very selective DOF.
   
  I do use a filter in really bright daylight though, so I can stay at 1.2.


----------



## Mercuttio

I've been messing around with time-lapse on a few terraces at my office.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> My thought for this 30mm f/1.4 was for more clear shots and much more blurry backgrounds.


 
   
  If you are willing to fiddle with manual focus, I think the Samyang(Rokinon) 35mm f/1.4 lens is a tremendous bargain at $500.  MF is not so tricky with wider lenses like 35mm.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/655-samyang35f14eosapsc
   
  On the other hand, if really creamy background bokeh with portraits is what you want, and especially if you want autofocus, then you might want to consider something like the Canon 85 mm f/1.8, which can be had for around $380 new.  It's pretty sharp at f/1.8, and no 35mm lens is going to do bokeh like fast 85mm.
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/164-canon-ef-85mm-f18-usm-test-report--review


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> My thought for this 30mm f/1.4 was for more clear shots and much more blurry backgrounds.


 
   
  Unless you're quite close to your subject with the background a fair distance away, you're not going to get much bokeh with a wide angle lens, especially on a crop body.
   
  Buy a prime lens for the discipline it will force onto you (someone mentioned this earlier).  That discipline will teach you to take better photos.  Don't expect to snap on a prime lens and turn into Weston.
   
  It's fresh on my mind because I just bought one but have you thought about a macro?  The 60mm EFS macro isn't super expensive and I understand it makes for a good walk around lens as well as a good macro lens.  It is pretty long but it would make a good portrait lens and macro lenses are always good baby lenses.


----------



## jude

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> ...My thought for this 30mm f/1.4 was for more clear shots and much more blurry backgrounds.  Whether I take portraits or pictures of audio gear or other toys indoors or even outdoor shots...


 
   
  I've always loved the standard 50mm f/1.4 thing, and when I picked up my first DSLR (a crop sensor Canon), I wanted to get as close to 50mm f/1.4 as I could. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 was as close as I saw (48mm equivalent).
   
  I think you'll be able to get the blur (bokeh) you want with it. Here are some shots from when I first picked it up (I'm not presenting these as examples of high artistry, but as examples of blurred background):
   
   

  f/1.4
   
   

  f/1.4
   
  I later switched to Nikon, but loved the 30mm f/1.4 so much that it was one of the first lenses I picked up for Nikon, too. The following two shots were just test shots I took to test focus (both my Canon and Nikon 30mm f/1.4 Sigmas focused well), and the first photo shows some background and foreground blur.
   

  f/1.4 (Nikon version of Sigma 30mm f/1.4)
   

  f/2.2 (Nikon version of Sigma 30mm f/1.4)
   
  And sometimes, in real life, the big aperture comes in handy. A whole bunch of us went on a fall camping trip some years ago, and I took this photo (again with the Nikon mount version):
   

  f/1.8 (Nikon version of Sigma 30mm f/1.4)
   
  The only light was from the fire and embers (and that glow-in-the-dark necklace around the girl's neck). I tried using an f/2.8 lens, but it just didn't work in that little light--it was _very_ dark outside of that fire, as we were well away from any city lights. (I know it's noisy, but I'll take that over what a flash would've done to that shot.)
   
  So, again, I don't expect my photos to convince you, but I _love_ shooting with that lens. It might be safe to say I had more fun with that lens on two different Canons, and then a Nikon D300, than any other lens.
   
  Now that I moved to a full-frame sensor, I picked up a Nikon 50mm f/1.4G lens. Also, the increased high-ISO ability of the newer full-frame camera (relative to my previous cameras) does allow me to use f/2.8 when I'd previously have to turn to the f/1.4.


----------



## hyogen

hmm all your advice has given me something to think about.  the 35mm f/1.4 will at least give me a blurrier background than shooting with my 17-50mm f/2.8mm for most purposes outside--mostly portraits, I'm guessing.  full body and head/shoulder-like. 
   
  I didn't realize that wide apertures are not gonna give me as much bokeh, but I should've figured since you can make zoom lenses bokeh really well. 
   
  I think 85mm is way too narrow for me, because a big reason I want the 30mm 1.4 is for indoor pictures of just stuff--my wife has a blog--I like to take shots of audio gear, and we both like taking pics of our cat.  Eventually we'll have a baby.  Remember, I'm on a crop sensor also, so 85mm is gonna be like a zoom lens for me -_-
   
  Tried out the 18-200mm today..........I probably captured the best photograph (most interesting) ever today with the help of my cat bird watching outside my back window. 
   
  Definitely couldn't have gotten this close with the 17-50..  This is at 200mm (320mm on my camera) handheld.  These are some of the most sharp out of many shots I rapidly took: 
   
  Pictures were taking insanely long to upload, so I downloaded the smaller pics from facebook and uploaded those.
   

   
   
  I'm going to a Portland Timbers soccer game today, and the zoom lens will definitely come in handy.  Previously I had a 75-300mm cheap Canon lens, which took okay shots...this one seems to be a little higher quality, but I don't need 18-50mm since I have the 17-50 and I don't really mind switching lenses really fast from my bag.  I guess I'll get a prime for my indoor needs, sell this 18-200mm, and look for something like a better 100-300mm or so lens that isn't as crappy as the kit Canon one.  Perhaps teh Ultrasonic version with similar range, which is reviewed to be sharper. 
   
  More to come.  why is it so slow uploading even compressed facebook pics!!??


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





mercuttio said:


> I've been messing around with time-lapse on a few terraces at my office.


 
   
  Were you using a CineSlider of some sort?


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





tomscy2000 said:


> Were you using a CineSlider of some sort?


 
   
  Nope, just framing with intent to move the sequence in AE later on.


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





mercuttio said:


> Nope, just framing with intent to move the sequence in AE later on.


 
   
  Ah okay, I've been thinking about trying to shoot something with a slider synchronized to the rising and setting of the sun, but I can't get my hands on a slider...


----------



## Mercuttio

Quote: 





tomscy2000 said:


> Ah okay, I've been thinking about trying to shoot something with a slider synchronized to the rising and setting of the sun, but I can't get my hands on a slider...


 

 I mostly want to get one to change perspective. I feel like that separates the really great time-lapse from the amateur; a subtle change in perspective. I worked on a few clay-mation videos a few years ago, and we actually used a manual system to move the camera consistently between captures. Home built rig made out of a large threaded rod, piping, and skateboard wheels. Shame I don't have the patience or time to manually crank something like that for these...
   
  I also hear that some telescope bases can do this stuff very well.


----------



## hyogen

some pics I took with the Rokinon fisheye (fully manual)
   

   
  pics with the 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron
   
  This last one could have been better, but I feel fortunate enough to have caught this. 
   
  Just got back from a Portland Timbers soccer game....the 18-200 was perfect!!!!!  will post some pics soon.  I don't think I can get rid of it now....  in fact, I may just get the 30mm f/1.4 prime, sell the 17-50mm f/2.8, and keep the fisheye and 18-200mm.  I think I'll have pretty much all my bases covered--what do you think....get rid of the 17-50 2.8?


----------



## hyogen

wow, THE jude   Thanks for the pics--they look great.  I'm more encouraged to get the 30mm Sigma lens and also keep the 18-200mm now after finding so much use for it today. 
   





  the pics look a little hazy from the screen window I was shooting through at an angle I think. 
   
  I'll post a couple from today's soccer game.  pretty pleased with the results.  Used my tripod as a monopod on my lap or propped against my belt.


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





hyogen said:


>


 
   
  Your dollface Persian is adorable.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> This last one could have been better, but I feel fortunate enough to have caught this.
> 
> Just got back from a Portland Timbers soccer game....the 18-200 was perfect!!!!!  will post some pics soon.  I don't think I can get rid of it now....  in fact, I may just get the 30mm f/1.4 prime, sell the 17-50mm f/2.8, and keep the fisheye and 18-200mm.  I think I'll have pretty much all my bases covered--what do you think....get rid of the 17-50 2.8?


 
  This shot is so awesome despite being lacking in the technical sense. Great capture!
   
  In my opinion, I do not think it would be a good idea to lose the 17-50/2.8. The 18-200 may be great in good light, but I'm not sure if you will be happy with it replacing the 17-50 in less-than-optimal lighting conditions that you've been using the 17-50 in.
   
  A new 30/1.4 may do better in low light, but I think the 17-50 is just too versatile to get rid of.


----------



## tomscy2000

Quote: 





			
				hyogen said:
			
		

> get rid of the 17-50 2.8?


 
   
  I was too distracted by your kitty and didn't notice this line --- no way!


----------



## hyogen

haha, ok I'm going to keep the 17-50.  It was actually kind of nice to have the 18-200 range at the soccer game because I could take shots of my wife and I handheld without having to change lenses.  
   
  The bokeh I can get with the 17-50 f/2.8 is quite nice especially when zoomed in (probably to around 30-50mm.....so I guess the 30mm f/1.4 lens will be for shots where I can stand a little further from my subject and take portraits (like that of the little boy) and have a nice blurry background?   And indoor shots when I can stand back far enough..  otherwise, taking pics of stuff like headphones -- that should probably be the least of my worries since the 17-50 2.8 does bokeh pretty well at around 30-50mm.  It's labeled as a "MACRO" lens.....as is the 18-200mm..  the 18-200mm is not really ideal for macro I've found--you have to be too far from the object and need a tripod.  
   
  Thanks for the cat compliments--will be sure to not let her hear them.  This is my first cat ever and I'm quite unhappy that she hisses at me pretty much everyday when I pick her up and hold her with her lying on her back.  She's used to be super sweet all the time.  We take her for walks and in the car a lot--she's used to it.  I guess my plans of raising her like a dog won't pan out forever.  FYI, she is a Persian Chinchilla (non-extreme...the extreme ones have really scrunched up faces).  We might be looking for a stud actually so we can have one litter of kittens.  
   
  Back to lenses, here are shots from yesterday taken with the 18-200mm Tamron.  I downloaded from facebook, so they aren't as sharp as the originals..I also normally take pics at I think 4-5MP.  Some but not all were taken at around 1/500 at either 3200 or 1600ISO.  Again, used the tripod as a monopod on my lap / hip when standing up.  
This is where we were sitting.  It's the front section I think Row K.  I might buy tickets for the LA Galaxy Game (worse seats and more expensive--but Beckham and Donovan will be playing........)   #12 was a korean player named Lee Young Pyo (Y.P.Lee), who my wife recognized as being one of the top players in Korea back in the day...played in the World Cup(s) and on Korea's national team for many years.  She was quite surprised to see him playing for the Vancouver (BC) Whitecaps. He is 35 now apparently  This is the Timbers' 2nd season on the MLS.  We have a couple of pretty good players.  If you follow soccer you might have seen a clip of Nagbe's famous goal where he juggles the ball (once) and then kicks it into the goal while still in mid-air.   Goooooal.  Someone's hand got in my shot           
   
  After last night, I am lusting even more for the 7D for the much higher FPS.  I used to have a Casio Exilim point and shoot that took 40 full sized pictures in one second (10pics with strobe flash).  It was one of their high-speed models---always was really fun to take pics and shoot videos with.  (EX-FH20 I believe)


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> The bokeh I can get with the 17-50 f/2.8 is quite nice especially when zoomed in (probably to around 30-50mm.....so I guess the 30mm f/1.4 lens will be for shots where I can stand a little further from my subject and take portraits (like that of the little boy) and have a nice blurry background?   And indoor shots when I can stand back far enough..  otherwise, taking pics of stuff like headphones -- that should probably be the least of my worries since the 17-50 2.8 does bokeh pretty well at around 30-50mm.  It's labeled as a "MACRO" lens.....as is the 18-200mm..  the 18-200mm is not really ideal for macro I've found--you have to be too far from the object and need a tripod.


 
  For the sake of the forum format and keeping it very simple: depth of field (depth-of-field is the portion of your photograph that is _in focus_--that which is _out of focus_ we'll call bokeh or blur) is determined by several things.  The most crucial of those things are focal length, aperture, and distance to subject.
   
  The first thing to remember is that you have a certain distance in focus.  Your depth of field will surround this area in focus and everything inside that field will appear in focus as well.  For any given depth of field, roughly 1/3 of it is in front of the focus distance and 2/3 behind the focus distance.  So, you will have twice as much in focus behind your subject than in front.  So, if you focus distance is set at 10-feet and your focal length, and aperture combine such that you have depth of field 6 feet deep, roughly everything from 8 feet to 14 feet will appear in focus.
   
  Now we look at focal length and aperture.  If you divide the focal length by the maximum f-stop, you will get an indication of how much bokeh you can get (i.e. how much will be out of focus).  A 35mm f/2 lens - 17.5.  An 85mm f/1.2 lens ~71.  A 600 f/4 lens ~150.  The higher that number, the more blur you can get.  So, inherently, wide angle lenses physically cannot deliver as much bokeh as a telephoto.  Yes, you can still get blur but not as much.  FWIW, the quotient in these calculations actually means something but it's too much detail for this discussion.
   
  Now, finally, lets look at distance to subject.  Let's say, for example, that your focus distance is set to 10 feet.  So something that is 5 feet behind it is 50% farther away than the focus distance.  Now lets say your focus distance is 50 ft: something that is 5 feet farther away is only 10% farther than the focus distance.  To get the same 50% farther away than the focus distance, you're talking 75-feet.  So, the farther that something is from the camera, the more around it will be in focus.
   
  Ultimately, if you want Bokeh, you're talking telephoto lenses, big aperatures, and close distances (or very large difference in distance between in-focus subject and background).  Wide angle lenses, even fast ones, just can't get the same job done.
   
  A couple of examples:
   
  I don't remember the exact settings but this was shot at a large aperture so there should be a pretty narrow depth-of-field but the focus distance is pretty far and it's a pretty wide lens so both of those minimize bokeh and pretty much everything is in focus:

   
  This was shot with a 100mm Macro at f/2.8 so large aperture, somewhat long lens, and very close focus distance (this is about 90% of the original image.  I did a slight crop to fix the composition and straighten it a bit).

  You can see the OMEGA on the right is in focus but parts of the gear train and mainspring only millimeters farther away are already out of focus.
   
  So, similar apertures on the two above, but different focus distances and focal lengths lead to very different depths of field..  I don't have it in my Photobucket account but I could show you an image shot at 300mm @ f/5.6 that has the creamiest, smoothest bokeh you'll ever see.  Long lens, focus distance very close, and a background quite far away.
   
  Long story short, remember that focal length, focus distance, and aperture all have an effect on bokeh.
   
  EDIT:
   
  Here's another example:
   

   
  This was taken with the same 100 Macro @ f/2.8 but you can see that the focus distance is much farther away (but still quite close).  Here you can see the depth of field getting larger, probably a 1-2 inches deep instead of millimeters even with the same lens and aperture.  Again, farther focus distance, more depth of field.


----------



## hyogen

ah that makes a lot of sense.  Thank you.  I actually joined a Canon photography forum--haha....yet another addiction to conquer.  I've been realizing that more this past weekend.  I guess that's why people use like an 85mm for portraits and not a wider lens.  With a f/1.4 aperture I tend to think I'm gonna get so much bokeh, but that'll really only be for when I'm really close to the subject.  Whereas, a long focal length lens I can use at a farther distance and still get a lot of bokeh...the only limitation is that I have to get far enough away from the subject to fit them in my frame of view.  And this is why I feel like I want way more bokeh when taking pictures/portraits outdoors using my 17-50mm 2.8.
   
  so...........in that case... what lens should I get?  Now that I'm pretty sure that I'm keeping this quite useful 18-200mm (3.5-6.3) lens?  Another thing I realized was how much of a difference 3.5 and 4.5 apertures are.  I'm surprised at how much better this 18-200 performs than my previous 75-300 4.5+ lens.  I'm sure it has to do with the quality of the glass as well. 
   
  Lastly, I'm also finding that f/2.8 is slightly lacking for me indoors in some cases...wish it were faster for actions shots in lower light indoors.  So that might still point me to the 30mm 1.4


----------



## leftnose

Talking full frame, 85, 135, and, even, 200mm are classic "head and shoulder" portrait lenses because they allow the photographer to stand far away from the subject and still fill the frame with the head and shoulders.  If you wanted to do the same with 35mm or 50mm, you'd have to stand very close to the subject and you'll get a very weird looking subject because of the perspective.  You'll end up with big noses, foreheads, chins, etc..  A little like the dog you photographed while sitting above.  His muzzle looks very long because of the short focal length and short distance to subject.  35mm or 50mm make good full body portrait lenses, though.
   
  Remember crop factor, though, so a 50mm lens on a crop body is a pretty good head and shoulders portrait lens.
   
  Sorry if I'm monopolizing this thread: slow day at work today!
   
  Bottom line, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 will make an excellent indoors lens because it is fast and it is a good length for full body portraits; it's probably _a little_ short for head and shoulder portraits.
   
  FWIW, the Scott Kelby books are generally good and easy to digest if you want to buy a reference for the "rules and guidelines" of photography.


----------



## hyogen

i gotta leave for class..will read above post soon more thoroughly. 
   
  in other news.....my 18-200mm lens just sold on amazon........lol.  so I guess i have even more options now...........  i sold for a little more than $50 profit....bought on craigslist....
   
  so if my budget is now more like 550-650.............is there any one or two lenses you'd recommend for me?   I'm open to buying the exact same 18-200 lens again on craigslist     so maybe something that is more like a good quality 85-300 zoom?? 
   
   
  keep in mind i have 17-50 2.8 still, fisheye.   please help me cover my bases...  i
   
   
   
  30mm 1.4 still?  save a little more for a 35L lens........?      Remember I plan on upgrading to the crop 7D in a year or two.  I doubt i'll go fullframe for a long while.


----------



## leftnose

Here's the 300mm image I mentioned.  It's not a good photo but I was playing around with the lens and I was struck by the bokeh.  Subject flower was pretty close to minimum focus distance (~4 feet) and the background was about 10 feet farther away and you can see that the somewhat small aperture of f/5.6 still gets the job done because of the combination of focal length and subject distance.


----------



## Jon L

Yeah, with long focal length, one can often get away with highish f/stop and still get some nice bokeh. Following is a 280mm shot (70-200 at 200mm+ 1.4x Kenko Teleconverter) at f/4.5. Unfortunately, to get even longer reach than 280mm with great IQ quickly ruins the pocketbook. Anybody have good experience with Canon 400mm f/5.6 (unfortunately won't AF with teleconverter and no IS) or third party lenses >=400mm?


----------



## hyogen

How is your teleconverter? My friend suggested I start shooting in raw instead of 3.2MP... Then crop the image to get 300mm out of a 200mm... Haha.. Of ourselves since my camera is a crop ill get more with the 1.6factor


----------



## Jon L

I think the Kenko DG or DGX ("X" gives you correct Exif data in files)1.4x teleconverters are the best third party TC from what I've seen and read. I've seen comparison with Canon 1.4x MkII where Kenko was sharper. I took below photo yesterday at 280mm f/4.


----------



## hyogen

Wow that's nice. What specific 70-200 lens? Are you on a full frame?


----------



## Jon L

Canon 5D III with Canon 70-200 f/2.8 MkII.  Granted, great gear for Kenko to work with


----------



## hyogen

hehe, so with my new budget...any single lens recommendation or other 2 lens combination?  like 600 or so.. 
   
  should i try to score a used canon L lens?


----------



## Jon L

Unfortunately, used Canon L lenses go for around 90% of new prices on eBay.
   
  For your budget, I personally would get the 
[size=1.7em] Sigma 70mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens[/size] http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Macro-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000GPHQWO/ref=pd_cp_p_1
   
  I've had it before, and it's sharper than the Canon 100 mm f/2.8L Macro, and the best thing is it's $499 NEW.  It's also a full frame lens, should you upgrade to FF camera in the future.  The 70mm is nicer than 85mm for closer indoor type work, yet better than 50mm for portrait work, and the Macro ability is awesome.  I believe it's the best/sharpest lens Sigma makes.  
   
  One does not buy a Sigma lens without option to return it or exchange, so I would buy new.  I loved it while I had mine, but I eventually returned it due to funky autofocus while in live view, which may be better with new production.  It always worked perfectly via viewfinder.


----------



## leftnose

Don't take this the wrong way but it sounds like you have a bit of extra cash and want to spend it on a new lens without truly having a defined need.  Honestly, that's a mistake.  Lenses and cameras are tools, not solutions and you won't magically get better photos changing from one lens to another.
   
  I know I mentioned a macro lens and Jon does the same above but have you thought about buying an accessory flash with a tilt/swivel head?  I recently got a 430 EX II and I couldn't be more pleased at how easily it works.
   
  For taking snaps of your cat indoors, bouncing the flash of the ceiling will probably do more to improve your IQ than buying a fast lens and a 430 EX II plus a good charger and batteries is well within your budget.


----------



## hyogen

you're right.  before I read this I backed out of getting a Sigma 10-20mm for really cheap on craigslist today.  Could have sold for an easy $50 profit and made more for my budget...but for now I think I'm not lacking too much.  I won't miss anything too much...what I really want and I'll get once I get into school is the canon 7D. I'm so impressed with how vibrant and sharp photos and videos are.


----------



## MadCow

I've got to agree with leftnose. Proper usage of flash indoors can make a huge difference. Though I have to say that bouncing off the ceiling is usually not the best option. It's still a lot better than direct, head-on flash, but ceiling bounce often results in not-so-pleasing shadows under a person's eyes. If you have to bounce off a ceiling, either add a bounce card to direct some of the light forwards to soften the shadows, or use a slower shutter speed to add some ambient light to the mix.
   
  Here's a shot of my 4-month old son, with flash bounced off a nearby wall on the left:

   
   
  The 430EX II is a good suggestion, not too expensive and pretty decent power output. Also, after you get the 7D later, you will find that the 7D can use its built-in flash as a wireless commander to control the 430EX. Then you can start experimenting with multiple off-camera flash setups, e.g.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





madcow said:


> The 430EX II is a good suggestion, not too expensive and pretty decent power output.


 
  The 430EX II is certainly a nice performer, especially with the current Canon rebate.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Speedlite-II-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001CCAISE
   
  On the other hand, my 580EX II has much higher build quality, so it might be worth it for the power user.  
   
  And yes in general I do believe, lighting >> lenses > camera body.


----------



## Jon L

And for a nicely-built compact flash diffusor, I like the ColorRight "FlashRight Pro," which shoots part of the light to ceiling/wall and part of light to your subject.  Some call it glorified bounce card, which it is, but due to the small size and better light control (via differently shaped inserts), I find myself carrying it much more than large bounce cards.  
   
  It's way overpriced at MSRP, but they often have sales, like the one they are having today (last day!) for 72% off with coupon code [size=13.333333015441895px]DO72[/size]
   
http://colorright.com/colorright_flashright_store/flashright-pro-flash-diffuser.html


----------



## MadCow

That's an odd-looking diffuser, even odder than some of the Gary Fongs that I've seen. Bet it's a good conversation starter.


----------



## MadCow

On a semi-related note, I just bought a new 270EX II for times when I want to go out without my larger flashes, but still have something for a bit of fill light when needed.
   
  It seems like quite a powerful unit, despite its diminutive looks. In my living room, I could get it to expose properly from a ceiling bounce at f/11 ISO400. Also, it supports manual exposure up to 1/64 power which may be useful for triggering optical slaves. It can also act as a slave for Canon's wireless system, but unfortunately stays in only one group (A).
   
  The remote trigger button is... less useful, but it does make my RC6 remote redundant.


----------



## Jon L

I was looking at the new 320EX as well, but the fact is, If I leave my house without the honking 580EX II, I feel somewhat "unprotected."  What we really need is off-board speedlites that levitate on their own and follow around the photographer without brackets, tripods, etc.  One can dream..


----------



## leftnose

jon l said:


> I was looking at the new 320EX as well, but the fact is, If I leave my house without the honking 580EX II, I feel somewhat "unprotected."  What we really need is off-board speedlites that levitate on their own and follow around the photographer without brackets, tripods, etc.  One can dream..



Can you make a 400 f/2.8 do the same?


----------



## daigo

Quote: 





jon l said:


> I was looking at the new 320EX as well, but the fact is, If I leave my house without the honking 580EX II, I feel somewhat "unprotected."  What we really need is off-board speedlites that levitate on their own and follow around the photographer without brackets, tripods, etc.  One can dream..


 
  I can see some crazy shoulder mounted rig in your future.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





daigo said:


> I can see some crazy shoulder mounted rig in your future.


 
  I'm thinking this one.  I already own two strip softboxes which are in the video!
   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k1LK6pmozs&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## MadCow

Anyone else considering the new 40/2.8 pancake? Relatively cheap and tiny... reminds me of the Panasoni 20/1.7 on m43 camera, but faster (dof-wise).
   
  (edit) Additionally, the hybrid AF of the new 650D looks very interesting. Although I don't do video much, having a snapper AF during live view focus would still be very welcome.


----------



## daigo

Quote: 





madcow said:


> Anyone else considering the new 40/2.8 pancake? Relatively cheap and tiny... reminds me of the Panasoni 20/1.7 on m43 camera, but faster (dof-wise).
> 
> (edit) Additionally, the hybrid AF of the new 650D looks very interesting. Although I don't do video much, having a snapper AF during live view focus would still be very welcome.


 
  Probably not as my 60d is already a large body, so a tiny pancake lens doesn't make it more portable.  I wonder if the lens is just a prelude to Canon introducing their own line of smaller entry level bodies to compete with the micro 4/3's crowd.


----------



## liamstrain

Just saying hello again. After abandoning Canon when they rendered all my FD glass useless in the late 80s, I am back - having sold my Nikon dSLR gear to get a used 5DmkII and a few lenses (thanks KEH) to meet my digital needs. 
   
  Won't replace my 4x5 yet - but I'm very happy.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





daigo said:


> Probably not as my 60d is already a large body, so a tiny pancake lens doesn't make it more portable.  I wonder if the lens is just a prelude to Canon introducing their own line of smaller entry level bodies to compete with the micro 4/3's crowd.


 
  I won't buy the new pancake, either.  My 35mm f/2 isn't so big that I can't manage and it's also a stop faster.  40mm on a crop body is a weird focal length and the flange-to-sensor distance for an EF lens is, what? 45mm?  So a compact EF body cannot be too compact.


----------



## hyogen

madcow said:


> Anyone else considering the new 40/2.8 pancake? Relatively cheap and tiny... reminds me of the Panasoni 20/1.7 on m43 camera, but faster (dof-wise).
> 
> (edit) Additionally, the hybrid AF of the new 650D looks very interesting. Although I don't do video much, having a snapper AF during live view focus would still be very welcome.




so this camera might have a better video mode that the 7D. Probably close in color and quality with the new processor also


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Just saying hello again. After abandoning Canon when they rendered all my FD glass useless in the late 80s, I am back - having sold my Nikon dSLR gear to get a used 5DmkII and a few lenses (thanks KEH) to meet my digital needs.


 
  Do you still have those FD lenses?  If so EdMika is doing some wonderful things for glassless FD to EOS adapters.  
   
http://www.ebay.com/sch/ed_mika/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=&_trksid=p3686


----------



## Jon L

It would have been awesome if it was 40 f/2.0 instead. At least MTF chart looks like it will be reasonably sharp in the center at f/2.8.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Do you still have those FD lenses?  If so EdMika is doing some wonderful things for glassless FD to EOS adapters.
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/sch/ed_mika/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=&_trksid=p3686


 
   
  Well now that is interesting. I do still have some of the lenses (the 55/1.2, 17/4L and a few others).


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> so this camera might have a better video mode that the 7D. Probably close in color and quality with the new processor also


 
  Quite possible. Not sure how good the audio portion would be though... but it does have built-in stereo mics and mic input. The 7D, on the other hand, looks to be getting some improvements in that area (manual audio levels and wind cut filter):
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/canon-eos-7d-firmware-version-2-coming-soon/


----------



## Jon L

Even older than FD lenses, I have the FL55mm f/1.2 converted with EdMika EOS adapter with focus confirmation chip. These things are all metal and are built so much better than current plastic EOS lenses, it's not even funny.


----------



## leftnose

Anyone notice Canon's new cover photo this week?
   
  https://www.facebook.com/CanonUSA


----------



## laxlife1234

Wow, just saw this thread! What up my fellow canonites! 
   
  I use just downgraded/upgraded my 5D2/70-200 for 5Dc + 50L + 85LII (ultimate portrait set-up )


----------



## MadCow

Just got the new 600EX-RT flash. First impressions are: feels very solid, not too heavy, easy to control. I like the beep function, which will be useful to know when it has fully charged when used off-camera. I plan to get 2-3 more of these along with the ST-E3RT within the next couple of months.
   
  600EX-RT with some of its relatives, old and new:

   
   
  I also got to test the new 40mm f/2.8 pancake at the store. Initial impressions are very good -- very sharp wide open, even in corners. STM isn't as quiet as USM, but better than the AFD of the 50/1.8 and 35/2.0. And speaking of the 35/2.0, it's the reason I'm hesitant to buy the pancake. The 40mm is a bit too close to 35mm, and is a stop slower. The good thing about the pancake is that it takes up almost no space in the bag when mounted, so e.g. it should be able to fit into "body-only" bags such as the ThinkTank Shapeshifter. The front element also extends when focusing (similar to the 50/1.8 and 35/2.0), so it is vulnerable to accidental knocks if you do not manually retract it after use (and a lens hood doesn't help protect it since it screws onto the moving part, unlike the 35/2.0).﻿﻿


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





madcow said:


> I plan to get 2-3 more of these along with the ST-E3RT within the next couple of months.
> 
> 600EX-RT with some of its relatives, old and new:


 
   
   
  Wow, that's a lot of $$$ into Canon speedlite goodness.  Plan to shoot on location?  I've got my Alien Bees for non-mobile use for now and 580 EX II , 430 EX II, with ETTL-capable Yongnuo's with ETTL wireless triggers for location work, but I must confess it's rather a pain to haul all that light in addition to the heavy camera and lenses.   I often find myself just grabbing the 580 EX II with a good diffusor..


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Wow, that's a lot of $$$ into Canon speedlite goodness.  Plan to shoot on location?  I've got my Alien Bees for non-mobile use for now and 580 EX II , 430 EX II, with ETTL-capable Yongnuo's with ETTL wireless triggers for location work, but I must confess it's rather a pain to haul all that light in addition to the heavy camera and lenses.   I often find myself just grabbing the 580 EX II with a good diffusor..


 
   
  No plans actually... the main reason I'm going with speedlites instead of monolights is because over here, they're inconvenient to find, purchase and maintain. Very few dealers import brands like Elinchrom, and most local studios over here use China-branded stuff. Furthermore, it's not easy to just login to a (local) online store and order a new fuse or bulb when one blows, and then get it 1-2 days later.
   
  So... speedlites for convenience, and also the potential to use high speed sync outdoors.


----------



## leftnose

Did somebody say bokeh?
   

   

   
   
   
  Both taken with my 70-300L.  I think I need to do a bit of MFA with this lens but I have been too lazy.  It seems to front focus just a bit.
   
  These are JPGs straight from the camera; I generally shoot RAW + JPG.  Super harsh lighting conditions: both taken at about 2PM.  I'll have to check the EXIF when I get home but I think I dialed in 2/3 stop overexposure to be sure to get better facial detail. 
   
  EDIT: well, not really straight from the camera, they've been downsized and de-res'ed for webviewing but you get the idea.


----------



## MadCow

Very smooth bokeh for a zoom lens. I really like this lens a lot, though I seldom shoot at this focal length to justify owning one.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





madcow said:


> Very smooth bokeh for a zoom lens. I really like this lens a lot, though I seldom shoot at this focal length to justify owning one.


 
   
  Back at a time when my funds were more limited than they are now, I owned two lenses, the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 and 100-300 4-5.6 to go with my A2 body.  I got very accustomed to having two lenses in this range but now they're the 24-105L and the 70-300L. 
   
  I've got a Lowepro Toploader with a lens caddy that carries this set-up plus a charger and spare memory cards perfectly.  It's what I carry probably 70% of the time and is what I call my "standard" set-up.  I've never felt I couldn't get the image I wanted by carrying just these two lenses.  If I'm going after the last bit IQ, I'll carry several primes instead or, if I'm doing landscape, I'll swap a 17-40 for the 24-105 but being able to carry only two lenses is just super convenient.
   
  EDIT: typo


----------



## hyogen

Is the speedlight 270EX...cheapest speedlight like $150 new on Amazon worthless for most applications other than close-quarters?  About how much brighter is it than the stock flash on a Rebel? 
   
  here are some pics I took in Cabo recently...will keep adding more--still have 2/3 days I haven't uploaded yet.  Critiques welcome.  except for the fisheye, used the tamron 17-50 2.8 lens.  Really wish I had a flash for the really low light evening shots.  Makes me want to get the 30mm 1.4 reaaaally badly now. 
   
  I did a little bit of contrast/color adjustments that took 2 seconds in Picasa.  These shots were uploaded at normal quality on facebook--hence the major compression. 
   
  http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151074865413638.488337.658243637&type=1&l=389a187693


----------



## Jon L

Love Cabo.  Gotta go back soon...
   
  I would only recommend the 270EX if the smallest possible size is the principal consideration.  Once you start using speedlites, you will want more flexibility and power, especially due to light output loss from diffusors/modifiers, which you WILL want to use.  
   
  If you don't want to pay for Canon 430 EXII, then I can recommend the Yongnuo YN467 which can be bought $69 shipped and is fully ETTL compatible with Canon.  It's just as good as Canon 430EX II (I have both) and powerful enough for most situations.  
   
http://www.ebay.com/itm/TTL-Speedlite-Flash-Unit-YN467-Canon-T1i-T2i-50D-40D-7D-/310381911355?pt=Digital_Camera_Flashes&hash=item4844341d3b#ht_3015wt_1368


----------



## MadCow

Yup, you only get the 270EX for its size. For serious use, go for 430EX or equivalent.


----------



## DougT

I am a long time Canon fan and have owned  2) 1D mark II,  G10, and a Vixia HF G10. Currently I own a 50D and 5D mark II and a G12. Canon "L" lens: 50mm 1.2, 100-400 IS, 40-70 IS and a 10-24 Tamron, Focus speed is a combination of the camera and lens communication but also the light level and subject movement as well as things between you and the focus point. Set the ASA higher and the speed increases when everything else stays the same. This a complex subject and isn't just the lens speed>


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Love Cabo.  Gotta go back soon...
> 
> I would only recommend the 270EX if the smallest possible size is the principal consideration.  Once you start using speedlites, you will want more flexibility and power, especially due to light output loss from diffusors/modifiers, which you WILL want to use.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Thanks very much!  I'm totally a budgetphile now after getting sucked into head-fi with some pretty nice gear (not thousands of dollars)....but then buying a pair of ultrasones lightly used for $25......I raaarely come to this forum now.....  the addiction has been cured.      
   
  I will definitely look at getting that flash for $69....!   So there is NO benefit to getting the Canon apart from the name?  Durability?  I'm guessing I could put like a diffuser plate? on the top rear and point the flash almost straight up.  Otherwise get a diffuser cap.  I really like either no-flash or a soft looking flash. 
   
  I'm also questioning my "need' for upgrading from my 500d to the 7D......I've been shooting at higher MP and actually doing post processing kinda seriously for the first time.  I didn't realize pretty much ALL photographers do pp, so I thought the sample photos from 7D/5D, etc were that lively in color straight out of the camera. 
  All except the fisheye pictures are from the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens.  I was using my friend's 550D because i forgot to bring a spare battery.  I feel like image quality was a tiny bit better...but maybe that was just me.  I might just get a couple good prime lenses instead of the body upgrade...a couple prime "L" lenses....  Otherwise, I'll be getting the 7D + sigma 30mm f/1.4. 
   
  I think I've taken the best picture of my life...I think wallpaper worthy----it's not hard to tell which one it is, I don't think....hehe.  I updated the facebook gallery with more pics including that one just last night, so if you haven't seen it please do and please critique my photos/post-processing.  The first half of photos were processed with Picasa and the last half I used Lightroom.  For the first half of the photos, I realize it's overexposed in the background for almost all of the pics--I think a flash with diffuser would have been perfect.  Any other way I could have taken those photos with a bright background? 
   
  http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151074865413638.488337.658243637&type=1&l=389a187693
   


Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!



the greatest photo I've taken so far I think is the one with the guy on the beach walking towards the famous Cabo arch. 


   
  the tennis photos were just taken with a POS.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> I think I've taken the best picture of my life...I think wallpaper worthy----it's not hard to tell which one it is, I don't think....hehe.  I updated the facebook gallery with more pics including that one just last night, so if you haven't seen it please do and please critique my photos/post-processing.  The first half of photos were processed with Picasa and the last half I used Lightroom.  For the first half of the photos, I realize it's overexposed in the background for almost all of the pics--I think a flash with diffuser would have been perfect.  Any other way I could have taken those photos with a bright background?


 
   
  Are you shooting in RAW?  If not, and you're doing PP in Lightroom, switch to RAW.  It allows you much more control and tweaks like pushing or pulling and white balance adjustments (a few of your photos need a WB shift) are much simpler/more effective.  For the photos with the blown out sky, you might be able to pull the highlights back a bit and lower the contrast to make the photos better.  Yes, a flash would be useful but you would need high speed sync to do it right.  Someone who knows more than I do about Canon flashes can step in here.  I know I can do it with my 5D2 and 430 EX II but I don't know if your body will support it with the 270 EX.
   
  I can't comment on the third party flash vs. the OEM Canon flash.  I bought the OEM 430 EX II.  However, one difference is E-TTL vs. E-TTL II.  The Canon supports E-TTL II which includes distance information in the exposure calculation for, supposedly, more accurate results.  Also, if you buy OEM, you're pretty much guaranteed that it will work with future generations of Canon bodies which you won't have that guarantee with a third part accessory.  The guarantee, though, is a little bit less certain on flashes than, say, a lens but I would have more confidence that an OEM Canon will work on my next body.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> Thanks very much!  I'm totally a budgetphile now after getting sucked into head-fi with some pretty nice gear (not thousands of dollars)....but then buying a pair of ultrasones lightly used for $25......I raaarely come to this forum now.....  the addiction has been cured.
> 
> I will definitely look at getting that flash for $69....!   So there is NO benefit to getting the Canon apart from the name?  Durability?  I'm guessing I could put like a diffuser plate? on the top rear and point the flash almost straight up.  Otherwise get a diffuser cap.  I really like either no-flash or a soft looking flash.
> 
> ...


 
  For sharing photo's on forums, I strongly advise you to link photo's from something like your flickr account instead of Facebook album link like that.  Internet is internet, so you probably don't want to "expose" all your friends' photos to the random strangers who may be roaming these sites.  Facebook upload reduces picture quality quite a bit anyway, and I recommend Flickr, which is free.  
   
  And I agree about 500D to 7D move.  7D is great mainly due to the high FPS continuous shooting, good AF for sports, etc, but it's still got the same sensor as 550D and still not the best for low light/high ISO photo's.  The 7D MkII is rumored to be coming around as well.  Best deal right now is a refurbished or slightly used 5D MkII methinks..


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  I was not shooting raw.  I did shoot a couple raw images, but had to conserve memory card space.  A couple months ago I was shooting at 3.7MP and I thought that should be just as good, but I actually am seeing a difference with shooting 8MP+  I can't remember what I shot most of those pics with now...hopefully more than 8MP. 
   
  I didn't realize I would need high speed sync...it's easier on a Nikon I heard?  I'm pretty sure the 500d has at least some external flash control...maybe it's just intensity/rear curtain?  flash is all pretty new to me.  I'll keep you advice about OEM flashes in mind.  It'd also be a shame to get such a pretty looking high end body and place the cheap flash on there -_- 
   
  Quote: 





jon l said:


> For sharing photo's on forums, I strongly advise you to link photo's from something like your flickr account instead of Facebook album link like that.  Internet is internet, so you probably don't want to "expose" all your friends' photos to the random strangers who may be roaming these sites.  Facebook upload reduces picture quality quite a bit anyway, and I recommend Flickr, which is free.
> 
> And I agree about 500D to 7D move.  7D is great mainly due to the high FPS continuous shooting, good AF for sports, etc, but it's still got the same sensor as 550D and still not the best for low light/high ISO photo's.  The 7D MkII is rumored to be coming around as well.  Best deal right now is a refurbished or slightly used 5D MkII methinks..


 
   
  thanks, that's good advice.  i got lazy, and i think I have my fb settings set to pretty private..but I should've uploaded to photobucket or flickr.  photobucket unfortunately compresses the pics also, but there is no limit.  I'll try flickr and see if it resizes my pics with my free account (I guess 300 photos i want to share per month limit is not bad). 
   
  I do like taking photos of sports/action---however, it's not that often that I'm at a sporting event.  I may wait for the 7D mkII....but if I don't care so much about the 8fps on the 7D...you would choose 5dmkII for sure?   I had my heart set on 30mm f/1.4 sigma lens... this and my 17-50mm 1.8 lens are not FF compatible--neither is my fisheye.   I don't mind selling stuff, but won't buying lenses for FF be more expensive?  I don't care so much about the fisheye--although there's a really cheap and great piece of software that converts it into a normal wide-angle shot.  Works with even people photos..
   
  Even though 7D has a significantly better autofocus, you'd still go with used/refurb 5dmk2?  I'm really into shooting videos also, fyi.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> I was not shooting raw.  I did shoot a couple raw images, but had to conserve memory card space.  A couple months ago I was shooting at 3.7MP and I thought that should be just as good, but I actually am seeing a difference with shooting 8MP+  I can't remember what I shot most of those pics with now...hopefully more than 8MP.
> 
> I didn't realize I would need high speed sync...it's easier on a Nikon I heard?  I'm pretty sure the 500d has at least some external flash control...maybe it's just intensity/rear curtain?  flash is all pretty new to me.  I'll keep you advice about OEM flashes in mind.  It'd also be a shame to get such a pretty looking high end body and place the cheap flash on there -_-


 
   
  Enabling high speed sync is as easy as pressing one button on the flash if both the flash and camera body and support it.  Nothing to it.  Years ago, it used to be that Nikon had better flash support and Canon had superior AF.  That's not so much the case any more.  It's more like whoever has the latest body has the newest features.  Right now, it's pretty much a push between the two.
   
  However, if you're worried about filling up your memory card, forget lenses, forget flashes, buy _high quality, high speed_ memory cards and, if your camera can do it, shoot RAW + JPG.  Shoot the RAW at the highest resolution and the JPG wherever you like.  That way, you have the RAW to generate all the HQ images you need plus a JPG for quick emailing/uploading.
   
  With my 5D2 on max res RAW plus max res fine JPGs, I can shoot 448 images per 16 GB memory card and I carry_ at least_ two cards with me wherever I go, no matter how short a period of time I plan on shooting.  Because of work, I always have to travel with a laptop so I transfer images and reformat cards at the end of every day and I travel with 2 16GB cards and a 32 GB card so I carry enough cards for 1,700 photos/day, more if I drop the JPG.  I've never gotten close to that but I have shot over 1,000 in a day while in tourist mode.
   
  The _biggest _sin in photography is to not bring enough film/memory cards with you.  Why bother bringing a DSLR at all if you have to sacrifice quality or not take images because you don't have a memory card.  Who cares if you've got the latest L lens if you can't take a high res photo due to lack of space.  A flash is useless for fill light if your card is full: just dead weight.
   
  You've talked in this thread about buying a new lens and now a new flash.  Forget this and buy memory cards.  I like SanDisk; I'm using Extreme Pro cards right now.  Other people have their preferences as well.
   
  EDIT: typo


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Did somebody say bokeh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  these photos seem pretty vibrant in color for straight from camera.  Is this your lens' doing, body, both, or purely skill?    Even on automatic, I don't think my 500D pictures come out that vivid/colorfully..

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/31470517@N03/
   
  I realize the last photo isn't a good example of a portrait since only one girl is in focus, but this is what want to fix--have the subject to be about the same as they are now--but with less exposed/washed out background. 
   
  How can i make the bird picture more interesting?  It is a crop from the original, since my zoom is only up to 50mm (80mm)
   
  As for high speed memory cards--this is too easy of a problem to fix...flash memory cards are super cheap--what I worry about is backing up all the tons of photos onto my computer and harddrives (harddrives will fail at some point or another)...  Just from my weekend trip to Cabo, I had over 5GB of photos with mainly 8MP resolution....      I dunno about you, but I will probably print a poster-size picture maybe a handful of times in my lifetime...


----------



## hyogen

duplicate


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> I realize the last photo isn't a good example of a portrait since only one girl is in focus, but this is what want to fix--have the subject to be about the same as they are now--but with less exposed/washed out background.
> 
> How can i make the bird picture more interesting?  It is a crop from the original, since my zoom is only up to 50mm (80mm)
> 
> As for high speed memory cards--this is too easy of a problem to fix...flash memory cards are super cheap--what I worry about is backing up all the tons of photos onto my computer and harddrives (harddrives will fail at some point or another)...  Just from my weekend trip to Cabo, I had over 5GB of photos with mainly 8MP resolution....      I dunno about you, but I will probably print a poster-size picture maybe a handful of times in my lifetime...


 
   
  My thoughts:
   
  I think your photography will benefit the most if you get yourself a flash, and then learn more about exposure and flash photography. This includes stuff like balancing exposure of the foreground and background using flash, using light modifiers/diffusers to control the quality of light from your flash, etc. There's a lot of ground to cover, but a flash can do things a fast lens cannot -- e.g. if you are shooting a group shot in low light, a fast lens isn't going to help you much as you still need to stop down for DOF. A fast lens is also not going to help in high contrast or dynamic range situations. If you don't get an OEM flash, just make sure whatever you get supports E-TTL as well as being able to trigger off-camera with E-TTL (for future use if or when you go wireless).
   
  About the bird photo, I think what you should have done was to consider your question even before you tripped the shutter. You knew you had a short lens, so you should try to accomodate your composition to the focal length, not shoot it anyway and see if you can crop and pp later. For a short telephoto, I would have tried to incorporate the landscape more to make it more of a "landscape with bird in the sky" kind of shot.
   
  Finally, I understand you don't want to take too many photos and have too much to maintain later, which can be a good thing -- use this excuse to make your approach to photography more slow and deliberate. Think about what you want and the camera settings needed to get what you want before tripping the shutter. You will find that your photography will improve if you give the shot some thought before you take it. However, do not be taken aback by fast fps eating up your storage space. You can always delete later. After all, if you shoot a 24-shot burst sequence of someone or something moving (your friends, kids, professional athletes, birds, whatever), you don't have to keep all 24 of them.


----------



## leftnose

My pics above are definitely straight from camera with no PP other than re-sizing to display on the web.  
   
  The saturated colors: "L" lens on a full frame body shot at ISO 100, properly exposed in Av mode with saturation set to +2.  I shoot saturation at +3 unless there are people in the shot when I dial it back to +2 because +3 can produce orange skin tones. These settings only effect the JPGs.  RAW's aren't processed in camera (by definition).
   
  I think I've posted this here before but this is straight out of camera with +3 saturation.
   

   
  As for the photo of the three ladies, high speed sync with a flash is the best way to fix that and have a balanced foreground and background:
   
http://cameradojo.com/2010/05/31/mastering-your-flash-101-high-speed-sync/
   
  For the bird, MadCow has given you excellent advise.  Getting a dark bird exposed properly when flying is very difficult to impossible with a short lens.  In fact, birds in flight may be one of the hardest types of photography to master.  MadCow is right about getting the composition right before you take the shot but, another advantage to shooting max res is that it gives you more room to crop the image after its taken and still have suitable resolution for printing.
   
  One thing I like to do is enable AEB and take three shot strings either one stop or 2/3 stop apart.  Photography isn't magic.  It's just a matter of having a lot of practice so that you know the right tricks and when to use them.
   
  Also, be very careful with "cheap" memory cards.  One day, one WILL fail on you and you'll lose a bunch of photos.  In fact, it's always better to have multiple smaller cards rather than one big card for this same reason.


----------



## leftnose

For reference, the top is the JPEG straight out of camera with +2 saturation and whatever standard processing the 5D2 adds to its JPGs.  The middle is a JPG generated from the RAW in Lightroom with absolutely no PP.  You can see the difference the saturation setting makes as well as how generally flat the RAW is.  This is standard, though: pretty much all RAWs look flat and require PP to look their best.
   
  The third photo is my PP from the RAW solely in Lightroom plus a heavy crop that's allowed because of the hi-res original.  It's still over 8MP so you could easily print an 8x10 out of that.  And, if I were really interested, I would take this into Photoshop and rubber stamp out his left arm in the very lower right corner.  Digital is fun!
   
  EDIT: Added the third photo


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> My pics above are definitely straight from camera with no PP other than re-sizing to display on the web.
> 
> The saturated colors: "L" lens on a full frame body shot at ISO 100, properly exposed in Av mode with saturation set to +2.  I shoot saturation at +3 unless there are people in the shot when I dial it back to +2 because +3 can produce orange skin tones. These settings only effect the JPGs.  RAW's aren't processed in camera (by definition).
> 
> ...


 
   
  ahh, I see.  thanks for all the tips.  how big is too big do you think for memory card?  should I carry a few 16gb cards?  8gb?


----------



## Jon L

"In fact, birds in flight may be one of the hardest types of photography to master."
   
  Indeed..


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> ahh, I see.  thanks for all the tips.  how big is too big do you think for memory card?  should I carry a few 16gb cards?  8gb?


 
   
  I carry at least two 16GB SanDisk Extreme Pro CF cards with me.  8GB are safer but I'll take the convenience of 16GB cards.
   
  When I travel, I carry the two 16GB cards plus a 32GB card but I hardly ever use the 32GB card as I dump to my laptop every evening.
   
  Quote: 





jon l said:


> Indeed..


 
   
  Nice!  Have you seen the animated GIF Martin Bailey put together of a Kingfisher while testing out the 1DX?  Might be the most mindblowing thing I've ever seen done with a still camera:
  
https://plus.google.com/u/0/102227359845636175866/posts/L1Hor91K5ny


----------



## Jon L

1DX..yes, indeed. At any rate, the Shorty-Forty arrived today (EF 40mm f/2.8) which is a nice little lens.


----------



## reaqter

Sorry to interrupt, and I might have missed it in the 100-odd pages I didn't have time to read, but does anyone have a film Canon, 60s-70s era? I've got an FTb body that I like except that it's a bit bulky, so I'm thinking of testing out the AT-1 I have stashed at home.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





reaqter said:


> Sorry to interrupt, and I might have missed it in the 100-odd pages I didn't have time to read, but does anyone have a film Canon, 60s-70s era? I've got an FTb body that I like except that it's a bit bulky, so I'm thinking of testing out the AT-1 I have stashed at home.


 
   
  I still have (and occasionally shoot) my F1N cameras, and my wife still likes her AE-1. The AT-1 is basically the AE-1 but manual exposure only. I don't think it will save you much bulk over the FTb. The A series was maybe a smidge lighter and shorter ...but I'm not sure it'll really add up to much.
   
  But no harm in trying.


----------



## leftnose

When I travel on vacation, I normally take my 5DII and 3-4 lenses with me: 35mm f/2, 17-40L, 24-105 and, optionally, the 70-300L.  I tend to do much more landscape/cityscape/indoor type photography when travelling.  Recently I got both the 100L Macro and a 430 EX II.  I'm thinking that I would like to bring both of these along as well but it really becomes too much to carry.  
   
  So I'm thinking of trading the 17-40 for a 16-35 so I can replace in my bag both the 17-40 and the 35mm.  I'm losing a stop of speed and a convenient small lens vs the prime but I'm also gaining a stop of speed vs. the 17-40.  In the end, it would be: 16-35, 24-105, 100L: macro, 430 EX II and, optionally, the 70-300.  Additionally, in a year or so, I will probably trade the 5DII against a 5DIII so I will get improved high ISO performance to somewhat compensate for the lost stop 16-35 vs 35 f/2.
   
  Suggestions?  Ideas?  Input?


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> When I travel on vacation, I normally take my 5DII and 3-4 lenses with me: 35mm f/2, 17-40L, 24-105 and, optionally, the 70-300L.  I tend to do much more landscape/cityscape/indoor type photography when travelling.  Recently I got both the 100L Macro and a 430 EX II.  I'm thinking that I would like to bring both of these along as well but it really becomes too much to carry.
> 
> So I'm thinking of trading the 17-40 for a 16-35 so I can replace in my bag both the 17-40 and the 35mm.  I'm losing a stop of speed and a convenient small lens vs the prime but I'm also gaining a stop of speed vs. the 17-40.  In the end, it would be: 16-35, 24-105, 100L: macro, 430 EX II and, optionally, the 70-300.  Additionally, in a year or so, I will probably trade the 5DII against a 5DIII so I will get improved high ISO performance to somewhat compensate for the lost stop 16-35 vs 35 f/2.
> 
> Suggestions?  Ideas?  Input?


 
   
  The 35/2 is small and light enough that I don't think it would make much difference if you replace it and the 17-40 with a 16-35.
   
  In my opinion, I think your 24-105 overlaps a lot, both at the wide end and at the long end. Perhaps go with 17-40 + 35 + 100 + 70-300 instead?
   
  But in the end, I suppose it depends on which lenses and in which focal length you use the most. When shooting film with my old EOS 33, I used to go around with 17-40 + 50 + 85... so a "standard zoom" never really played a significant part to me.


----------



## Jon L

Just saw Canon store has refurb S95 with coupon code SHIP712 = $224 shipped! If you ever wanted a pocketable camera with largish sensor, it might be time.
   
  http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_276388_-1?WT.mc_id=C126149


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> When I travel on vacation, I normally take my 5DII and 3-4 lenses with me: 35mm f/2, 17-40L, 24-105 and, optionally, the 70-300L.  I tend to do much more landscape/cityscape/indoor type photography when travelling.  Recently I got both the 100L Macro and a 430 EX II.  I'm thinking that I would like to bring both of these along as well but it really becomes too much to carry.
> 
> So I'm thinking of trading the 17-40 for a 16-35 so I can replace in my bag both the 17-40 and the 35mm.  I'm losing a stop of speed and a convenient small lens vs the prime but I'm also gaining a stop of speed vs. the 17-40.  In the end, it would be: 16-35, 24-105, 100L: macro, 430 EX II and, optionally, the 70-300.  Additionally, in a year or so, I will probably trade the 5DII against a 5DIII so I will get improved high ISO performance to somewhat compensate for the lost stop 16-35 vs 35 f/2.
> 
> Suggestions?  Ideas?  Input?


 
  I would sell the 35 f/2 and get the 40mm f/2.8 pancake, which is MUCH sharper with more contrast than my 35 f/2, especially in corners which is nice for landscapes.  It's quite sharp even wide open at f/2.8, sharper than 35 f/2 or 50 f/1.8 stopped down to f/2.8!  It's so small you can carry it in a shirt pocket.  You do lose a stop of speed over 35 f/2; however, I never shoot the 35 wide open at f/2 due to softness, so it's a moot point in reality.
   
  There's photo comparison among 35 f/2., 50 f/1.8, and 40 f/2.8 in the middle of the this review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-40mm-f-2.8-STM-Pancake-Lens-Review.aspx
   
  I also didn't much enjoy my time with 16-35 II, which is a good lens but bit too heavy, large, and expensive for what it offers.  Canon really needs something nicer in this focal range, and hopefully the rumored 14-24 will be released before next millenia.  In other words, I don't think trading 17-40 for 16-35 is worth it, especially if most work is outdoors.  
   
  Also, while I like my 5D3, I don't think the improved ISO performance over 5D2 would be the reason for upgrading.  If you shoot RAW (which everyone should), most 5D2/3 co-owners are reporting at most 1/2 stop high iso improvement in RAW (2 stops in JPEG).  Unless you need the nicer AF and FPS, I'd rather use the money on lenses myself


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





madcow said:


> In my opinion, I think your 24-105 overlaps a lot, both at the wide end and at the long end. Perhaps go with 17-40 + 35 + 100 + 70-300 instead?


 
   
  Hmm.  I don't always carry my 70-300, though.  It's pretty much the first to be pulled out of the bag, partially because it is "heavy."  Yes, you're right that there is a lot of overlap but I would say the 24-105 is on the camera about 60% of the time.  I'd have to look through the EXIF data, though, to see how I'm using it.
   
  Quote: 





jon l said:


> I would sell the 35 f/2 and get the 40mm f/2.8 pancake, which is MUCH sharper with more contrast than my 35 f/2, especially in corners which is nice for landscapes.  It's quite sharp even wide open at f/2.8, sharper than 35 f/2 or 50 f/1.8 stopped down to f/2.8!  It's so small you can carry it in a shirt pocket.  You do lose a stop of speed over 35 f/2; however, I never shoot the 35 wide open at f/2 due to softness, so it's a moot point in reality.
> 
> There's photo comparison among 35 f/2., 50 f/1.8, and 40 f/2.8 in the middle of the this review:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-40mm-f-2.8-STM-Pancake-Lens-Review.aspx
> ...


 
  I've looked at the pancake but I think if I'm going to carry a wide/normal prime, I don't think I would want it any slower than f/2.  I think the only thing that would make me dump my 35/2 would be a 35/2 IS like the new 24 and 28mm lenses.
   
  I'm also thinking that the reviewer's 35/2 might be a bit sub-par.  Mine isn't that soft in the corners.  It's probably not as sharp as the 40mm samples but it's better than what is shown.
   
  However, assuming that I have a better than average 35/2 and his is more representative of the lens in general,. it's interesting how closely it matches the nifty fifty.  I'm always reading how the 35/2 is such a turd but the nify fifty is the greatest thing since 25 cent wings.  From those samples, they're about the same if you ask me.
   
  And while I only mentioned high-ISO performance above, the primary reason for the upgrade  would be for the AF.  And, other than a 200 f/2L plus the two teleconverters, there really isn't a lens I want/need right now.  And that combo is way too expensive for me to buy given the amount I would shoot it.  I do shoot RAW, BTW.


----------



## reaqter

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I still have (and occasionally shoot) my F1N cameras, and my wife still likes her AE-1. The AT-1 is basically the AE-1 but manual exposure only. I don't think it will save you much bulk over the FTb. The A series was maybe a smidge lighter and shorter ...but I'm not sure it'll really add up to much.
> 
> But no harm in trying.


 

 Hm...I have a couple AE-1's lying around, but I always end up using full manual anyway. I wonder which will last longer over the next few years, the FTb or the AT? They're both in great condition.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> I'm also thinking that the reviewer's 35/2 might be a bit sub-par.  Mine isn't that soft in the corners.  It's probably not as sharp as the 40mm samples but it's better than what is shown.


 
   
  I suspect it's just a case of field curvature, that kind of thing always doesn't turn out well against a flat test chart.


----------



## hyogen

wonder if the 40mm stm pancake is as sharp as the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8  (at 40mm). 
   
  I feel that 40mm is a little too narrow to keep on my camera 90% of the time...especially if it's 2.8.  I think I'd rather leave a 30mm 1.4 on my camera 90% of the time..    I really love the form factor, though...and at $200 it's really tempting.........  To get the same field of view as the 40mm, how much farther back do you have to stand with the 50mm?  I guess I could test this on my 17-50...haha
   
  I'm guessing there'll be more offerings in the pancake form in the future--hopefully wider and faster


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> I'm guessing there'll be more offerings in the pancake form in the future--hopefully wider and faster


 
  I wouldn't necessarily count on that.  Fast lenses require a lot of glass to gather light.  40mm Pancake Lenses have been around for along time and, from my knowledge, there haven't ever been very many pancake lenses wider than that for SLR cameras.
   
  You might see something from Canon for their new mirrorless camera, but I don't know what is ever possible with the EF mount.


----------



## hyogen

ah, thank you.  this bit of info makes me want to get the pancake more now..    do you have any experience with micro 4/3 pancake lenses?  they seem to go down to f/1.8 i believe..


----------



## MadCow

Looks like the Canon mirrorless announcement is coming very soon... pics of a new body with 22mm f/2 lens are starting to circulate among rumor sites currently. It's going to be an interesting week, next week.


----------



## leftnose

hyogen said:


> ah, thank you.  this bit of info makes me want to get the pancake more now..    do you have any experience with micro 4/3 pancake lenses?  they seem to go down to f/1.8 i believe..



No, no m4/3 experience. Some 4/3 experience, though. 

Smaller sensor size and shorter flange to sensor distance make "faster" lenses easier to build. Don't expect the same results for a shallow depth of field, though.


----------



## hyogen

Which is the better crop?


----------



## hyogen

i've been taking photography a little more seriously lately--trying to put a little more thought and effort into each shot.  I've decided to hold off on upgrading bodies for now--I'll make do with my T1i until the 7D goes down in price or a used 5DmkII goes down. 
   
  Meanwhile I've been organizing my lenses and understanding my want/needs better.
   
  -* will buy a Sigma 30mm 1.4 *and be done for a while.  This will probably stay on my camera 70% of the time. 
   
  - bought a Tamron *10-24mm *UWA - In the future I may switch to the Sigma 8-16mm if it's usable on a full-frame.  between this and the fisheye makes up maybe 5-10% of my shots.
   
  - just bought a Sigma *70-300mm *apochromatic macro lens - very good buy I think for $110.  I will need a tripod for it--I'll upgrade to an IS lens after I upgrade bodies or possibly get a Canon 70-200 F4L for about $500 used.  This long zoom lens will be used maybe 5% of the time, but I still feel it's worth having for the occasional sporting event, graduation, etc..
   
  - keeping *17-50mm 2.8*  Will be used maybe 20% of the time.
   
  - selling my 18-200mm lens..  just don't need a mediocre convenient lens.
   
  - possibly keeping my *8mm fisheye* just for fun.  I also calibrated it to where I'm getting tack sharp pics now (apparently most of these Samyang/Rokinon fisheyes need calibration). I also realized you can almost use the fisheye lens with very little apparent distortion if you level the camera and set your horizon close to the middle


----------



## MadCow

I prefer the vertical composition. The horizontal one has too much empty space on the left, and the bird is flying away from it.
   
  That Sigma 70-300 is good buy for it's price. And don't worry about the lack of IS either, there are plenty of ways to help stabilize in the absence of a tripod. Bean bags, leaning on a wall for support, or just raising the ISO (in good light) works. Plus, if you're using it for shooting sports and action, IS is not going to be a significant factor anyway since you typically need high shutter speeds to counter subject movement.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





madcow said:


> I prefer the vertical composition. The horizontal one has too much empty space on the left, and the bird is flying away from it.


 
   
  I agree totally with the above.  However, having horizontal "action" in a portrait composition is a bit weird to me.  If the bird were in the left 1/3 in the horizontal shot, that would be my preference.  
   
  I would also be tempted to pull the file into Photoshop and get rid of the lens flare (and the last photo with the people as well).  It's a bit distracting.  Shooting into the sun is tricky.  If you use one, pull off the filter as it could very well increase the flare and use a lens hood if you have one.  Even with these precautions, you can still end up with flare; it's a bit of a crap shot.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  good point.  thank you both  
   
  so when do you find it "appropriate" to not follow the rule of 3rds?  Just every so often?
   
  for now I have placed kinda opaque tape on my built-in flash...and have turned down the intensity.  A poor man's diffuser   I think I might end up going with the $70 or so Yongnuo flash on ebay that was recommended to me on this thread.  I'm guessing I'll quickly outgrow the ex270 smallest/cheapest Canon flash to justify paying $150 or so for it.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> so when do you find it "appropriate" to not follow the rule of 3rds?  Just every so often?


 
   
  The "rule of 3rds" isn't a "rule" it's a guideline.  A photograph can look boring with its subject centered.  But, on the other hand, if all your photographs follow the "rule of 3rds," they'll start to look boring as well.  To be honest with you, I've had a lot of very formal photo training and I don't think I can recall a single time the "rule of 3rds" was mentioned any time after the first two weeks of Photo 1.  Don't preoccupy yourself with it.
   
  When the "rule of 3rds" is most beneficial is when you want to balance your composition.  If you have competing elements, following the "rule" is good because it give balance:
   
   

hope you don't mind that I did this; it was convenient to be able to illustrate my point.  it's a bit quick and dirty as well.
   
  BTW, you were absolutely right not to put the sun directly in the corner.  More important than the "rule of 3rds" is a rule not to ever have a line running through the corner of the photo or anything of importance right in the corner.  It makes the photo look carelessly composed: like something got cut off.
   
  I don't aim this comment directly at you but I think DSLRs make it harder to learn photography than in the past.  I think people get caught up with all the whiz-bang features of the latest and greatest cameras and never learn the basics.  If I were an intro to photo teacher today, I'd insist that my students stick the camera in aperture priority mode and worry about only three rules: generally shoot with the sun to your back, hold the camera still, and put some thought into each shot.  If you think just a bit about each photo, eventually you will learn what works best for you, what kinds of results you like and how to get them.  Don't worry about the gear, don't worry about arbitrary rules; learn the most fundamental technical basics and the rest will come.


----------



## hyogen

much appreciated leftnose!


----------



## Philimon

My first camera thats not also a phone. Canon T3i kit, and picked up an extra lens: f1.8 50mm.
   
   
  This is of my dog after a surgery on his eye lid and the healing process. Just using non-flash mode with the f1.8.
   
  Day1:
   

   
  after 1week:
   

   
  after 2weeks and still a little wet from a bath:


----------



## leftnose

Very nice!  One small tip: when using a large aperture, focus on the nearest eye.  Having the eye(s) in focus will look more natural than having the nose sharp.


----------



## Philimon

I will try that.


----------



## leftnose

There was a huge international shooting competition at my gun club last week.  Good chance to take out my camera:
   
   

   
   

   

   
   
   

   
   
  and, though I think the forum software will mess up the resolution, here's a 100% crop of the above.  Gotta love the 100L Macro!
   

   
  and, yes, since I do shoot more than camera, I took 4 days of vacation and shot Tues-Sun myself!


----------



## MadCow

I didn't realize they could put such intricate designs on the guns. Very nice! Did you try to take any muzzle flare-type shots?


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





madcow said:


> I didn't realize they could put such intricate designs on the guns. Very nice! Did you try to take any muzzle flare-type shots?


 
  Oh, yeah!  Engraving is "half the battle" on high end guns.  The gun in the third pic is a Rizzini R1.  To buy that gun without any engraving (which you wouldn't do), would cost somewhere around $50-60K.  The gun pictured is priced at $175,000.  Yes, that $100,000+ is all in the engraving.
   
  Here's a crop of a different image of the gun.  You can see how intricate the engraving really is (click on the image to enlarge):
   

   
   
  This engraving was done by Firmo Fracassi who is considered the finest gun engraver who has ever lived.  At this point, you're past this being a "gun."  It's a work of art.
   
  Inherently, this is bullino-style engraving which is done by making "dots" in the metal.  Changing the density and depth of the dots will make the different shades of gray.  Bullino work this detailed is very rare.  I wouldn't be surprised if Fracassi had many months of work in this gun.  And, to boot this is part of a 4-gun set all engraved in a similar style and all priced at $175K each!
   
  The gun in the fourth pic is a Fabbri which start at about $80K + engraving.  That's also considered bullino-engraving but a slightly different style using more standard lines but on a very small scale instead of dots.
   
  Bullino style engraving tends to be done by the Italians.  German guns tend to be much more heavily engraved with much deep relief work:
   

   

   

   
   
  This is a Krieghoff K-80, also probably priced well over $100K.
   
  Sorry that these pics are a little rouger, these guns are litterally all for sale sitting in a vendor's area with direct and non-direct light coming from all angles!  Given the conditions, I think they turned out OK!
   
  As for muzzle-flash shots, shotguns use small amounts of very fast burning powder with long, voluminous barrels so there is fairly little muzzle flash from shotguns compared to rifles or pistols.  It has to get pretty dark before you can see it and, at that point, people have moved from shooting to socializing!
   
  EDIT: If you're interested, I actually admin the club's Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/northbrooksc and I've posted a couple hundred pics there of the whole week.


----------



## hyogen

hmm. I've tried playing around with a couple raw files, but I can't say for sure if I have better control in post..   I'm trying to do it more for potentially pretty good pictures and not just my everyday ones..
   
  These were still shot with JPEG.  I've at least made the jump a couple months ago from 3.7MP to 8MP. 
   
  Been doing a lot more shooting and tons more research on photography-on-the.net forums...way too much.  I have a pretty good idea of what I want now.  I actually think I won't miss my Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, which used to live on my camera most of the time.  This live-on camera will probably be my newly acquired Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 which I've been super impressed with for all my wide up to 20mm stuff.  I've been blown away by pretty much all aspects of the lens after selling my Tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 which I found inferior in every way.. So much so that I almost decided to just not get a UWA and stick with my newly calibrated/sharp Samyang/Rokinon 8mm fisheye and just use it in a way to minimize distortion or use Fisheye Hemi to defish. 
   
  The other lens that'll live on my camera is the Sigma 30mm 1.4.  I'm working on getting a copy that has no issues whatsoever as these have been known to have focusing issues.  The lens I want the most right now is the Sigma 50mm 1.4.  Kinda crazy because I used to think even the 40mm 2.8 pancake was too long and returned it immediately.  Now I think even the 50mm will be a little too short at times.  Finally I'm either gonna get the 85mm 1.8 or 70-200mm F4L or possibly the like-new sigma 70-200mm hsm f2.8 II which I can get for a steal at $500 locally--online forums/amazon price is at least $700.  I'm guessing that for this range, I won't need as fast of a lens since it's a little long for my crop sensor anyway.
   
  I decided to wait a while to upgrade my body...The wife started editing our kitten videos and I think the next body should have auto focus for video--although I don't want to settle for a T4i..  I did get a flash though!  Got a 420EX speedlight for $75 and haven't really played with it much yet, but I have been trying out different DIY diffusers. 
   
  Here are a couple recent ones.  Please comment if you can tell that shooting in RAW could have made my final photo better.  I think before I was oversaturating my photos just a little bit--am trying not to do that now, even though I am shooting in JPEG mostly.
   
  This video was mainly taken with a 50mm 1.8 nifty fifty, which I got rid of a year ago.  As you can see, it was difficult to keep in focus at least for me. 
   
  <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyogen82/7843338644/" title="IMG_8772 by h y o : f o t o -_-, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7110/7843338644_73f1560b62_z.jpg" width="640" height="427" alt="IMG_8772"></a>


----------



## hyogen

hmm. I've tried playing around with a couple raw files, but I can't say for sure if I have better control in post..   I'm trying to do it more for potentially pretty good pictures and not just my everyday ones..
   
  These were still shot with JPEG.  I've at least made the jump a couple months ago from 3.7MP to 8MP. 
   
  Been doing a lot more shooting and tons more research on photography-on-the.net forums...way too much.  I have a pretty good idea of what I want now.  I actually think I won't miss my Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, which used to live on my camera most of the time.  This live-on camera will probably be my newly acquired Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 which I've been super impressed with for all my wide up to 20mm stuff.  I've been blown away by pretty much all aspects of the lens after selling my Tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 which I found inferior in every way.. So much so that I almost decided to just not get a UWA and stick with my newly calibrated/sharp Samyang/Rokinon 8mm fisheye and just use it in a way to minimize distortion or use Fisheye Hemi to defish. 
   
  The other lens that'll live on my camera is the Sigma 30mm 1.4.  I'm working on getting a copy that has no issues whatsoever as these have been known to have focusing issues.  The lens I want the most right now is the Sigma 50mm 1.4.  Kinda crazy because I used to think even the 40mm 2.8 pancake was too long and returned it immediately.  Now I think even the 50mm will be a little too short at times.  Finally I'm either gonna get the 85mm 1.8 or 70-200mm F4L or possibly the like-new sigma 70-200mm hsm f2.8 II which I can get for a steal at $500 locally--online forums/amazon price is at least $700.  I'm guessing that for this range, I won't need as fast of a lens since it's a little long for my crop sensor anyway. 
   
  I decided to wait a while to upgrade my body...The wife started editing our kitten videos and I think the next body should have auto focus for video--although I don't want to settle for a T4i..  I did get a flash though!  Got a 420EX speedlight for $75 and haven't really played with it much yet, but I have been trying out different DIY diffusers. 
   
  Here are a couple recent ones.  Please comment if you can tell that shooting in RAW could have made my final photo better.  I think before I was oversaturating my photos just a little bit--am trying not to do that now, even though I am shooting in JPEG mostly.
   
  This video was mainly taken with a 50mm 1.8 nifty fifty, which I got rid of a year ago.  As you can see, it was difficult to keep in focus at least for me. 
   
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyogen82/7843338644/
   
  I've tried the BBC/HTML code on flickr...just will not work, even in full page editor D:





   
  here's a photo I took over a year ago:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyogen82/7783632814/  Can't believe I lived a year without at least the nifty fifty...


----------



## leftnose

What program are you using for your PP?


----------



## Philimon

Your tip caused me to figure out manual focus. Thanks.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> hmm. I've tried playing around with a couple raw files, but I can't say for sure if I have better control in post..


 
  I shoot RAW + JPG.
   
  Here is the JPG as it looked straight out of the camera:
   

   
   
  RAWs never look the same as the JPG but here is the RAW after 10 seconds and three corrections, one an eyedropper WB correction, a slight pull of the highlights, and a contrast boost.
   

   
   
  Now, here is the import of the camera's JPG with exactly the same corrections applied to it (the contrast correction probably wasn't required but I wanted apples to apples):
   

   
   
  The RAW with the slight corrections is by far the best image and you can see how much more subtly the image can be changed stating from a RAW.  You don't have to use Lightroom or any other application that costs any serious amount of money.  Canon's DPP that probably came with your camera works very well on its own.  And it's free!  If you're using something like Picasa, I can understand why you think you don't have extra control with a RAW compared to a JPG.  That's because you're missing the tools that give you the extra control!  The highlight pull is the perfect example.  The skin tones are slightly washed out because of the flash and using Lightroom's highlight slider on the RAW, you can regain some of that color.  Using the same slider with the JPG, darkens the whole image because the "RAW" data isn't there to make selective correction to specific types of colors/EV values.
   
  Quote: 





philimon said:


> Your tip caused me to figure out manual focus. Thanks.


 
  Glad to help but I am slightly confused by your comment.  Are you not able to focus/re-compose with your camera?


----------



## Philimon

When you hold down the shutter release button, the camera would auto focus on the nose (as you pointed out) even though the image was centered on the eyes. I had been using "flash off" mode, and  have now switched to "program auto exposure" so I could choose the focus points via the camera controls. I thought focusing and recomposing was to be avoided, based on what I've read during my quick focus point how-to search.


----------



## hyogen

I'm using light room also.. I don't think i have seen a highlight slider... 

Thanks for the help


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





philimon said:


> When you hold down the shutter release button, the camera would auto focus on the nose (as you pointed out) even though the image was centered on the eyes. I had been using "flash off" mode, and  have now switched to "program auto exposure" so I could choose the focus points via the camera controls. I thought focusing and recomposing was to be avoided, based on what I've read during my quick focus point how-to search.


 
   
  Inherently, there are two reasons why you don't want to focus recompose.  First, _generally _when you half press the shutter button, the camera focuses and takes its exposure reading and locks them both.  Then, if you do a huge recompose, you can change the scene enough that a different exposure setting would be more correct.  I say generally, BTW, because, with the higher-end bodies, you can bind AF and AE to different buttons to avoid this issue.  You can also compose, meter, AE Lock, recompose, focus, then recompose again but that's tedious to me.  The second reason why you don't want to focus recompose is because many lenses do not have a flat plane of focus.  Just because something is sharp and in focus right in the center of the frame, doesn't mean it will still be in focus if you shift your composition even without changing the distance.  That's just one of the complications of optics and is unavoidable.  There are certain lenses like the 50 f/1.2L which are notorious for extremely distorted focal planes so you can't focus recompose at all or your subject will fall out of focus.
   
  I use a 5D Mark II which has an extremely outdated AF system.  I really only trust the center AF point so I have it selected on its own and I do a ton of focus recompose.  I do dial in exposure compensation on a shot-by-shot basis if I feel I've recomposed enough that it becomes necessary.  Yes, I do occasionally get bitten by a non-flat focal plane issue but I deal with it.  Try it and see how it works for you.  That's the beauty of digital cameras: no cost and instant results when experimenting!
   
  Quote: 





hyogen said:


> I'm using light room also.. I don't think i have seen a highlight slider...
> Thanks for the help


 
   
  The Highlights slider is new in LR4.  To me, just the Highlights slider and its counterpart Shadows make LR4 a worthwhile upgrade.  You can do the same things in LR3 but it is much more tedious.  I'll say it again, though, stop worrying about your equipment and your next "upgrade."  Use what you've got and take 10,000 pictures really working on your technique, thinking through every composition, then decide if you really need something else.
   
  Here's my point.  This photo is a very nice snap shot.  Slightly washed out by the lighting but, still, very nice.  Good control of depth of field, nice and sharp, etc..  However, one single correction and it goes from:
   

   
   
  to
   

   
   
  Your white balance was off.  Way too warm/yellow.  It's a standard problem when photographing indoors under incandescent light and it takes two clicks to fix.  One to select the tool and one to select a neutral.  If you want to use the above as an example of how your photography is progressing (which it certainly seems to be), this was such a small but necessary change that it should not have "slipped under the radar."  Also, this image could benefit from pulling the highlights in LR4.  With a RAW file, you might still have enough info there to get some detail back on the front right paw and "cheeks."  But that would be gravy.  The WB adjustment is plenty on its own.
   
  Really, I don't mean to be harsh but it's the same story we've been telling you: learn the equipment you have and what you can do with it and what your results should look like before you start worrying about what your next lens will be.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> EDIT: If you're interested, I actually admin the club's Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/northbrooksc and I've posted a couple hundred pics there of the whole week.


 
   
  Very nice, l enjoyed looking at all the designs and it looks like you guys had a great time as well. (Also looks like your lens hood got in the way of a couple of shots on the first day).
   
  The prices on these things are jawdropping, but I guess it's understandable considering the intricate hand-crafted work that is required. It's sort of a good thing that gun ownership is illegal here in my country or else I'll have yet another "thing" to suck my wallet dry. :-D


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





madcow said:


> (Also looks like your lens hood got in the way of a couple of shots on the first day).


 
  Ha.  Yeah.  I was wondering when someone was going to notice that.  I don't know what happened there....


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  thanks for that.  as for lenses, i already bought/sold as of early this morning--guess you can't talk reason into someone who is this impulsive/compulsive   I'm not about having the best and most expensive equipment by any means--for example on headfi my audio nirvana quest of hundreds of hours lead me to a DT880 250 for $215 and E17 amp for about $130 with absolutely no desire to upgrade unless maybe I get filthy rich in the future..  Especially after the $25 alienware/ultrasone hfi550 that I scored in the classifieds.  As far as lenses go, I think I've made some good compromises and gotten the best of the budget lenses--have money left over from selling/trading lenses.  I take all your criticism and advice as constructive so don't worry about hurting my feelings 
   
  So this white balance you're talking about-- it's a slider in LR3?  I think the original was even more yellow, but I took the saturation down quite a bit just for the mood of the picture.  The white fur does look nicer...so are you saying I should have shot in Neutral picture mode or RAW? 
   
  I just ordered a 32gb samsung class 10 shockproof/waterproof sd card for $23 on buydig following your advice.  Was just too good of a deal to pass up--and my biggest one right now is a 4GB.  I'll try shooting in raw more.
   
  I have to focus on a test a couple weeks ago, but I'll soon devote more of my time to photography


----------



## hyogen

Ah, I think I see what you did now for white balance.  use the little dropper tool and pick a spot on the photo.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> Ah, I think I see what you did now for white balance.  use the little dropper tool and pick a spot on the photo.


 
  Don't just pick "a spot."  You have to choose a neutral.  What version of LR are you using?


----------



## Philimon




----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Hmm, i've been playing around with it, but not sure what you mean by "neutral".  I can see the preview screen as I hover my dropper around the picture, but haven't really figured out exactly what i'm looking for.  
   
  I just got LR4 trial version.
   
   
  here are a couple I took yesterday--some with the ridiculously cheap sigma 70-300mm which only cost me $110--is not even a prime, but got my prime bug started as soon as I realized how useful 70+mm could be even on our crop camera.
   
  we juuuuust made the very last part of "golden hour"...the first time I've intentionally tried to go out at this time to take pics.  Unfortunately the tree line was really high
   
  Also, a few of these were taken with my new beloved sigma 10-20.    I can't remember which and I may have not gotten to uploading/processing those yet.
   
   



IMG_9961 by hyo:foto, on Flickr
   

   



IMG_9938 by hyo:foto, on Flickr
   
   
   
 [/img][/url]
IMG_9966 by hyo:foto, on Flickr
   
   

  does this last one make her look too much like a ghost?  my wife i mean..   I desaturated it on purpose, but.. maybe too much?  I feel like my pics lately have been too saturated like typical "wedding photos", so I am going the opposite direction.  
   
  here's one for sure from the 10-20

  I could not get my cat to sit still...this last one needed a lot of sharpening :/
   




IMG_9268 by hyo:foto, on Flickr
   
  I think I"ve tried everything in Flickr... BBC code, html code, IMG URL,    
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





...  
   
  I resorted to pasting the BBC code, copying the http://farm9.......jpg URL and pasting into the photo button on the editor.. is that the only way?


----------



## leftnose

My comments in red below
    
  Quote:


hyogen said:


> Hmm, i've been playing around with it, but not sure what you mean by "neutral".  I can see the preview screen as I hover my dropper around the picture, but haven't really figured out exactly what i'm looking for.
> 
> *A neutral is a color that has equal RGB values.  When you have the WB eyedropper selected and you're hovering over the image, you'll see a box just below the tool and it will show RGB values.  Pick a spot that has RGB within 1% or so of each other.*
> 
> ...


 
   
  You have to use the little photo insert button to imbed images.  The software for this board doesn't support BBcode tags or other shortcuts.
   
  If you're going to stick with LR4, buy this:
  
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Photoshop-Lightroom-Classroom-Book/dp/0321819578/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346019429&sr=8-2&keywords=lightroom+4+classroom+in+a+book
   
  LR is an extremely complicated program and you need to have an understanding of what all the tools can do.
   
  Also, buy these:
   
http://www.amazon.com/Photographers-Eye-Composition-Design-Digital/dp/0240809343/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1346020132&sr=1-1&keywords=photographer%27s+eye
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Edition-Photographs/dp/0817439390/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_z
   
  The $75 or so spent on the three above books will do more to improve your photography than any lens will.  Trust me, I really understand the desire to buy another lens but you're not far enough along that your abilities surpass your gear.


----------



## hyogen

In what way is the subject underexposed in the first pic?  I did desaturate it overall just for the style I was going for.
   
  I cropped off the top of her head because wife didn't want me taking pics of her not wearing make-up -_-  Is there any other way I could have composed that photo (aside from telling the wife to look away) and not make it distracting?  
   
  What do you mean what am I trying to show in the 3rd picture, Some friends liked the "motherly-ness" of my wife to the cat.  As far as white balance goes, I wonder how different it would have looked if I desaturated the colors after properly white balancing it?  
   
  Shoot in RAW, got it.  I think I see what you mean about the sharpening a technically imperfect photo.  It really is very difficult to take a pic of the cat sitting still when I was so close up with my lens.  This was shot with the sigma 10-20mm.  I might have been closer than the minimum focusing distance also
   
  I'll look into the books, but probably won't be selling any of my lenses so I can buy books -_-  There are lots of free resources, after all..  2 lenses are arriving within a week or so, which will be better than other lenses I've had so far...  I'm still impressed with the sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 that I took the first 3 photos with.  Surprisingly nice bokeh, if you ask me.  Again, it's really hard talking sense into this gearhead....but at least I don't spoil myself with top of the line gear   I appreciate your input and time--it is important for me to master the technical aspects of photography. I do want to improve every aspect as time allows..really hard for me to find time away from studies right now  
   
  What do you think about this one?  

   
  and this one?  taken with 17-50 2.8 Did a little bit of softening in LR.  Also cropped it, I think to make it more level with the background if I recall correctly.


----------



## MadCow

I think what leftnose meant about underexposure in the first pic is that the cat is the primary subject, and is white... but is rendered more like grey-ish in that pic. Hence underexposed.
   
  However, exposing for such scenes can be very tricky. There are basically 3 options in such situations:
   
  1) Expose for the subject properly. If properly exposed, your cat would be white, but this will also horribly blow out the sky. This can be fine if you don't care about the sky, but in this pic the sky takes up a significant portion of the shot so this option may not be suitable for this particular scene.
   
  2) Expose for the sky, and push the shadows in post. Lightroom has a fill light slider that's designed for such situations. You get a well-exposed sky, as well as a well-exposed subject. However, when pushing shadows you will also be increasing the noise in those regions, something that Canon sensors don't handle too well.
   
  3) Expose for the sky, while using fill flash to expose for your subject. This could be the best option for this particular scene, but this can be tricky if you don't fully understand how to handle both variables (ambient light and flash) properly yet. Additionally, since this is taken during evening light, it may also be desirable to gel the flash to give it a warmer tone.


----------



## leftnose

See below.  Mad Cow has correctly interpreted my comment and given you excellent advice.  One thing, though, he references a LR Fill Light slider.  This has been replaced by Shadows in LR4/PV2012.  To me, that slider and its counterpart, highlights, work like magic.  It's pretty amazing how much detail you can get back before you blow everything away with noise.  They work much better than Fill LIght/Recovery from LR3.
  Quote: 





hyogen said:


> In what way is the subject underexposed in the first pic?  I did desaturate it overall just for the style I was going for.
> 
> *Are you familiar with the actual dictionary definition of underexposed? It's not a subjective issue.  The only way for something to have been underexposed was if not enough light got to the sensor because of the selected exposure settings.  Because of your bright background, your camera will set a faster shutter speed than what the foreground requires thus not allowing enough light to reach the sensor to properly expose the foreground.  Madcow did an excellent job of explaining ways around this.*
> 
> ...


----------



## hyogen

haven't slept yet.  thanks for all the detailed comments, don't stress so much about the technicality at least for now.. And sorry if they're eye sores...!   I'll oblige if you'd rather not see my pics posted here until I have a good reason to share or can learn the ropes, either...no offense taken - don't have time to go through and respond to anything in depth, so I will be back in about a week and half


----------



## MadCow

Spent a day over at the in-laws. Went outside to feed mosquitoes and hunt bugs:
   
   

   

   

   

   

   
  I don't have a dedicated macro rig, these were all shot with the 5D2 and 100L lens at 1:1 with some cropping in post. The tinier bugs were cropped significantly (e.g. from 21mp down to 14-16mp, while the bigger ones like that last, weird-looking hopper was cropped down to approx 18mp).


----------



## leftnose

Nice! What are you doing for lighting?


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Nice! What are you doing for lighting?


 
  Thanks, I used my old trusty 550EX with Lumiquest Softbox.


----------



## Audio-Omega

Is there another good compact Canon for video and audio recording other than PowerShot S100 ?


----------



## leftnose

MC,
   
  Since you asked about muzzle flash photos, this is what a shotgun fired during the day looks like at the moment of truth:
   
   

   
   
  Not very dramatic!


----------



## Philimon

Using manual focus and manual mode. My new car.


----------



## Jon L

Lumodi is having a sale on the well-regarded portable 14" beauty dish for those interested.   I ordered one for use with camera bracket or on-tripod.  
   
http://www.ebay.com/itm/WHITE-LUMODI-BEAUTY-DISH-Canon-Nikon-Flashes-SALE-/110841275617?_trksid=p5197.m1992&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D14%26meid%3D1838188302965126811%26pid%3D100015%26prg%3D1006%26rk%3D1%26


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> MC,
> 
> Since you asked about muzzle flash photos, this is what a shotgun fired during the day looks like at the moment of truth:
> 
> ...


 
  So that's what it looks like, I was hoping to see something closer with the pellets/shot actually leaving the barrel but that's a pretty tough thing to time properly. Still a cool shot though.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





madcow said:


> So that's what it looks like, I was hoping to see something closer with the pellets/shot actually leaving the barrel but that's a pretty tough thing to time properly. Still a cool shot though.


 
   
  Ah!  It actually can be done with the correct lighting and angle.  There's a bit of luck involved and is much easier to do if you're staging the shot.  However, even with a shutter speed of 1/8000th, the pellets will move almost 2 inches during the exposure.  You'll see a blurry mass, not individual pellets. 
   
  The super high speed stuff that you see with frozen pellets is all done in a much more controlled environment with strobes and triggers.  Way beyond my own abilities and what is possible with the gear I own.


----------



## Jon L

My Lumodi 14" beauty dish has arrived. Fits well on my camera bracket and ready for close portraits!


----------



## MadCow

Wow, that's a lot bigger than I had imagined (for a portable setup). Looks very well-made too.
   
  I recently did a shoot of my son with a 27":

   
  The setup:
  key light: 27" silver beauty dish @ f/10
 fill: 80cm shoot-thru umbrella @ f/4.something... 4.5 or 4.8, I guess
  background: 24" softbox @ f/14


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





madcow said:


> Wow, that's a lot bigger than I had imagined (for a portable setup). Looks very well-made too.
> 
> I recently did a shoot of my son with a 27":
> 
> ...


 
   
  The good thing about Lumodi is how light and portable it is, only 10 oz.  The bad thing is its build is flimsy, mostly plastic with cardboard flash mount (!).    Already I am finding the BD needs to be off camera and held closer to subject (with left hand) for better, intended BD-effect results.  Oh, well.
   
  About your 27" BD.  I have the 22" version of that same ePhoto/eBay BD and always wondered if the stock speedlite mount/bracket is sturdy enough for the heavy 27" BD?  There are many reports of that flimsy bracket not able to hold the weight of speedlite/27" dish..


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





jon l said:


> About your 27" BD.  I have the 22" version of that same ePhoto/eBay BD and always wondered if the stock speedlite mount/bracket is sturdy enough for the heavy 27" BD?  There are many reports of that flimsy bracket not able to hold the weight of speedlite/27" dish..


 
   
  I don't think it's the same model. I bought my dish and mount separately. The mount is metal:
http://www.dgcoloronline.com/v2/products.php?id=8&sid=39&pid=1106
   
  The only part that is plastic is the tilt mechanism, but that one seems quite strong and rigid because I have not noticed any wear to its "teeth" so far. I usually keep the dish mounted onto the light stand all the time except for transportation, and it hasn't fallen off (yet... touch wood).


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





madcow said:


> I don't think it's the same model. I bought my dish and mount separately. The mount is metal:
> http://www.dgcoloronline.com/v2/products.php?id=8&sid=39&pid=1106
> 
> The only part that is plastic is the tilt mechanism, but that one seems quite strong and rigid because I have not noticed any wear to its "teeth" so far. I usually keep the dish mounted onto the light stand all the time except for transportation, and it hasn't fallen off (yet... touch wood).


 
  I see.  I have a similar mount but with speedlite attaching horizontally ("T" mount), which is pretty sturdy.  Perhaps I will pick up that 27" Interfit BD to go with my 22" ones..
   
  Your BD must be the Interfit 27" with S Mount (Bowen)?
http://www.amazon.com/Interfit-Photographic-INT259-27-Inch-Lighting/dp/B004EGT4XU


----------



## MadCow

No, mine's a practically nameless china-brand product from the same local store:
http://www.dgcoloronline.com/v2/products.php?id=6&sid=60&pid=436


----------



## hyogen

madcow said:


> I think what leftnose meant about underexposure in the first pic is that the cat is the primary subject, and is white... but is rendered more like grey-ish in that pic. Hence underexposed.
> 
> However, exposing for such scenes can be very tricky. There are basically 3 options in such situations:
> 
> ...


 
   
  Thanks Mad Cow.  I see what you mean about the grey cat's face.  And the drab greyish looking skin.  I purposely desaturated these photos, but shooting in jpeg I guess it made things worse overall.  I'm gonna hold off on #3 (fill flash) for now (wife is REALLY against me using flash whenever I take pics of her, so I'll get a reflector first).  When I had my flash for a short while I didn't have a chance to get a soft box/diffuser and show her how it would make the flash much more soft and pleasing).  I am using the backfocus button set to AE Lock/AF.  I know how to expose for the middle and recompose (half shutter button to expose)...not sure about how this really ties in with the AE lock/AF backfocus setting (which is the most intuitive to me), but usually I'm too pre-occupied worrying about keeping focus on while recomposing at this stage.  I'm admittedly not a very good multitasker... I currently have metering set on center weighted average, but before I was using evaluative and partial.  I've read that center weighted average can be a little more dependable on my camera with the Evaluative mode having a mind of it's own sometimes when there are harsh highlights?  
   
   
  Quote:


leftnose said:


> See below.  Mad Cow has correctly interpreted my comment and given you excellent advice.  One thing, though, he references a LR Fill Light slider.  This has been replaced by Shadows in LR4/PV2012.  To me, that slider and its counterpart, highlights, work like magic.  It's pretty amazing how much detail you can get back before you blow everything away with noise.  They work much better than Fill LIght/Recovery from LR3.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> ...


 
  My reply here has become longer than expected -_-  Didn't sleep yet again last night, so I'm kinda in a zombie mode right now...
   
  leftnose, I appreciate that you are a very educated and experienced photographer.   I like the shadows and highlights sliders as well, and could never figure out what the recovery slider really did before.  There seems to be one other slider I used to use in LR3 that isn't there in LR4 anymore...I'll have to look again to see what it was.  Maybe it was brightness?  Regarding the 2nd to last photo above with the sky and wife's cut off arm...hmm, I remember cropping it like that in order to put the cats eyes right in the bottom and left third of the photo.  I know I did some sharpening, which I understand now was not the best idea for a JPEG.  I think it would have been a better angle if less of my wife's face was in it, since I was trying to not shoot it anyway..  What else did you have to say about it that you were waiting for a response from me for?  The last photo, I wonder how you could tell the white balance was off.  I haven't looked deeply into the actual definition yet, but is it the fact that there is is nothing purely white in the photo?  Her shirt is off-white, her skin tone is pretty close, and I'm pretty sure I tuned it to have a slightly bluer sky.  I don't have the energy to comment on the first two pics.  You were right about the cat being scared though because she hadn't been outside in a long while.  They were the best of the bunch in sharpness since I was shooting handheld at like 200-300mm with a $160 new ($110 used) zoom lens.  In the distant future I'll upgrade a canon 70-200 of some sort perhaps.  I can't help the gear head in me, unfortunately, but I'm poor and I only pay for toys with a little portion of the money I made on the side.  As far as the sigma 50mm 1.4, 30mm 1.4,  and 10-20mm 1.4 lenses I have absolutely no regrets.  I think the quality of the pics speak for themselves in that regard.  Sure, if I mastered every aspect of my camera and skill then I'm sure the kit lens could put my photos to shame in terms of composition/vision/etc..  Anyway, I don't really see why you're belaboring a point about buying lenses when I already started exchanging lenses over a month ago and announced that I would do so.  I've been satisfied/set for 2 years as of a few weeks ago--in my case, I wish I had gotten them sooner..!  A different lens (bought used) can be a huge spark to motivate an amateur to get better.  Right now I have very little time...but yet I sit here like a zombie and write this -_-
   
  I'd like to relate this to tennis, which I used to play very actively and was very active on tennis forums several years ago.  Tennis is clearly a sport with a steep learning curve. It's hard for people of different skill levels to play with each other.  Someone who is of higher skill level can actually get worse by playing against someone who is more of a beginner, with no rhythm, control, and strategy.  Then there are "ball pushers" who can play at a higher level (even professional level ) who simply get the ball back, no matter how "ugly" or "cheap" they play.  It's especially frustrating at a non-professional competitive level...  Anyway, I used to obsess about tennis racquets and specs.  Stiffness, head balance, materials used, "paintjobbed" tennis rackets that pro's use to make it look like they're using the leading companies' latest model with latest technologies..  I've owned some of the racquets that many pros have grown up with and some still use under paintjobs, i.e. Pro Tour 630, PT280, Prestige 600, etc etc.. Well, after so many years of playing and passionately obsessing about racquets, I actually did find my ideal racquet.  As I played more and more I got a sense of what qualities of a racquet would complement my style of play.  I never had a membership to a club, but played as much as I could and at every open men's night possible.  Went off on a little tangent there, but basically because tennis has a steep learning curve, many players quit the sport and/or get stuck in a level of play with no real improvement.  Beginner rackets are made with huge oversized heads and very stiff construction.  While this may be the only type of racquet children or seniors can hit with, it is not the most ideal for a lot of young or adult players.  Not everyone can afford private instruction and tennis club memberships are super expensive, so unfortunately a lot of kids/teens/beginning adults develop bad form and learn bad timing, footwork, technique.  A double whammy is that these stiffer frames are really harsh on the wrist and elbow.  A smaller head, less stiff frame/neck/tighter string patterns, head-light balance which is what most pros/serious players at any competitive level play with.  If people who have played for a few weeks and have decent hand-eye coordination, I think many many beginners would do better to go with a more "pro" spec'd set-up.  This forces them to hit the ball correctly with the small head, generate their own power with correct mechanics, timing, and footwork, and not rely on the racquet/strings/string pattern for topspin/slice, etc.  While I'm sure it's not true for everyone, some people just need to learn from a bumpy ride with the real thing with a crash suit on.  
   
  Hmm, not sure if my photos are noteworthy (and again sorry if they're eye sores) and possibly the brighter/overexposed/contrasty/saturated look will not be everyone's cup of tea...  During a small break from my studies (test date got scheduled for almost 3 weeks from now)  I took more careful portrait shots--out of the 30 or so I edited (mostly using presets that I made as I went along and adjusted each a little here and there) I'm sure there could have been better framing/cropping.  Also, it was impossible for me to get a blue sky most of the time because a lot of pics I was shooting against the sun.  I sold the 420EX flash to help fund my lenses for the time being, but plan on getting another and possibly a reflector in the future if my car windshield visor doesn't work well.  The next monitor I buy in the distant future will be an IPS monitor.  I've been shooting in RAW 50% of the time maybe - almost 100% of the time when I intend to do post editing, and deleting the RAW files of the ones that don't turn out well and for now keeping the raw files of the ones I do edit.  Remember I was thinking before that the 40mm pancake was too long for me a couple months ago?  I found pics of when I had my nifty fifty a couple years ago--don't know why I got rid of that lens. Back then I thought that I would get almost the same bokeh with the 17-50mm zoom lens throughout the whole 17-50mm!  Absolutely loving the Sigma 50mm 1.4 which I used for all of these pictures (save for one - the 30mm 1.4 hasn't gotten much use yet.  It'll be handy for more group photos/when out to dinner with family/friends). 
   
  I see now that you can't polish a turd, even when shot in RAW.  Unfortunate because I really like *these *(3rd and 4th CR2's) This is the best I could do with the 4th one (I like the 3rd more, but it's in worse shape).  It seems kinda ridiculous now that I was trying to polish JPEG turds only a couple weeks ago   
   
  In post, I went for a little more warm look - I have a really hard time finding a place in the picture with the eye dropper where each color is within a few % of each other... I usually first start adjusting the temperature.  From the point it looks slightly blue, I go a little warmer...and for these I went a tiny bit more.  Also, to get the blue sky (do I need to use a polarizing filter?  I had to turn down the highlights for the blue to show up this much I believe...also played a little with blue levels.  Saturation was usually around -2 to +2, vibrance between -2 to +2, Clarity between -15 but usually more at 0 or +2.  I turned up contrast a little bit for most and whites turned down maybe -5 (left), blacks turned down -5.  I can't remember what I did with shadows, but I'm pretty sure it was up maybe +5.  Sharpened a little and reduced noise just a little bit and selectively sharpened faces on a couple that looked a little soft in the face that I wanted to keep.  I tinkered with almost all of these, but it was definitely easier saving presets as I went and micro-adjusted the presets for pics that were taken in similar situations.  
   
  The pics below are some of my best ones as well as a couple of my worst possibly (not counting the ones I immediately erase).  These were shot at the same location as my last entry minus the cat.  Shot wide open at 1.4 on the 50mm, (next time I'll try stopping down and moving a little closer to the subject), AWB, Center dot focus + recompose mostly, AE Lock/AF for the backfocus button, Center weighted average metering.  I'd be happy to upload all my raw files onto dropbox if anyone has the time/desire to edit any.  I think I'm doing pretty well for the week or so I've been editing in RAW, the little joyous moments I get to do this away from my studies -_-  Time FLIES when I take pics AND work in lightroom.... If I were independently wealthy I would do this for free for people...hehe.  Again, thanks for the critical advice / constructive criticism.  I actually don't have very thick skin, but I'm determined to be the best I can.  Again, sorry I have a hard time following advice about equipment - I usually buy and sell my stuff from previous hobbies or whatever to fund new hobbies like this (and pay a heavy tax to my wife at the same time of the funds I come up with from "nothing")    I'm not good at reading books/textbooks, but how is it that I can spend ridiculous amounts of time on head-fi or photography forums?  
   

  Which of these poses is better?  I paid maybe 35% attention to the rule of thirds when framing / cropping these pics.  I'm pretty sure a lot of these I have too much head-room, but it was hard for me to chop off pics that I took so much effort into taking in an opportunity I don't get often.  Summer sunlight is going to be really hard to come by in Portland pretty soon as well.  CPL.  I got one used for 6.  It's not a slim profile one, so I'll get vignetting on my 10-20mm Sigma, but I don't want to spend $80-150 on a slim B+W CPL right now.  When taking pics against the sun (without flash), was it just a matter of metering correctly to get the blue sky?  
   
   

   
  This one is probably not one of the better ones--it looked way more exposed SOOC.  I played around with the sliders--especially highlights to tone it down.  Anything I could have done differently?  Should I have done more more selective work on her face and not subdued/darkened the background as much?  I left this in landscape the way I shot it, just because a lot of my other shots were shot in portrait mode.  The second photo is clearly soft, but I like the pose so I selectively sharpened/contrast/etc her face.  I kinda turned down the background similarly with the left picture.  Is this more rescuable? 

  right one looks a little soft in her face, should i have selectively sharpened/played with highlights/contrast/etc her face?  Or is this not worth keeping?  

  Mimicking the dance from the ridiculously popular Gangnam Style music video which has taken the world by storm.  I think I shot these at 1/100 sec.  I was afraid if I went faster I would get an underexposed photo.  I have some more blurry photos in the same set that I took time to edit - mainly selectively made her facial features sharper/dark/contrasty to make it less blurry.  Even in these, the jacket and hands look a little soft.  I guess I should have gone up to maybe 1/150sec or so.  I didn't think to selectively sharpen the jacket and hands...perhaps for the better?  Should these two have been shot in AI Servo mode?  Everything else was taken with One Shot.

  I think I like her expression more on the left photo better, but prefer the warmer color of the right one.  Which one is better in your opinion?  I think most of my pics I went with more of the scheme on the right.  

  I like this pic on the left if only for the fact that it's different from the others.  It makes the picture to the right of me look a little too warm.  I set the camera to AI Servo mode and had my wife hold the backfocus button for this one.  A little less exposure on the right or less warmth would have been better?
   

  Couple friends liked this photo a lot, although someone pointed out the arm could have been more relaxed.  I was going for flare on this next one.  The framing is horrible right?  I don't use a UV filter.  I kinda like this rainbow colored flare element on the left.  Should I crop a 1/4th off the right?
   

  I think for the black and white one, I just simply pressed Black & White on LR after I was done.  It was harshly criticized by a friend who's also into photography saying that I should only do black and white if I intended to do it in the first place, and that it's overused by no-talent photographers   I get harsh criticism in the non-web world as well   
   
  I'm noticing that I have quite a bit of head-room in most of these... would it have been better to crop it off?  I rarely cropped off her knees (maybe not once).  I'm also seeing a trend of centered photos - like I said, I didn't pay too much attention to the rule of thirds more than half of the time even when I was processing.  
   
  back to studies.  Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> ..
> 
> leftnose, I appreciate that you are a very educated and experienced photographer.  *Trust me, I still have lots to learn and much I can and should practice!  *I like the shadows and highlights sliders as well, and could never figure out what the recovery slider really did before.  There seems to be one other slider I used to use in LR3 that isn't there in LR4 anymore...I'll have to look again to see what it was.  Maybe it was brightness?  Regarding the 2nd to last photo above with the sky and wife's cut off arm...hmm, I remember cropping it like that in order to put the cats eyes right in the bottom and left third of the photo.  *This was my point about the rule of 1/3rds earlier.  Here you followed it to the letter of the law and you created a problem with the composition.  Don't treat it like a rule that will magically make a better photo.  Always look at the whole composition.  Just because your subject is at a 1/3rds intersection doesn't mean the photo is composed correctly.*  I know I did some sharpening, which I understand now was not the best idea for a JPEG.  I think it would have been a better angle if less of my wife's face was in it, since I was trying to not shoot it anyway..  What else did you have to say about it that you were waiting for a response from me for?  *Be careful taking close-ups with an UWA.  You'll get distorted features.  Here your wife's arm looks bigger than it really is.  In the other, your cats head looks humongous.*  The last photo, I wonder how you could tell the white balance was off.  *Just by looking at it.  It looks yellow. * I haven't looked deeply into the actual definition yet, but is it the fact that there is is nothing purely white in the photo?  *No*  Her shirt is off-white, her skin tone is pretty close, and I'm pretty sure I tuned it to have a slightly bluer sky.  *Look at the photo of just your wife vs. the photo of the cat blocking out her face just above it.  Look at the skin tones.  In the photo of just your wife, her skin is very yellow, almost like she has jaundice.  Her skin tone looks much more natural in the one with the cat.  *I don't have the energy to comment on the first two pics.  You were right about the cat being scared though because she hadn't been outside in a long while.  They were the best of the bunch in sharpness since I was shooting handheld at like 200-300mm with a $160 new ($110 used) zoom lens.  In the distant future I'll upgrade a canon 70-200 of some sort perhaps.  I can't help the gear head in me, unfortunately, but I'm poor and I only pay for toys with a little portion of the money I made on the side.  As far as the sigma 50mm 1.4, 30mm 1.4,  and 10-20mm 1.4 lenses I have absolutely no regrets.  I think the quality of the pics speak for themselves in that regard.  Sure, if I mastered every aspect of my camera and skill then I'm sure the kit lens could put my photos to shame in terms of composition/vision/etc..  Anyway, I don't really see why you're belaboring a point about buying lenses when I already started exchanging lenses over a month ago and announced that I would do so.  I've been satisfied/set for 2 years as of a few weeks ago--in my case, I wish I had gotten them sooner..!  A different lens (bought used) can be a huge spark to motivate an amateur to get better.  Right now I have very little time...but yet I sit here like a zombie and write this -_-  *As I said, do whatever you like but the more you concentrate on your gear, the less you'll concentrate on and master the basics.  I'm not alone in this opinion.*
> 
> ...


----------



## hyogen

Thanks leftnose.  can't respond to each comment right now, but I thought I'd share a screenshot of my settings (don't have a screenshot of sharpening/noise reduction)

   
  I used the highlights slider for other pics with her face facing the sun, but didn't think to do it for these.  Is that something I can do for this shot as well, or more selectively just for the sky?  Oh, and I know using the eyedropper will change my temp/tint settings--I just stopped using the dropper for now


----------



## leftnose

Drag an ND filter over the sky.
   
  Also, learn tone curves and how to read a histogram.


----------



## MadCow

So finally Canon has made their pre-Photokina announcements. Canon 6D, a bunch of new printers, and a bunch of compacts.
   
  6D doesn't interest me, but makes me wonder if I should sell my 5D Mark II before its resale price drops. I am interested in the Pro 100 printer though, as I have been holding out on buying an A3+ printer for a while now to see what Canon brings out.


----------



## Jon L

The 6D really is not being received well by the Canon community, especially with the very strong Nikon D600 at the same price.  
   
  I so wish the Canon EOS-M would have come with full frame sensor or the Sony RX1 (full frame) with interchangeable lens.  No cigar..


----------



## daigo

Quote: 





madcow said:


> So finally Canon has made their pre-Photokina announcements. Canon 6D, a bunch of new printers, and a bunch of compacts.
> 
> 6D doesn't interest me, but makes me wonder if I should sell my 5D Mark II before its resale price drops. I am interested in the Pro 100 printer though, as I have been holding out on buying an A3+ printer for a while now to see what Canon brings out.


 
   
  Even if 5DmkII's have been getting a nice price drop to around $1600 as some stores clear them out, I think it's still a superior option to the 6D based on how the specs look as an entry to full frame.  I think it'll hold it's value well enough if you're just hanging onto it as a backup.


----------



## Jon L

I've been looking at those 5D II's, but the Nikon D600 really looks good.  It may become my first Nikon DSLR body..
   
  The Camera Store Hands-On Review
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IosQ4xCJBB0
   
  DxO (for DxO believers)
http://fstoppers.com/nikon-compared-to-canon-dxo-mark-best-digital-camera


----------



## hyogen

not that i'm looking to upgrade bodies anytime soon, but kinda crazy how 5DmIII has sold on Adorama and Beach camera (via their store on ebay) for $2750, $2800  no rebates, body only.   Perhaps within a few months it'll be down to $2500 and the 5DII will be less than $1300 new?  With the specs of the 6D not being overwhelming, It should fall under $2000 soon after launch as well.  I think my plan is to upgrade to the 5DIII in about 2 years


----------



## leftnose

So I sort of got suckered into going to a "Pumpkin Festival" in a few weeks.  It's an evening event where thousands of jack-o-lanterns are lit.  To make the best of a bad situation, I'm planning on taking my camera with me.
   
  As I've mentioned before, I 'm pretty new to flash photography so I'm looking on for some pointers on how to diffuse flash lighting at night outdoors.  The last event I did under these conditions, I just fitted an Omnibounce and lifted the head a bit.  I was pretty pleased with the results and, in fact, a couple of the images are going to be used in ads and press releases.  However, I know this set-up isn't really ideal or being used as intended so any advice would be welcome.  It has to be fairly portable as this is really a social gathering and photography won't be my main focus.  I'm thinking maybe just a bounce card will be the best option.
   
  For reference, I'm using a 430EXII so not super powerful.


----------



## MadCow

Wow, outdoors, that's tricky.
   
  I think first line of business is to make the light source as large as practical. A 4x6 bounce card may work, but that's a lot of power lost to the sky and we want to minimize power loss as much as possible. Other options include portable softboxes that attach directly to the flash head.
   
  Next, try to get the flash away from the camera, either via wireless triggering or via an off shoe cable. You can position the flash using your free hand (like what Zach Arias did here: http://strobist.blogspot.com/2012/07/two-worlds-collide-zack-arias-on.html ), or attach the flash to an extending handle or flash bracket to give you better height/distance.
   
  Or if the shoot is just for leisure skip the fancy brackets and go handheld like Zach.


----------



## Jon L

Many of the famed devices are quite expensive. The Gary Fong lightspheres are > $150, and the ColorRight FlashRight or the new LumiQuest are nice but $$. Big bouncecards tilted a bit to minimize loss to sky would be lightest and cheapest. One can even make one with white paper/board/leather, etc. Or, you can be the geek at the meeting with the milk jug diffusor (far right of photo). That'll light up the whole area if you want, or you can line the top and back with aluminum foil if you want more directional light.


----------



## leftnose

Thanks for the comments.  I noticed this was on sale at Amazon so I picked one up:
   
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00722Y9G0/ref=ox_ya_os_product
   
  Figured it wasn't too large an investment and I'll play with it a bit before the event.  I'm thinking I may modify it a bit and attach some wire to the back of it so I can curve it forward so less light is lost to the sky.
   
  If this doesn't work out I'm thinking of one of these:
   
http://www.dembflashproducts.com/
   
  which I like because they're hinged and can be pushed over the top of the flash again minimizing light lost to the sky.


----------



## leftnose

So I received the above yesterday and ran a few very informal tests.  It seems to work pretty well.  It is flexible enough that you can bend it down to curve over the lens and you can mount it slightly at an angle so it tips forward over the lens.  Doing both of these really cut down on light lost to the sky.  In fact, you can go too far and completely cut off a ceiling bounce indoors.  Seems to have definitely been worth the $9.00!
   
  Once I have some suitable pics, I'll be sure to post them.


----------



## MadCow

Coincidentally, I was also out shooting at night with flash handheld. I wasn't using any diffusers, just plain flash head set to 24mm position and gelled orange. 600EX-RT handheld on my left hand, triggered by ST-E2 (can't find that darned ST-E3RT anywhere right now):


----------



## leftnose

B&H has the wireless trigger in stock http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/847531-REG/Canon_5743B002_ST_E3_RT_Speedlite_Transmitter.html and they ship internationally.  Though, with the extra shipping costs and import duties, I'm not sure if you want to spend that premium.  They're closed for some Jewish holiday right now as well.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> B&H has the wireless trigger in stock http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/847531-REG/Canon_5743B002_ST_E3_RT_Speedlite_Transmitter.html and they ship internationally.  Though, with the extra shipping costs and import duties, I'm not sure if you want to spend that premium.  They're closed for some Jewish holiday right now as well.


 
   
  I bought the new YongNuo YN-622C wireless E-TTL radio transceivers and am quite happy with the results.  Most of all, there does not seem to be any "issues" or "quirks" that most of these economy triggers seem to have.  $90-100 for TWO of these is quite a bit more affordable than the Canon ST-E3 RT..
   
http://thephotogadget.com/en/content/yongnuo-yn-622-wireless-ttl-flash-trigger


----------



## leftnose

Interesting!  It looks like you can mount a flash on top of the trigger that's mounted to the camera?  A pair of these, my 430 EX II and a 270 EX II for the camera might make a nice, super portable kit.


----------



## MadCow

Those look pretty good. Yongnuo seems to be making a name for themselves these days; feature-wise, they look pretty good if you're starting fresh, and AA batteries!! That's a major plus point in my book, I really hate triggers that use some odd battery type that isn't easily available.
   
  But they're not for me though, I'm already heavily invested in the Canon wireless system now (having three 600EX-RTs), plus I really like their Group system. It suits my flash setup and metering workflow perfectly.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Interesting!  It looks like you can mount a flash on top of the trigger that's mounted to the camera?  A pair of these, my 430 EX II and a 270 EX II for the camera might make a nice, super portable kit.


 
  Yup, unlike most other Chinese triggers, the hotshoe on top of trigger is active and E-TTL passthrough.  However, I don't really like to use on-camera flash, so I bought Four of them, so I can trigger three off-camera flashes with various light modifiers, i.e. one key light with say portable Lumodi beauty dish, one to the side for fill, then third as kicker/Rim, all with E-TTL ratios control!  Man, a bona-fide full-function portable studio on such low budget.  Love it!


----------



## leftnose

Yeah, I'm thinking even more portable than that. Like hand holding the 430 with a big soft box or bounce card off to the side and using the 270 with some sort of a diffuser for fill.


----------



## otherlives

E-TTL (or whatever they call the communication system between the body and the canon flashes) has very limited range.  Its better to buy triggers that use radio signals.  Cactus V5's come to mind, 50 bucks used for a set.
   
  Edit:  Oh, those Yongnuo's are new.  Cool stuff.  I'd personally wait for a review, Yongnuo can be hit or miss IMO.  But cool nonethless, even though I never shoot E-TTL off shoe, haha.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





otherlives said:


> E-TTL (or whatever they call the communication system between the body and the canon flashes) has very limited range.  Its better to buy triggers that use radio signals.  Cactus V5's come to mind, 50 bucks used for a set.


 
   
  I think you're mistaking the transmission method and the communications protocol. It is the optical transmission that has limited range (and possibly unreliable depending on obstacles and placement/facing of the flash); the communications protocol (E-TTL) has nothing to do with the range and most 3rd party radio transmitters act primarily as E-TTL passthrough devices to allow E-TTL communications via radio.


----------



## otherlives

madcow said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by otherlives  E-TTL (or whatever they call the communication system between the body and the canon flashes) has very limited range.  Its better to buy triggers that use radio signals.  Cactus V5's come to mind, 50 bucks used for a set.   I think you're mistaking the transmission method and the communications protocol. It is the optical transmission that has limited range (and possibly unreliable depending on obstacles and placement/facing of the flash); the communications protocol (E-TTL) has nothing to do with the range and most 3rd party radio transmitters act primarily as E-TTL passthrough devices to allow E-TTL communications via radio.




Vernacular was mistaken, my point was not. Unless something had changed in the past year most entry level transmitters do not communicate E-TTL. Very rarely will a photog that knows what hes doing shoot E-TTL off camera anyway.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





otherlives said:


> Vernacular was mistaken, my point was not. Unless something had changed in the past year most entry level transmitters do not communicate E-TTL. Very rarely will a photog that knows what hes doing shoot E-TTL off camera anyway.


 
  Well, I have tried my share of "entry level" wireless triggers, and until the recent launch of YongNuo YN-622, yes pretty much all of them stunk, with odd behaviors, "quirks", and just not working as they should.  YongNuo YN-622 is the first "affordable," or Chinese, triggers that truly seems to work flawlessly without issues, probably the most impressive off-brand photographic piece of equipment I have tried, period.  
   
  As far as off camera E-TTL, sure it's nice to control everything manually IF one has the time, but with these new affordable E-TTL triggers available, more and more photogs are embracing them for things like wedding receptions where kids and people are running around, giving photogs no time to properly set up the lighting.


----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Well, I have tried my share of "entry level" wireless triggers, and until the recent launch of YongNuo YN-622, yes pretty much all of them stunk, with odd behaviors, "quirks", and just not working as they should.  YongNuo YN-622 is the first "affordable," or Chinese, triggers that truly seems to work flawlessly without issues, probably the most impressive off-brand photographic piece of equipment I have tried, period.


 
   
  Their canon compatible speedlights are pretty impressive for the dosh too. Not a replacement for the big Canon speedlights (imo), but for second (or third or fourth) off camera strobes - they are a great option.


----------



## hyogen

a couple of my recent pics.  DAT exam over..  whew!  Now I have physics, bio, and biochem this quarter D:


----------



## hyogen




----------



## liamstrain

Quote: 





hyogen said:


>


 
   
  Some nice shots, but why is this one upside down?


----------



## leftnose

And the first one in the second post is sideways (and I think you rotated the last image in the first post but it still works) but, otherwise, much better!  My only comment would be to be careful tilting the camera.  To me, the perspective shift works in some of those images but not all.


----------



## liamstrain

Strong architectural elements can be tricky if you don't get the camera really squared up and level (or a really distinct deliberate tilt) anything that is *close* will just look like an error.


----------



## hyogen

leftnose said:


> And the first one in the second post is sideways (and I think you rotated the last image in the first post but it still works) but, otherwise, much better!  My only comment would be to be careful tilting the camera.  To me, the perspective shift works in some of those images but not all.




Thanks! I think I was trying to be a little too creative in some of these. Glad to hear it works for some of them. The last pic in the first post was the ceiling of a building. So I didn't rotate that one.. Perhaps could work better in a different perspective or portrait.




liamstrain said:


> Strong architectural elements can be tricky if you don't get the camera really squared up and level (or a really distinct deliberate tilt) anything that is *close* will just look like an error.




Thanks for the feedback. Does anything look particularly distorted too much? Most were shot with the 10-20mm on a crop sensor.


----------



## hyogen

here are a couple of my favorite pics I've taken so far.
   
  This was shot wide open at 1.4 on the sigma 30mm.  I feel like I could have maybe stopped down a little bit to make it a little sharper.  or maybe manually set the ISO to 3200. It probably auto'd to 1600. I really like the colors of this one.  How's the white balance on this one? 





  
  All the other photos aside from the first one was shot with Sigma 10-20mm.  If we had more time I would have switched to either the 30 or 50mm since there was quite a bit of space behind us.  I mainly stopped by this location to get a picture of the wall. 
   
  This was a different day and a different location.  It's my wife's favorite.  Also shot with the 10-20--I regret that this one isn't as sharp as I'd like.


----------



## hyogen

I played around with split toning for these.  All taken with my cheapest sigma 70-300 apo macro lens.  The first two I accidentally shot it at ISO 3200 in broad daylight.


----------



## otherlives

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> here are a couple of my favorite pics I've taken so far.
> 
> This was shot wide open at 1.4 on the sigma 30mm.  I feel like I could have maybe stopped down a little bit to make it a little sharper.  or maybe manually set the ISO to 3200. It probably auto'd to 1600. I really like the colors of this one.  How's the white balance on this one?


 
   
   
  Hope you dont mind the constructive criticism here, but what did you do in post?  This photo is *way* too red IMO.


----------



## hyogen

ahh, thanks.  I feel this way too, now...  I think I was trying to bring out the magenta light too much from a previous picture and it affected this one, too.  I didn't really adjust them individually that much.  I think I upped the saturation level of magenta and a couple other colors like green also. 
   
  Does this picture look overly soft?  I may have not focused perfectly, either...or mis-recomposed after using center dot focus.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> Does this picture look overly soft?  I may have not focused perfectly, either...or mis-recomposed after using center dot focus.


 
   
  Looks back focused to me.  The har at the back of her head looks OK but his beard looks soft.
   
  You asked about white balance: you will never get a "proper" white balance in a shot like that because you have several different colors of light in the scene.  Take your pick and choose which you like best.  I think yours is too red but you say you split toned it so that's not really a WB issue.  But, in a case like this, if you really like the photo, don't forget B&W.  I know we spoke out against selective B&W but it can save a shot:
   
   

   
  I also pulled highlights and bumped the contrast to get some detail back in the faces.  It probably still needs more contrast as there isn't really a good black in it but you get the idea.
   
  To be honest, though, I much prefer your architecture shots to your people shots.  I think you might have too much emotional attachment to your subjects it's causing you trouble to truly edit properly.  This is difficult to overcome, though.


----------



## hyogen

I hear you, leftnose--and thanks.  If you ever want a raw file for any of these, just let me know.  I agree there is a emotional attachment to these--for me that might mean that I'm making the skin tones a little too warm/red?  Also, my friend keeps recommending that I get an IPS monitor for color correction.  I'm using a 1080p 18.4" glossy laptop LCD which I hear isn't the best for editing. 
   
  Here are a few from yesterday-I think I did better with these. 
   

   

   
  Something pretty weird happened with these 2 below: 
   


  The top one looked better straight from the camera...the 2nd one was a little over-exposed.  In both of them, the guy on the left's face was perfectly sharp and the faces got less and less sharp as you went to the right.  I remember center-dot focusing on the guy on the left's face (probably my mistake there--should have focused on one of the girls in the middle) and then recomposed the shot.  As they are standing pretty much the same distance from me, I didn't expect it to be off this much.  For both of these I selectively adjusted the settings on the 3 right faces (all together, not individually) including sharpness, contrast, clarity, highlights, etc.....anything to make their faces look more sharp.  You can't really tell with the size of the pics here, but the faces were pretty soft aside from the left-most guy.
   
  I don't recall, but for all of these shots I shot at either wide open at 1.4 or stopped down a little up to maybe 2.0.  It's interesting that you mentioned before that the picture looked backfocused.  This sigma 30mm 1.4 (and the sigma 50mm 1.4) are known to have high occurrences of front/back focusing/calibration issues.  I was pretty certain my 50mm isn't plagued with this issue, and I didn't think my 30mm had it either..   Maybe it just has difficulty focusing in low light (definitely searches quite a bit). 

  Even though shot in RAW, I felt like there was an extremely fine line between making this pic look too cold or too warm, too magenta or too green..  Is it because of the light that's cast by the neon lights? 
   
  this one was just for the heck of it - but I hope I found the best balance between sharpness and noise.  It wasn't very sharp to begin with


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> I agree there is a emotional attachment to these--for me that might mean that I'm making the skin tones a little too warm/red?
> 
> *No, that means the same for you as it does anyone else; you're unable to objective judge the quality of the photo because of its subjects.  Ultimately, you want to be able to grade any photo on its technical and compositional properties, not the people that are in it.  It doesn't mean that you are PP'ing photos improperly, it means you are thinking photos are worth PP'ing when they should be passed over for others that are better.*
> 
> ...


 
  EDIT: Take a look at Jon L's second photo in http://www.head-fi.org/t/243975/the-canon-thread/1995#post_8335701  You can see two different colors of light in the photo but he's done a good job balancing them, making everything look good, and portraying the environment of the photo.


----------



## otherlives

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> I don't recall, but for all of these shots I shot at either wide open at 1.4 or stopped down a little up to maybe 2.0.  It's interesting that you mentioned before that the picture looked backfocused.  This sigma 30mm 1.4 (and the sigma 50mm 1.4) are known to have high occurrences of front/back focusing/calibration issues.  I was pretty certain my 50mm isn't plagued with this issue, and I didn't think my 30mm had it either..   Maybe it just has difficulty focusing in low light (definitely searches quite a bit).
> 
> Even though shot in RAW, I felt like there was an extremely fine line between making this pic look too cold or too warm, too magenta or too green..  Is it because of the light that's cast by the neon lights?


 
   
   
  IMO that first pic which I quoted of the two people...  you cant tell if the lens front or back focused. What ISO was it at, and on what body?  Its just looks soft in general.
   
   
  You need to double process pics like the above if you want them to come out right.  Process once for the background and again for the people, or vice versa.


----------



## MadCow

Work's been tough and my right hand has been giving me RSI problems, so I haven't caught up with online stuff much.
   
  @hyogen: Like what you did with the flowers and plants.
   
  On mixed lighting, what I normally do is balance for the prominent skin tones (i.e. what's facing the viewer and gets the most attention), and let whatever happens to the environment/background, happen. Not sure how well Lightroom does it, but I use Capture One Pro which has skin tone-specific dropper tools (it's just like a white balance dropper tool that you click on a spot in the photo, except that it is balanced for a specific skin tone instead of neutral grey).


----------



## leftnose

So the pumpkin festival was last night and I received the Yongnou wireless tranceivers about 3:00 PM yesterday as well.  Played with them for about 30 minutes and then took them out.
   
  Here's holding my 430 EX II high over my head using the Yongnous with the bounce modifier I posed about earlier:
   

   
  It needs a bit of PP to fix the exposure and a bit of Photoshopping to get rid of the BudLight logos but I'd say the combo works pretty well.
   
  But, on the other hand, there's something to be said for high ISO capture:


----------



## castleofargh

you got robbed, i m pretty sure those 2 sources on the 2nd pic don't work with a wireless tranceiver 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  still it must be fun to have a wireless flash. i m all about natural light, but the ability to place the flash where i want could change that opinion a little. if only for fill in.


----------



## Jon L

"But, on the other hand, there's something to be said for high ISO capture:"
   
  Definitely. And sometimes you can't find a flash large enough. Below was at ISO 3200 on crop sensor at its limits of useful high ISO-ness, but it's got a certain charm still.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





otherlives said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  I think at 3200 iso- possibly 1600 iso, though.


----------



## hyogen

a couple of hopefully more interesting photos    i might have shared that top picture before.. Hopefully these aren't too upsetting to anyone


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Definitely. And sometimes you can't find a flash large enough. Below was at ISO 3200 on crop sensor at its limits of useful high ISO-ness, but it's got a certain charm still.


 
   
  I went to a high school that had a pretty serious student newspaper (the oldest HS student newspaper in the US., published since 1856 blah, blah,etc., etc.).  Anyway, it was printed weekly 16-page broadsheet, 2 sections, with color on the front and back of each section.  I was the photo editor and I generally shot sports since I was blessed with one of the better cameras (an EOS A2).  I can remember pushing Neopan 1600 to 3200 to shoot swimming, squash, hockey and other nightmare indoor sports.  God, If I could do then with high-ISO what is possible now, I would have been in heaven.  It's amazing how quickly we have changed our standards, especially on high-ISO.
   
  BTW, if you ever want to give yourself a challenge, try shooting a squash match.  Crimney!  In the end, I just stuck on a 28mm lens and photographed the whole court from above.  I only did a few matches before I assigned that one to someone else!
   
  EDIT: Actually, I didn't "stick on" a 28mm lens.  I've never owned one.  I just left the zoom at 28mm.


----------



## Jon L

I still have a bunch of Velvia 50 (!) film that has been waiting for that perfect combination of 1) Me being at a scenic location 2) On a bright day, and 3) with a FILM camera in hand instead of digital.  Will have to wait some more 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  The recent Canon 1Dx does (expandable) ISO 204800, and even on the 5D III, shooting ISO 1600-3200 is very, very clean. They should make a hybrid camera that can shoot film in daylight and digital at night..


----------



## hyogen

hopefully a wise decision to crop it in this fashion . Didn't want the ugly roof top to show below this and a short treeline above the roof.  So I cropped off more than half of the sky
   
   
  Saw Looper finally.  Was entertained, but not what I expected. Probably would have liked Argo more. 
   

  I had a slightly cooler edit of this one, but went with this one.
   

  I moved the highlights slider maybe a third to the left to make the REGAL look a little less blown out
   

   

  this last one was a crop of a photo similarly sized as the previous one. 

 btw, Koi Fusion is a super popular eating joint that started off as a food cart/truck.  It's a fusion of mexican and korean food--like bulgogi tacos, kalbi (ribs) burritos and quesadillas with kimchi.  Super delicious    I think only in Portland...but it has gained a lot of praise from a lot of places including the NY Times.  http://koifusionpdx.com/2010/07/29/the-new-york-times-korean-tacos-and-the-future-of-fusion-2/


----------



## GSARider

Well I'm tossing up between the new Sony A99 with some Zeiss glass and a Canon 5D III. I will be ordering at the weekend, so I haven't long to sort it! Usage is mainly for video and a few stills. New Sachtler tripod just ordered too...


----------



## leftnose

I'd be awfully tempted to go with the A99 if your main interest is video.  Swivel LCD, 1080p60, full time video AF, and built-in IS.  Sony sensors seem to be working out pretty well in Nikons as well.
   
  But, OTOH, I personally would never choose to be an early adopter and the A99 is a brand new camera.  I'm also not really sold on the whole translucent mirror idea.  It's not a new concept and if it really were better, it would be much more widely adopted by now.


----------



## castleofargh

i had an eos RT like that, it was so much fun, and hate.
   
  //////from memory the good points were:
  -almost no delay between pressing your finger and the actual shot. that was huge, it made my eos1n so jealous (should be true with the A99 too)
   
  -great help for tracking moving targets as you never lose them. but it was really cool only around max aperture, the view gets darker as the diaphragm closes. (not sure for the A99 i guess the digital viewfinder will compensate to maintain perfect vision)
   
  ///////bad points:
  - you had to care for lights coming from behind the camera.i had a little plastic stuff to close the viewer when i wasn't myself behind it (no idea if they have a solution for when you use live view to shoot on the A99)
   
  -in low lights conditions it was a mess because, you wouldn't see much into the viewfinder . (no problem here on the A99 as it s a digital viewfinder, my guess is you can see better than the naked eye can)
   
  - sometimes those 2/3 stop loss of light that went into the viewfinder were a problem as you can guess. ( 30/100 of the light is reflected and won't go to the sensor on the A99. and yet they don't talk about any change in regard to iso f/ or speed. my guess on this one would be that they compensate for the light loss digitally by pushing the sensor a little. that s just a guess but it would mean the same added noise as an iso correction)
   
  -any dust on the mirror is a mess for the pictures. and it occurs a lot more often than dust on the sensor with usual reflex camera if you think about it.
   
  just from the specs it looks like the best for video it should have one of the best autofocus and that is something pretty damn important in video.
  i ve tried the 5dMKIII to see if it would be a good upgrade from my MKII and the only thing that really impressed me was the autofocus.it was like i would get twice as much pictures focused on moving targets. but i don't do much action shots so i didn't get one. i m sorry i didn't even try the video so i can't tell. on the mkII it's pretty useless. beautiful video quality, but really not user friendly.sorry i can't help on that one.


----------



## GSARider

Decided to go with the 5D III, ordered this afternoon along with a 24-105 F4L, 100mm F2.8 and a 50mm F1.4 as well as a new Sachtler tripod and a Tascam sound recorder. I can't take the risk with the A99 being so new and untested...plus the price is relatively high.


----------



## MadCow

I played around with the EOS-M at the store yesterday. Over here Canon Malaysia offers several kits: one with the 18-55 zoom, 22 prime and flash, one with the 22 prime and EOS adapter, and a third which I don't remember.
   
  The build quality is really good. It feels more robust in the hand, even compared to the Fuji X cameras. The touch screen is nice and the lenses all have a very nice, solid feel and heft to them. I didn't insert an SD card to take pictures though, so I don't have samples but I assume IQ will be very similar to the 650D.
   
  I really want to like this camera. I really do, but the big dealbreaker that I can't get over is the focusing speed. Now it's not as slow or as bad as some claim, but even so when you put them side-by-side with the competition it just feels like it's struggling. The Olympus and Panasonic bodies blow it away completely. The Fujis, which were considered the slowest of the bunch, still feels faster and snapper than the EOS-M. We even took a display Samsung NX1000 unit from the shelf and did a side-by-side -- the Samsung was much snappier to gain focus.
   
  My main beef with the focusing is what I call the "focus wobble", the effect when a CDAF algorithm reaches the point of focus and then iterates back and forth that point to obtain an accurate focus. The EOS-M's focus wobble can be quite excessive, especially with shallow DOF, or close focus subjects. It sometimes even misses the point and then goes on to the long and painfully slow hunt to infinity and back. So, good for landscapes, architecture, still life, etc -- not so ideal for people except in a planned portrait session.


----------



## castleofargh

usually that stupid fail of an autofocus you re calling wobbling is when you chose continuous autofocus or whatever clever autofocus mod.
  if it was, you can expect much better from the camera. if not, well forget it ever existed.


----------



## hyogen

should've used a deeper dof here :-/  otherwise, it's probably my favorite photo i've taken so far    it's uncanny how 2 of my best friends and I love the movie Nacho LIbre. 
   
  I was shooting at ISO 1600 and Aperture priority at 1.4 or 1.8 or so and my shutter speed was something like 1/1000............   :-/  Lesson learned I guess...  The whole night I was shooting with similar settings and I was getting this* ugly darker banding i*n some of my shots.....was this due to the fluorescent lights and too high of a shutter speed?      I was asked to shoot this event at my church (unpaid), and I happily did it and the post processing---but I could have saved myself a lot of time if I didn't get like 3-4 different exposures in my shots including a small number with a dark band.  :-/  I kept switching from center average, dot, and evaluative metering, trying to get it right.  It was a fun, learning experience.


   

  This last photo shows the banding I'm talking about.  Was a pain to deal with in post, although I did make some strides forward in bulk processing skills learned and saved myself a bunch of time :-/   I shot maybe 600 shots and ended up processing a total of 260 or so.  If I counted the number of individual photos that I adjusted and pasted settings to similarly exposed photos--it was probably around 25...could have been much less had I stuck to one metering method and didn't get this banding (out of the 260 I processed, they accounted for maybe 5%).


----------



## leftnose

Thanks for the review.  I had read similar things about the EOS-M as well.
   
  DigitalRev posted their review as well.  Kai is more obnoxious than usual, complaining that the camera won't focus while running down the street but it gets the point across.
   
  I'm thinking about an Olympus OMD-E5 now.  I won't be able to easily use all my Canon glass but maybe simplicity will be a good thing.
   
  EDIT: DigitalRev review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4nzXeqkpOE&feature=plcp


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> The whole night I was shooting with similar settings and I was getting this* ugly darker banding i*n some of my shots.....was this due to the fluorescent lights and too high of a shutter speed?


 
   
  Yup, I really hate fluorescent lighting because of this. It locks your shutter speed down to a relatively low speed to avoid the banding, which in turn limits action shots. Furthermore, lighting quality is generally not as pleasing compared to other forms of artificial lighting.


----------



## liamstrain

Yes, cheap low freq ballasts on the flourescents, or if using fill flash - too high a sync speed.


----------



## musubi1000

Metering mode won't make a difference if the lighting were causing this unusual banding. It doesn't look like any lighting I've ever seen. It looks like some glitch in the camera. Was flash used? Bounced?


----------



## hyogen

flash was used on some - bounced always off the ceiling or side wall.


----------



## musubi1000

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> flash was used on some - bounced always off the ceiling or side wall.


 
  ok that may explain a few things. the banding MAY have been caused by the bounced flash hitting something on the ceiling. the florescent light reflectors or something reflective or even restrictive. The color shifts are from white balance differences between flash and the available florescent  light. These are just guesses from what you've told us and what I've seen. These were processed and I'm curious to see the uncorrected raw file to see what happened.


----------



## liamstrain

If the shutter speeds were still that high, AND flash was used, it was a sync issue. The shutter wasn't open long enough for the full flash duration. So only part of the frame got the additional illumination.


----------



## musubi1000

liamstrain said:


> If the shutter speeds were still that high, AND flash was used, it was a sync issue. The shutter wasn't open long enough for the full flash duration. So only part of the frame got the additional illumination.


By simply turning on high speed sync this obstacle is defeated. Oh and out of sync shots are obvious as one side or the other is dark but never banded. But then again these new electric shutter cameras are different.


----------



## leftnose

35mm f/2 IS announced.
   
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/ef-24-70-f4l-is-ef-35-f2-is/
   
  YEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS!!!  Will be on pre-order as soon as possible.  It's going to be overpriced, it's a bit bigger and heavier than I'd like but it's f/2, it's 35mm, and it has 4-stop IS (1/2 exposures, handheld!).  As long as it works out OK optically, I could see this lens living on my camera 80% of the time.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> 35mm f/2 IS announced.
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/ef-24-70-f4l-is-ef-35-f2-is/
> 
> YEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS!!!  Will be on pre-order as soon as possible.  It's going to be overpriced, it's a bit bigger and heavier than I'd like but it's f/2, it's 35mm, and it has 4-stop IS (1/2 exposures, handheld!).  As long as it works out OK optically, I could see this lens living on my camera 80% of the time.


 
  Okay... that just made my 35/2 obsolete. Assuming the quality and price will be in the same league as the 24 IS and 28 IS, I think it's a winner for me too.


----------



## liamstrain

I'm glad to see they are updating the 35/2 - though I don't think it needs IS (my own personal preference though). 
   
  I'll look forward to distortion samples - if it's as clean as I hope it will be, I'll buy one.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I'm glad to see they are updating the 35/2 - though I don't think it needs IS (my own personal preference though).
> 
> I'll look forward to distortion samples - if it's as clean as I hope it will be, I'll buy one.


 
  Well, for video (which I don't shoot) there's good reason to have IS.  Also, with 4-stop IS, you're talking 1/2 second exposures.  Add in pretty darn good high ISO capabilities from modern DSLRs and you're talking, what, EV -1 handheld at ISO1600.  Push that to ISO 6400 and you're shooting at night out in the country under moonlight.  Add in an 8-blade rounded aperture [size=small]diaphragm[/size] and I couldn't think of a more perfect lens for my use.
   
  On another note, a buddy of mine in a band had a show on Saturday.  Gotta love the 85/1.8:
   

   
   

   

   
   

   

   
   

   
   
  All taken @ ISO 3200 anywhere between f/1.8-2.8 with shutter speeds ranging 1/60-1/200
   
  EDIT: Hmm..these all look a bit flat to me.  IDK if it's this monitor here at work, the environment, or if the forum software is doing something to the images but, given what I'm seeing now, these should have more contrast; might be time to re-calibrate my monitors at home.  Oh well, you get the idea.


----------



## liamstrain

Yah - I don't use my dSLRS for anything low light though - Its all studio or location with tripods and lights. So IS for me is a non-issue. Distortion and sharpness are really my only criteria. 
   
  If I want to shoot low light, I'm going to be holding a rangefinder.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I'm glad to see they are updating the 35/2 - though I don't think it needs IS (my own personal preference though).
> 
> I'll look forward to distortion samples - if it's as clean as I hope it will be, I'll buy one.


 
   
  My preference would have been a new 35/2 without IS, which would be smaller, lighter, and most importantly cheaper.  Going by Canon's recent IS lens releases, the 35/2 is going to be at least in $800 range, which makes it really not a replacement for the old 35 f/2 which can be picked up for $300 range currently.  
   
  Here's hoping Canon doesn't screw up (or screw us over with price) with the rumored new 35L, which is the one I'm waiting for.  I would still prefer no IS, as small as possible, and cheapest possible, but Canon does what it wants to.  Then again, the current 35L really doesn't need to be updated IMO.


----------



## MadCow

Speaking of 35L, I just realized something... if you're a 24/50/100 person then all three lenses in this trinity are weather-sealed. If you're a 35/85/135, on the other hand, all three are not weather-sealed.
   
  Not suggesting any sort of pattern in Canon or anything, just what I noticed.


----------



## leftnose

Yeah, I'd say that's just due to the ages of the lenses, though. 35/85/135 are basically 90s era.  The 24/50/100 are basically all from the last 5 years, no?


----------



## musubi1000

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Yeah, I'd say that's just due to the ages of the lenses, though. 35/85/135 are basically 90s era.  The 24/50/100 are basically all from the last 5 years, no?


 
  no, those focal lengths have been popular with photogs since the dawn of 35mm


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> no, those focal lengths have been popular with photogs since the dawn of 35mm


 
  He's not talking about the popularity, but the age of the most recent L.
   
  And yeah, 24/50/100 are quite recent while the 35 and 135 are relatively old designs. The 85L II is relatively new though, but wasn't built with weather-sealing.


----------



## musubi1000

Ha! thats why Canon made the "popular" sizes weather sealed first. They will eventually get to the less common focal lengths and increase the price by about double.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





madcow said:


> And yeah, 24/50/100 are quite recent while the 35 and 135 are relatively old designs. The 85L II is relatively new though, but wasn't built with weather-sealing.


 
   
  I don't know too much about it as I've never paid a ton of attention to the lens as I'll never buy one but I think the upgrade to the 85L II was much less drastic than some of the other upgrades.  Were there any external changes?  I think it was just new coatings on the optics and a different drive ratio for the AF, no?  Correct me if I'm wrong.  But if I'm right, the 85L is still really a 90s lens.
   
  Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> Ha! thats why Canon made the "popular" sizes weather sealed first. They will eventually get to the less common focal lengths and increase the price by about double.


 
  Not sure if I agree with you at all on this (other than doubling the price, that's sure to happen).  Traditionally, I think 35mm is much more common than 24mm and probably second in popularity only to 50mm for prime lenses (possibly even more popular now with crop sensors).  And again, traditionally, 85/90mm and 135mm are both much more common than 100mm.  Actually, to me, 100mm is kind of a weird focal length and it isn't necessarily one that I would think to buy other than the fact that it is available as a macro lens.
   
  So, ultimately, I think 50mm is the most popular lens but I think 35/85/135 is a much more common combo than 24/50/100.


----------



## castleofargh

while we re at it, do you know why the best lenses (sharpness/aperture/distortion) never use IS? IS must have minor drawbacks when working, but i wonder if there is a reason why the IS lenses don't compete directly with others when IS is OFF?
  for a long time now i ve been wondering if that was a marketing decision or if there was some technical reasons.
   
  i have wet dreams of my 85LII with IS "the best portrait lens for vampires! soon 135L-IS with wooden stick" and "so heavy no human can steal it from you!" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  that 85 can't be "tropicalised", redesign all the moving parts so the front lens stay fixed would be tremendous work. might as well do a new lens imo.
   
   thx for telling us about the 35IS. it could make wonders in extreme situations. that s one toy i really want to try.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





castleofargh said:


> while we re at it, do you know why the best lenses (sharpness/aperture/distortion) never use IS? IS must have minor drawbacks when working, but i wonder if there is a reason why the IS lenses don't compete directly with others when IS is OFF?
> for a long time now i ve been wondering if that was a marketing decision or if there was some technical reasons.


 
   
  Not sure I agree with this either.  The new 100L Macro has IS and is sharp as a tack.  The 70-200L f/2.8 II IS is super sharp.  All the "II" version super-teles have IS and are ridiculously sharp.  I'd say it's more of a developmental issue.  The 135L, for example, was released in the mid-90s and IS just didn't exist then.
   
  However, IS lenses invariably add more elements.  In general, more elements = more chance for distortion and flare so it is fundamentally harder to make an IS lens that is as sharp as a non-IS lens.  However, with modern engineering, materials, coatings, and manufacturing techniques it can be done and I wouldn't dismiss any new lens with IS as being "not sharp."


----------



## Jon L

Well, my $800 guess about the 35 f/2 IS price wasn't far off.  Taking preorders at $850 !  The 24-70 f/4L IS $1500 !!  Canon continues on the price-it-high-and-they-will-come path..
   
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/ef-24-70-f4l-is-ef-35-f2-is-preorders/


----------



## castleofargh

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Not sure I agree with this either.  The new 100L Macro has IS and is sharp as a tack.  The 70-200L f/2.8 II IS is super sharp.  All the "II" version super-teles have IS and are ridiculously sharp.  I'd say it's more of a developmental issue.  The 135L, for example, was released in the mid-90s and IS just didn't exist then.
> 
> However, IS lenses invariably add more elements.  In general, more elements = more chance for distortion and flare so it is fundamentally harder to make an IS lens that is as sharp as a non-IS lens.  However, with modern engineering, materials, coatings, and manufacturing techniques it can be done and I wouldn't dismiss any new lens with IS as being "not sharp."


 
   
  ok i answered myself by taking a look at the canon list, in fact canon mainly made IS versions of the zooms. that s why i get in my head that the good rocks don't get IS. 
   
  the last 70-200 is amazing it is the one i rent when i need IS. i often wonder if i should sell my 85 135 and 200 to get one. on paper the 70-200 looks even better than my babies but when i use it, i m never in love with the results like i am with my 3 rocks. (not taking IS and all in one aspect of the 70-200 here, just how i see the good shots)
  can't say if it is because i know what i can and cannot do on those and lack experience with the 70-200 or if there is more than what the charts are saying.
   
   
   
   
  The 24-70 f/4L IS $1500   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  it better be amazing for that price.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> I don't know too much about it as I've never paid a ton of attention to the lens as I'll never buy one but I think the upgrade to the 85L II was much less drastic than some of the other upgrades.  Were there any external changes?  I think it was just new coatings on the optics and a different drive ratio for the AF, no?  Correct me if I'm wrong.  But if I'm right, the 85L is still really a 90s lens.


 
   
  IIRC, the main differences between then two 85L versions are just improved lens coatings and faster AF; the optical formula is practically the same. External changes were purely cosmetic, but I don't see why they couldn't add weather sealing to the lens. Perhaps due to the way the front element and focusing group worked?
   
   
   
  Quote: 





castleofargh said:


> while we re at it, do you know why the best lenses (sharpness/aperture/distortion) never use IS? IS must have minor drawbacks when working, but i wonder if there is a reason why the IS lenses don't compete directly with others when IS is OFF?
> for a long time now i ve been wondering if that was a marketing decision or if there was some technical reasons.


 
   
  In my opinion, the IS mechanism involves a moving/floating glass element. Due to the ultra-high resolution of modern sensors and high quality optics, all it takes is a tiny misalignment in the optical path to introduce abberations to IQ. So an IS mechanism has to be manufactured to very high precision levels, and when IS is turned off it has to "park" these elements in a very precise manner as well. High precision generally means higher costs.
   
  So the marketing decisions would mostly be something like this: Is is worth installing an expensive, high precision IS mechanism (sharp lens), a cheaper and less one (not as sharp, but still sharp by modern standards), or none at all?


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Well, my $800 guess about the 35 f/2 IS price wasn't far off.  Taking preorders at $850 !  The 24-70 f/4L IS $1500 !!  Canon continues on the price-it-high-and-they-will-come path..
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/ef-24-70-f4l-is-ef-35-f2-is-preorders/


 
  I hate to admit it but I'm one of those who will pre-order the 35, even at that price.  I'm just waiting for Amazon to list it (Prime, FTW!).
   
  The 24-70, OTOH, is crazy at $1500.  I'll hang on to my 24-105, thank you very much.
   
  EDIT: Also, center pinch lens caps!  That must have added a bunch to the R&D


----------



## musubi1000

leftnose said:


> I don't know too much about it as I've never paid a ton of attention to the lens as I'll never buy one but I think the upgrade to the 85L II was much less drastic than some of the other upgrades.  Were there any external changes?  I think it was just new coatings on the optics and a different drive ratio for the AF, no?  Correct me if I'm wrong.  But if I'm right, the 85L is still really a 90s lens.
> 
> Not sure if I agree with you at all on this (other than doubling the price, that's sure to happen).  Traditionally, I think 35mm is much more common than 24mm and probably second in popularity only to 50mm for prime lenses (possibly even more popular now with crop sensors).  And again, traditionally, 85/90mm and 135mm are both much more common than 100mm.  Actually, to me, 100mm is kind of a weird focal length and it isn't necessarily one that I would think to buy other than the fact that it is available as a macro lens.
> 
> So, ultimately, I think 50mm is the most popular lens but I think 35/85/135 is a much more common combo than 24/50/100.




True 35mm was definetly more common than the 24mm before 1980 but the zoom came into fashion and replaced all the primes for all but the pros and few who demanded the best image quality. 35 and 50 are probably more common but if canon were to SELL NEW lenses they obviously started with the 24 before the 35. I think each is equally important but for different reasons.


----------



## musubi1000

liamstrain said:


> Yah - I don't use my dSLRS for anything low light though - Its all studio or location with tripods and lights. So IS for me is a non-issue. Distortion and sharpness are really my only criteria.
> 
> If I want to shoot low light, I'm going to be holding a rangefinder.


Leica Monochrome? I've seen its images at ISO 10,000 and they look like Tri-X @ 800


----------



## liamstrain

musubi1000 said:


> Leica Monochrome? I've seen its images at ISO 10,000 and they look like Tri-X @ 800


 
   
  Leica M4-2 with TriX pushed. The ability to handhold a rangefinder (no mirror slap + balance/form factor) means I can reliably hold really clean down to 1/4. Easier to focus in low light too. 
   
  I'm not dropping the kind of dosh Leica wants for their digital RFs. Not for cameras that don't get me client work.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Leica M4-2


 
   
  Nice.  My go to Leica is my original series Wetzlar M4:


----------



## liamstrain

I do like the original M4. Classy camera.


----------



## PintoDave

I play around with my Canon AE-1 Program a handful of times a year. I like the feel of 35mm cameras and manipulating the image with filters and the wide variety of lenses. At the moment I have a handful of 80-200mm lenses, a 23mm wide angle, and some 50mm stock lenses like came with the camera upon initial release. Not sure what my macro lens is, but it is a telescoping lens, however it has a chip to the right center of the outside glass, so I always use it for macro photography and never anything distant.


----------



## musubi1000

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Leica M4-2 with TriX pushed. The ability to handhold a rangefinder (no mirror slap + balance/form factor) means I can reliably hold really clean down to 1/4. Easier to focus in low light too.
> 
> I'm not dropping the kind of dosh Leica wants for their digital RFs. Not for cameras that don't get me client work.


 
  Very cool kickin it ol school. D76 1:1? Anyway as far as low light goes the Monochrome completely surpasses film and many other high end digital cams as far as shadow detail and noise levels at high ISO


----------



## liamstrain

musubi1000 said:


> Very cool kickin it ol school. D76 1:1? Anyway as far as low light goes the Monochrome completely surpasses film and many other high end digital cams as far as shadow detail and noise levels at high ISO


 
   
  HC110 100:1 if I'm pushing, semi-stand development. Otherwise I like HC110 in dillution B and H. Works great for Efke 25 as well. 
   
  The Monochrom does look good, though I don't think it really outperforms the Nikon high end offerings (and frankly, the flexibility of shooting color on the M9 trumps any low light benefit). I just cannot justify the price for my "fun" cameras.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> HC110 100:1 if I'm pushing, semi-stand development. Otherwise I like HC110 in dillution B and H. Works great for Efke 25 as well.
> 
> The Monochrom does look good, though I don't think it really outperforms the Nikon high end offerings (and frankly, the flexibility of shooting color on the M9 trumps any low light benefit). I just cannot justify the price for my "fun" cameras. Wio


 
   
  Wow, you're really making me feel like I need to take some B&W out of the freezer, break out the daylight changing bag, and spin some tank reels!  My go to film was always FP4+ that I developed in Ilfotec HC at 1:15.  But, if I had the light, I loved using Agfapan APX 25 which I developed in Rodinal.  Of course, APX 25 doesn't exist anymore and I think Rodinal's chemistry has changed so that combo's gone with the wind.


----------



## liamstrain

> Agfapan APX 25 which I developed in Rodinal


 
   
   
Yeah, that was a classic combination. I miss it. Shot my last rolls of APX25 two years ago. I like the Efke, but it's just not the same.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> I hate to admit it but I'm one of those who will pre-order the 35, even at that price.  I'm just waiting for Amazon to list it (Prime, FTW!).
> 
> The 24-70, OTOH, is crazy at $1500.  I'll hang on to my 24-105, thank you very much.
> 
> EDIT: Also, center pinch lens caps!  That must have added a bunch to the R&D


 
   
  I'll wait for 35L Mk II before I consider replacing my 35L, if ever.
  HowEvar!  The new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM does look quite interesting..
  http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11/07/Sigma-35mm-f1-4-DG-HSM-899-dollars-street-price


----------



## otherlives

New 35mm doesnt do much for me, its was obviously developed with video in mind.  
   
   
  I'm the only one who thinks the 85L is over rated for the money?  I've shot it.  It was a while ago, but it wasnt as crisp at 1.2 as it should have been, and the AF was sorta slow IIRC.


----------



## musubi1000

I've seen lens variation from sample to sample of the same exact L series model, year of manufacture, from Japan. Some was attributed to AF variation but even after I corrected focus I saw the variation with my own eyes.

Edit: the 85 1.2 is a dope lens. It's big, clumsy, slow, but can obliterate the background with such a smooth blur it's addictive. It is expensive but show me an equal for less. Oh and how crisp should a lens be at 1.2?


----------



## musubi1000

liamstrain said:


> HC110 100:1 if I'm pushing, semi-stand development. Otherwise I like HC110 in dillution B and H. Works great for Efke 25 as well.
> 
> The Monochrom does look good, though I don't think it really outperforms the Nikon high end offerings (and frankly, the flexibility of shooting color on the M9 trumps any low light benefit). I just cannot justify the price for my "fun" cameras.


HC-110 100:1 for push. Compensation development effectively. Large format I hope. 
Nikons 800 has the best low light sensitivity I've seen to date. 3200 ISO with hardly a trace of color noise and all the details 36 mps deliver. The 5D mk III is really nice though.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> Edit: the 85 1.2 is a dope lens. It's big, clumsy, slow, but can obliterate the background with such a smooth blur it's addictive. It is expensive but show me an equal for less. Oh and how crisp should a lens be at 1.2?


 
   
  Sigma 85/1.4 can be had for half the price, and reviews have shown that it is pretty close to the L and has faster AF too. If you get one that focuses reliably though....


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





jon l said:


> I'll wait for 35L Mk II before I consider replacing my 35L, if ever.
> HowEvar!  The new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM does look quite interesting..
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11/07/Sigma-35mm-f1-4-DG-HSM-899-dollars-street-price


 
  You know, I just have this "thing" about 3rd party lenses.  I know it's silly but I just can't get over it enough to buy one.  But, on the other hand, I started shooting the EOS system ~15 years ago and I still use some of my original lenses no problem at all and they all still focus as quickly and as accurately as they did back then.
   
  However, now that SIGMA has introduced a USB dock so that the user can upgrade firmware and adjust focus, I might be able to get over myself.  Or if I shot APS-C, the Tokina 11-16/2.8 II would be pretty interesting.  But I'm also pretty well set on lenses.  
   
  I don't see anyone who owns a 35L jumping ship to the new SIGMA but, seeing how they cost more or less the same, I would be curious to see the break down on SIGMA 35/1.4 vs. Canon 35/2 IS sales.
   
   
  Quote: 





otherlives said:


> I'm the only one who thinks the 85L is over rated for the money?  I've shot it.  It was a while ago, but it wasnt as crisp at 1.2 as it should have been, and the AF was sorta slow IIRC.


 
  Is the 85L overrated?  Well, it's a niche lens.  It's probably the best 35mm portrait lens on the market.  Nikon doesn't even have anything that's close.  Now, is it worth the money?  Not to me.  I bought the 85/1.8.  I didn't want something so unwieldy and heavy as the 85L and I wanted faster AF.  And, if you stop down to f/2.8, the IQ is pretty darn close.  In fact, other than purple fringing (but nothing that Lightroom can't fix), the 85/1.8 is pretty darn good even wide open.  But nothing can match the bokeh and feel of the 85L wide open.  If you shoot portraits, you'll want one.


----------



## otherlives

I like how you guys act like I havent spent a decent amount of time with the 85L.  If I wanted one, I'd buy one.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  I expect it to be as crisp as that lens should be, given its cost.  Not every L lens is the best thing since sliced bread.  IMO this is one of them not worth the money.
   
   
  Quote: 





madcow said:


> Sigma 85/1.4 can be had for half the price, and reviews have shown that it is pretty close to the L and has faster AF too. If you get one that focuses reliably though....


 
   
  Yep.  Less problems on Nikons platform too.


----------



## castleofargh

the 85/1.2  is heavy, autofocus is slow. full open, purple fringing can get to the point where you go look for those old colored 3D googles
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 to see if the tree will jump out of the pic. borders are blurry, at least compared to center. so it s easy to wonder why buy that heavy expensive **** when you go out for days in the mountains or if you shoot sport.
  on the other hand, if you do portraits, you will adore it.
  so yes it is a niche lens. if you don't need it , you just don't.
   
   
  i ve owned a few EX sigma lenses when i was so poor a lens really meant eating less for some times. and have always been very satisfied with IQ. sometimes the noise of the autofocus would be a bother, or it would look fragile. on a 24-70 going from 24 to 70mm the ring was smooth, a little hard, then smooth again. those are details, but brought some concern to me about the long run. i ve sold them all now.
    so to save money and still get image quality, it s a smart move. but going to sigma when it s the same price as canon? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 not then and not now.


----------



## otherlives

Quote: 





castleofargh said:


> the 85/1.2  is heavy, autofocus is slow. full open, purple fringing can get to the point where you go look for those old colored 3D googles
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Question, just for arguments sake... when is the Sigma EX priced the same as the L lens it competes with?  I cant think of a single case.


----------



## liamstrain

The Sigma 85/1.4 EX is priced at twice the cost of the regular Canon 85/1.8 - and the Canon outperforms it by every measure except that half stop. If the Sigma EX were the same price or less than the Canon regular (non L) equivalent even it would be a hard value proposition since they seem only barely able to match optics, nevermind build quality. 
   
  In the interest of full disclosure I've owned a good bit of Sigma EX glass over the years, and with only one exception, every one of the 5 different EX lens I owned had to be sent in for manufacturer warrantee repair at least twice. And in a few occasions, I ended up buying them again, only to have them fail on my again (zooms in particular, but some primes too - only the 20mm never broke on me). 
   
  I'll never buy Sigma glass again, frankly. False economy. Other third party glass maybe (I'll buy Zeiss, Schneider, Tokina), but I'm done with Tamron and Sigma for good.


----------



## otherlives

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> The Sigma 85/1.4 EX is priced at twice the cost of the regular Canon 85/1.8 - and the Canon outperforms it by every measure except that half stop. If the Sigma EX were the same price or less than the Canon regular (non L) equivalent even it would be a hard value proposition since they seem only barely able to match optics, nevermind build quality.
> 
> In the interest of full disclosure I've owned a good bit of Sigma EX glass over the years, and with only one exception, every one of the 5 different EX lens I owned had to be sent in for manufacturer warrantee repair at least twice. And in a few occasions, I ended up buying them again, only to have them fail on my again (zooms in particular, but some primes too - only the 20mm never broke on me).
> 
> I'll never buy Sigma glass again, frankly. False economy. Other third party glass maybe (I'll buy Zeiss, Schneider, Tokina), but I'm done with Tamron and Sigma for good.


 
   

 I own a 85 1.8, as I think its a hell of a lens, but in my opinion, that BS.  I have a sharp 1.8 and the Siggy 1.4 I shot was sharper at 1.8 and certainly great at 1.4.  The damn thing just backfocused at certain distances and my body doesnt have micro adjust!  
   
  I think if you get a decent copy and your body microadjusts, the Siggy is certainly a better lens than the 1.8.   The 1.8 is just awesome for the money.  A pure value play that unless you are a pro, theres no need to spend more for.  And I'd like to think I have some ok glass.


----------



## liamstrain

> "I think if you get a decent copy"


 
   
   
This is why I won't buy Sigma. Having to return a lens three times to get one that doesn't have autofocus issues, or major backfocus, or crappy collimation, etc. Is unnacceptable at that price point. 
   
   
   
   


> A pure value play that unless you are a pro, theres no need to spend more for.


 
   
   
I am a pro... for my uses at least, there was no reason to spend more. *maybe* if I shot events/weddings, but I'd rather be happy than live that life.


----------



## musubi1000

liamstrain said:


> In the interest of full disclosure I've owned a good bit of Sigma EX glass over the years, and with only one exception, every one of the 5 different EX lens I owned had to be sent in for manufacturer warrantee repair at least twice. And in a few occasions, I ended up buying them again, only to have them fail on my again (zooms in particular, but some primes too - only the 20mm never broke on me).




You get what you pay for applies very much to photo gear. Sigma Optics are great the question is alway for how long. Although I still have faith in Tamron I know what you mean.


----------



## Jon L

Dang, Rokinon 35mm f/1.4 for $399 and 14mm f/2.8 $299 at Groupon.
  
 http://www.groupon.com/deals/gg-rokinon-wide-angle-lenses?utm_campaign=UserReferral_rp&utm_medium=raf-121015-10r1act-lk&utm_source=uu5948210


----------



## GSARider

I gave up on Sigma lenses a couple of years ago, got fed up returning inferior glass and I'm sure the shop I bought from also was happy with my decision ...

The manager said that quite a few folk buying the Sigma lenses didn't or couldn't tell their lenses were crap and usually didn't know the glass was crap.


----------



## jude

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> ...I'll never buy Sigma glass again, frankly. False economy. Other third party glass maybe (I'll buy Zeiss, Schneider, Tokina), but I'm done with Tamron and Sigma for good.


 
   
  Liam, I've only owned two Sigma lenses--both were the 30mm f/1.4 (first for Canon, and then for Nikon after I switched). I still have that lens to use with my Nikon D300, and it has been a great deal of fun. (The idea in picking that lens up was to approximate 50mm f1/.4 on the crop sensors.) Now that I've gone full frame (Nikon), I use the Nikon 50mm f/1.4, but the ol' Sigma is still attached to my D300.
   
  Perhaps I got lucky, as the one I had for Canon served me well until I sold it to a fellow Head-Fi'er (and I think he's still using it, too); and the Nikon mount Sigma 30mm f/1.4 has been just as reliable.
   
  That said, you're a pro shooter--which is definitely not true of me--so you and I almost certainly have different needs and standards.
   
  With the full frame camera, however, I do not have any third party lenses.


----------



## tomscy2000

Seriously, the third-party lenses aren't as bad as they might seem, and they've been steadily getting better --- these days, they're giving Canon a serious run for their money. Only people who need razor fast AF need to remain loyal to Canon lenses.

Sigma recently revised their QC standards for the better, and their lens line is getting refreshed. Their new "Art Lens", the 35/1.4 look really great; I expect it to be quite a hit.

Also, Tamron's 24-70/2.8 VC has been really popular; it performs extremely well, losing out only to the new (and exorbitantly expensive) 24-70L II, and is also full-weather sealed, with 4-5 stops of image stabilization, which basically makes the new (IMO useless) 24-70/4 L kind of an afterthought.


----------



## tomscy2000

tomscy2000 said:


> Sigma recently revised their QC standards for the better, and their lens line is getting refreshed. Their new "Art Lens", the 35/1.4 look really great; I expect it to be quite a hit.




Case in Point: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/sigma-35mm-f1-4-arrives-announces-new-world-order


----------



## MadCow

I think most people's issue is not with the poor quality, but with the sample variation. If you get a good unit, it's awesome and excellent and kittens and ponies and rainbows. If you get a lemon, and continuously get one after another one or two lemons, then (insert-your-favourite-3rd-party-lens-manufacturer) sucks and is terrible and should rot and die and stuff.
   
   
  My personal experience with Sigma and Tamron has been mostly up, some down..
   
  When Sigma came out with the first DC lens, the 18-50 3.5/5.6, I gave it a try. It was small and cheap. It also did not focus well on my 10D. When it focused it was fine and relatively sharp for its time, but more often than not it would backfocus and we didn't have AF microadjustments back then.
   
  I had the early Tamon SP AF90mm macro lens (before the Di model came out). It was excellent. I only got rid of it because I had a focal length clash with the EF 85/1.8, and so upgraded to the Sigma 150/2.8 macro when it first came out. That was also an excellent lens.
   
  Also had a Sigma 15-30 before finally upgrading to the 17-40L (also back during 10D days). It was also a pretty good lens except for slight decentering, causing the lower right corner to be softer.
   
  When I was considering a 24mm prime for my 5DII I looked at the Sigma 24/1.8 first. The copy I tested in the shop was very obviously front-focusing -- I could even see it in the viewfinder. I decided to give it a pass, and then got the 24L II a few weeks later.
   
  I tested the new Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC at the store a few weeks ago. My initial impressions were very positive -- sharp, and the VC works. However I already have the first gen 24-70/2.8L and am not planning on changing it anytime soon, so I gave it a pass.
   
   
  I understand that Sigma has said that they're cleaning up their act, but I also understand that a lot of people have been burnt in the past and are understandably cautious even though the new lineup (especially the 35/1.4) look very attractive. Time will tell if they have successfully improved on their quality, so let's see how this 35/1.4 turns out after Lens Rental gets more units in for testing.


----------



## MadCow

sorry I meant to edit and not quote, now I'm not sure how to delete...
   
  Quote:


madcow said:


> I think most people's issue is not with the poor quality, but with the sample variation. If you get a good unit, it's awesome and excellent and kittens and ponies and rainbows. If you get a lemon, and continuously get one after another one or two lemons, then (insert-your-favourite-3rd-party-lens-manufacturer) sucks and is terrible and should rot and die and stuff.
> 
> 
> My personal experience with Sigma and Tamron has been mostly up, some down..
> ...


----------



## daigo

Quote: 





gsarider said:


> I gave up on Sigma lenses a couple of years ago, got fed up returning inferior glass and I'm sure the shop I bought from also was happy with my decision ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  I've been happy with both the Sigma 30/f1.4 and 17-50/f2.8 lenses for my crop body.  Both were purchased new from a reputable dealer and worked fine right out of box.


----------



## hyogen

I couldn't be happier with my sigma 50mm 1.4.  My sigma 30mm 1.4 seems to focus fine, but I have to be more careful with it.  Make sure I focus on a more contrasty area and then recompose.  My keeper rate for the Sigma 50 is almost 100% I would say, while it's quite a bit lower on the 30mm 1.4.  Also, super happy with my sigma 70-300 apo macro lens which I got for $100.
   
  Here's one I took with the 30 I believe wide open.  This was one of the keepers.  Shot handheld with a light breeze.  This was cropped to maybe 40% of it's original size.  

   
  Here is a crop of that image:  So this one I believe is almost a 100% crop....  

  the resizing and landscape mode make it look like they're the same size   
   
  A couple others I took recently:  


   


  sorry for the image overload.  it's been a while since I've posted 
   
   
  The one thing I wish about these 2 lenses is a shorter minimum focusing distance.  It's around 1.5 feet.  I've tried the cheap $8 on amazon glass-less macro extension tubes, but they're a pain to use and not very good as far as I can tell. I wonder if the more expensive, auto-focus, Kenko extension tubes are better which can be had for about $100 used.  Makes me wish for an 85mm or 100mm macro lens.


----------



## hyogen

These are a couple I took in literally 3 minutes of my neighbor outside our apartment on Thanksgiving.  Taken with the Sigma 50mm.  Lately I've been experimenting more with the manual flash that I have.  The "black foamie thing" works wonders.    C&C always appreciated!


----------



## musubi1000

Played with a Canon 6D today! Super quiet shutter finally. Nice tactile feel of the controls. All dials have a nice soft click to them. Lighter body then 7D. Grip that's slightly thinner at the bottom like the newest Nikons. Feels real nice in hand as it balances well.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> Played with a Canon 6D today! Super quiet shutter finally. Nice tactile feel of the controls. All dials have a nice soft click to them. Lighter body then 7D. Grip that's slightly thinner at the bottom like the newest Nikons. Feels real nice in hand as it balances well.


 
   
  If the AF system on the 6D is not too terrible, it may be a nice FF camera after the price goes down by a couple hundred bucks, compared to Nikon D600's priceerformance ratio.


----------



## musubi1000

The 6D has built in WiFi finally! you can connect to cam set exposure, exp comp, set focus area, remote fire camera, all with live view.


----------



## MadCow

I tried the Sigma 35/1.4 at the shop this weekend. It is indeed as sharp as online reviews claim. The center is razor-sharp, I had to double-check to see if I was really at 1.4. At short distances (below 3 meters) focus was spot-on in the center and very accurate at the peripherals. At further distances, it's still sharp but harder to get a good lock (seemed front-focused when I examined them), but to be fair this can be challenging with any fast wide angle lenses.
   
  Build quality is impressive, unlike Sigma's earlier lenses. It really feels solid like a metal Zeiss. It is also a heavy lens -- I haven't checked the official weight yet, but holding the Sigma in one hand and my 50L in the other, the Sigma is clearly heavier.
   
  However, I did not buy it. At least yet.... If I bought it at that moment it would be an impulse buy and I am trying to avoid impulse buys. I'll do more research online and more thinking first... but one major concern is I have two duplicates and adding a third seems unwise: I have the cheap 35/2.0 which I refuse to let go no matter what, because it is small and cheap, it's not going to do me any good by selling it. And I have the Zeiss 24/1.8 on my Sony NEX-7... so that's already two 35mm-equivalents. And I am also very keen on seeing how Canon's new 35/2 IS performs.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





madcow said:


> Build quality is impressive, unlike Sigma's earlier lenses. It really feels solid like a metal Zeiss. It is also a heavy lens -- I haven't checked the official weight yet, but holding the Sigma in one hand and my 50L in the other, the Sigma is clearly heavier.


 
   
  I spent an evening shooting with 50L a couple of days ago, and even that was heavier than I'd like for hours at a time.  Evening also meant a full sized speedlite/diffusor on my 5D III, and more and more, portability and compactness are becoming more attractive to me as time goes by. 
   
  I would love to play with the Sigma 35mm, but I think I may be saving my pennies for the Sony RX-1 full frame mirrorless with fixed Zeiss lens.  As I look at more real-life photos from  RX-1, I am liking it more and more..


----------



## MadCow

I'm not sure how an RX1 would work out for you in place of a 5D3+50L+flash... first of all, the RX1 lacks a viewfinder so you're either gonna use it with flash or viewfinder, but not both. With flash it can become a big and unbalanced camera to work with at arms length, and with viewfinder you're missing the flash. Also, at the price of the RX1, I feel that it is a dead end route since you cannot expand or upgrade over time.
   
  Personally, I am less concerned about the weight of my gear and more concerned about size. Sometimes I feel like not pulling out the big DSLR and giant L lens during family outings or gatherings as it feels like I'm drawing attention to myself and acting like a pro (because that's the common public perception, big DLSR == pro). This is why I also have a "sideline" kit consisting of a Sony NEX-7 with 24/1.8 and 50/1.8 lenses -- it's decent enough in good light, and can be impressive at base ISO, but I do wish someone would come out with a good fullframe mirrorless system with interchangeable lenses.
   
  There was even one odd moment of madness when I had given thought about selling my entire Canon kit to do a cold turkey switch to the new Leica M with 35mm summicron... but then I read up about the troubles of rangefinder calibration and I'm knocked back into reality. :-D


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





madcow said:


> but I do wish someone would come out with a good fullframe mirrorless system with interchangeable lenses.


 
  THAT is the crux of our problem this side of Leica money.  
  At this point, I am not very confident Canikon will EVER produce such a thing.  Sony chose to go the RX1 fixed lens route, and since that lens had to extend inside right up to the sensor in order to keep the body small, I doubt Sony will be making an interchangeable FF mirrorless in the RX series.  
  That leaves Sony NEX future full frame, which I don't see how they can do it while keeping the E-Mount.  It would be surprising for Sony to come up with another lens mount on NEX line to accomodate full frame sensor.  
  Fuji is another who could do it, but their XF lens lineup can't cover the full frame sensor at wider focal lengths.  
   
  So the whole full frame mirrorless interchangeable concept seems rather daunting at this point.  There are worse things than to be stuck with 35mm focal length on a full frame camera, so for now RX1 it is.


----------



## liamstrain

> I had given thought about selling my entire Canon kit to do a cold turkey switch to the new Leica M with 35mm summicron... but then I read up about the troubles of rangefinder calibration and I'm knocked back into reality.


 
   
   
For what it is worth, I have shot Leica rangefinders for decades, and only once have had to futz with the rangefinder alignment (not really that difficult with the right tool). And if you send them in for a CLA every few years anyway, they'll do it for you. Ultimately, it's a non-issue. The issue for me is the cost of their digital offerings. I cannot justify it for my "fun" cameras. I'll keep shooting film rangefinders and small format digital (mirrorless and dslr) - but until I can get an M9 for under 2k on the used market, that particular merger is not going to happen.


----------



## leftnose

I would agree with liam about rangefinder adjustments.  It's a non issue.
   
  I'm really confused by the RX-1, though.  No viewfinder, only contrast detect AF, fixed lens, fairly large size, and over $2,500.  I get that a FF sensor adds a huge amount of cost and some size.  But if I'm spending that much cash, I want a viewfinder, even if it's electronic.  I also want phase detect AF for moving objects.  And, though I can happily live with only a 35mm lens on FF, I want at least the _ability _to change lenses.   It seems to me that someone would have to be a fairly serious photographer to be willing to spend $2.5K and I'm not sure one would want to make so many compromises.  And, to add insult to injury, the camera isn't that small.  It's not pocketable.  In fact, it's a bit weird how large the lens is given how small an equivalent 35mm Summicron is.
   
  I'm going to sell my 5D2 in a couple months and get a 5D3.  With its AF system, that could be the last DSLR I ever own (or, until it breaks).  I never had the same feeling about my 5D2 but it was the tipping point where I felt DSLRs were mature enough that I could take the plunge.  I still don't think mirrorless cameras have gotten to the same point.  I would want at least an APS-C sensor, relatively small package, some sort of viewfinder even if only electronic, and a good collection of native lenses.  Contrast detect AF is OK; the OM-D is a great example of how good it can be but the m4/3 sensor is just too small.  The Sony NEX 6 is almost perfect but the e-mount lenses aren't quite ready yet, I think, in terms of quality and selection.  And it's also odd how large the e-mount lenses are. I'm not an expert in optics but I would have thought the relatively small sensor and short register distance would have allowed for smaller lenses.
   
  As to the new 35mm EF lenss, that new Sigma looks pretty darn good.  But I already have the 35L so it's not something I would buy.  I did have the f/2 IS Canon on pre-order but an interesting gun came available for sale so my fun money was diverted.  I'm going to read some of the reviews and place another order based on those.  I do still have my old 35/2 and I don't think I could ever sell it.  It so small and handy and I've had it for years, long enough that no one would give me enough to make the sale worthwhile.  Lately, I've cut down on my travel set to a 17-40/4L, 35/2, and 100L macro.  Replacing the 35/2 with the IS version would be pretty unbeatable in low light situations when shutter speed doesn't matter.


----------



## liamstrain

> The Sony NEX 6 is almost perfect but the e-mount lenses aren't quite ready yet, I think, in terms of quality and selection.  And it's also odd how large the e-mount lenses are. I'm not an expert in optics but I would have thought the relatively small sensor and short register distance would have allowed for smaller lenses.


 
   
   
Agreed. Fuji has done a much better job on this front. The E-mount, however, adapts very nicely to my M-mount glass.  And with focus peaking, and an EVF, the Nex 7 is pretty darn fun (I have no real need for AF - and the NEX 6 looks great on this front too). If only I could find a small fast 24mm that didn't run me a grand or two.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> For what it is worth, I have shot Leica rangefinders for decades, and only once have had to futz with the rangefinder alignment (not really that difficult with the right tool). And if you send them in for a CLA every few years anyway, they'll do it for you. Ultimately, it's a non-issue. The issue for me is the cost of their digital offerings. I cannot justify it for my "fun" cameras. I'll keep shooting film rangefinders and small format digital (mirrorless and dslr) - but until I can get an M9 for under 2k on the used market, that particular merger is not going to happen.


 
   
  I see that as two issues though: (1) people who have done the infinity alignment claim it is easy because they've done it, I haven't and there's no guarantee I will find it as easy (or tedious or bothersome); but the crust of the matter is (2) if it has to be sent for CLA, I hear it's a long 4 to 8++ week trip halfway across the world. I just can't accept that. But if I had enough disposable income I would love to own a Leica MP with a 35 summicron though.
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Agreed. Fuji has done a much better job on this front. The E-mount, however, adapts very nicely to my M-mount glass.  And with focus peaking, and an EVF, the Nex 7 is pretty darn fun (I have no real need for AF - and the NEX 6 looks great on this front too). If only I could find a small fast 24mm that didn't run me a grand or two.


 
   
  I think the main problem with the E-mount is that its registration distance is too close for its own good. The digital sensor just isn't ready for it, resulting in color shifts in the corners. The 16MP sensors are significantly less affected by it, while the 24MP NEX-7 suffers from it greatly. I've seen the samples of the Zeiss Biogons and Leica Summicrons, the magenta color cast is horrible and while you can fix it with third party software (Cornerfix), it requires a very specific workflow and can be tedious with a large collection of shots with mixed lenses. Even the new 10-18 ultrawide seems to exhibit this problem on the NEX-7. I think Zeiss was very well aware of it and designed their 24/1.8 Sonnar around the problem -- if you have this lens you'd notice the rear element is actually buried deep inside the lens mount, meaning they actually increased the distance away from the sensor.
   
  With that in mind, a full frame version of this mount would be an even bigger problem. I think any fullframe mirrorless will need to have a registration distance equal or greater to the M-mount in order to perform well, IQ-wise, but that would make such a camera significantly less attractive if you can no longer adapt M-mount lenses to it.


----------



## leftnose

I don't know where you are in MY but I would be very surprised if there weren't a Leica repair center in Singapore.
   
  When I say that it's a non-issue, I speak from my experience with three Leica bodies dating from the 50s-70s that were originally owned by my dad before I usurped them.  They've never needed adjustment.  Now, that doesn't mean there's no problem but I wouldn't worry about it too much.
   
  Look for a good late model M6.  Not a whole lot different than the MP and a bunch cheaper.
   
  EDIT: Actually, the M6 might be preferable to the MP as the M6 has the M4 version rewind knob.  The MP uses the M3/M2 knob that's a complete pain to use, even if it looks nicer.


----------



## liamstrain

M4-2 - who needs a meter. 
   
  (also, I'm selling one on the bay. 
   
   
   
  As far as the CLA goes - there are surely people in signapore, hong kong, japan, etc. who are more than capable. I don't mind the bit of a break, speaking as a professional, I'm used to sending out every camera i have regularly (staggered) for cleaning, alignments, etc. The Leica is just one more. So for me, your comment makes me think "what! you're not already sending them out?" 
   
  But as leftnose has mentioned, I know several photographers who have never sent their leica's out, and have never had to futz with the alignment - and shoot just fine. (Pretty much, if you don't drop it, the alignment doesn't need to be checked - and yes, it is pretty easy, as I recall even from my first trys at it). 
   
  Ultimately, a non-issue. 
   
  I can certainly understand looking for reasons to not spend the dosh. 
   
  -
   
  Re- cornerfix on the Nex7, my CV 21mm exhibits pretty bad color shift, but it's an easy fix even without 3rd party (I just use a photoshop mask, I made myself). Pretty straightforward. I only bother with it on selects, I would never try to fix every picture - only winners. No color shift problems with any RF lens I've tried longer than 28mm though. 
   
  FF - they would just need to design the optics to sit a little higher and throw a little straighter (sort of a self imposed retrofocus design) that would avoid most of those issues without much bulk (I suspect that's to blame for the length of the Zeiss 24/1.8) - and also shows why it's a non-issue if you are using adapted SLR lenses, I just don't like the size of them (even the little Oly and Canon FD mount ones) - still huge by RF standards.


----------



## MadCow

I was under the impression that any sort of non-superficial service/repair would have to go back to Solms... I guess I'll be doing further research into this.
   
  A local store here has a used M6 TTL for the price of a 35L. I could afford one right now and be without lens until I afford a Summicron or go with a cheap Voigtlander, lol. But no, without that right amount of disposable income monthly, I cannot justify it.


----------



## musubi1000

leftnose said:


> I don't know where you are in MY but I would be very surprised if there weren't a Leica repair center in Singapore.
> 
> When I say that it's a non-issue, I speak from my experience with three Leica bodies dating from the 50s-70s that were originally owned by my dad before I usurped them.  They've never needed adjustment.  Now, that doesn't mean there's no problem but I wouldn't worry about it too much.
> 
> ...


 You can order your MP with the M6 rewind knob.


----------



## liamstrain

> I was under the impression that any sort of non-superficial service/repair would have to go back to Solms... I guess I'll be doing further research into this.


 
   
   
I'd probably send a brand spanking Digital M to Solms (or a verified Leica Technician/Service bureau - of which there are many, including in Singapore). But most of the other work isn't really rocket science. The rangefinder mechanism hasn't changed much in 60 years.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> M4-2 - who needs a meter.
> 
> (also, I'm selling one on the bay.


 
   
  I think I've mentioned the three Leica bodies that I own are the M2, a Wetzlar first series M4, and an M5.  When I shoot one, it's almost always the M4.  If I'm taking the time to shoot an MF rangefinder, I don't mind the extra effort in using a light meter and it's a more "complete" experience.  I prefer the M4 to the M2 because of its better rewind crank and it's easier to load.  The M5, though the light meter really works pretty well, is a bit of a bastardization of the Leica experience.
   
   


> As far as the CLA goes - there are surely people in signapore, hong kong, japan, etc. who are more than capable. I don't mind the bit of a break, speaking as a professional, I'm used to sending out every camera i have regularly (staggered) for cleaning, alignments, etc. The Leica is just one more. So for me, your comment makes me think "what! you're not already sending them out?"


 
   
  Well, you know, it's always been my feeling that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  But, on the other hand, I'm not a pro so I don't depend on my gear to put food on the table.


----------



## liamstrain

> I don't mind the extra effort in using a light meter and it's a more "complete" experience.


 
   
Or at this point, sunny 16 and experience, I can usually get within a stop by "guesstimate" - I might take a baseline meter reading if the lighting seems odd, then adjust by feel as needed. I'd say 90% of the time, I don't bother with the meter.


----------



## MadCow

Hi again guys, I hope I'm not contaminating this Canon thread with more Leica talk... but just wanted to bounce this off you.
   
  Just a fleeting idea right now, I'm not particularly serious about it yet, but I calculated I might be able to get away will selling off all my Canon gear *except* the 5D3 and the 85L, and then spring for an M9-P with Zeiss Biogon 35/2.
   
  Your thoughts?


----------



## leftnose

Not sure I think that's a wise move.  From what I've seen of your photography, a lot of it seems studio based or working outdoors with off camera flash or low light.  For two of those three, a Leica is a poor choice but they are truly magical for low light work.  Have you spent a decent amount of time with a Leica?  If not, try to beg/borrow/steal one for a while to see if you could live with one as your sole body.  I personally could not, even a digital version.  While I'm not a pro, just an amateur who has spent too much money on gear and can occasionally luck into a good shot, I end up taking enough different kinds of photos that I need the versatility of a DSLR.  This summer I spent a lot of time on macro photos but I also had to shoot some events with some action involved and then a medal ceremony for a world championship that was outdoors at night and now I'm setting up a table top studio.  I couldn't do all these things with a rangefinder.  In fact, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing any of these things with a rangefinder and that was my last ~7500 photos.
   
  And, while I understand the motive, you could upset a Leica purist or two if you skimp out on the lens.  What makes a Leica so magic is the glass.  As I've said before, I would be OK with only having one lens and I would want it to be a 35 but I just don't know about "skimping" on glass to get into a system.  I don't know the used market in MY but around here a used Canadian 35mm Summicron tops out at $1500.  Even though those same purists would give you flack for having a Canadian lens, that would be my choice instead of a Zeiss.
   
  But, I'm glad this discussion is taking place. I'm going to go to the store and buy some film or maybe thaw out some FP4+ and load up the M4 this weekend.


----------



## liamstrain

> Not sure I think that's a wise move.  From what I've seen of your photography, a lot of it seems studio based or working outdoors with off camera flash or low light.  For two of those three, a Leica is a poor choice but they are truly magical for low light work.  Have you spent a decent amount of time with a Leica?  If not, try to beg/borrow/steal one for a while to see if you could live with one as your sole body.  I personally could not, even a digital version.  While I'm not a pro, just an amateur who has spent too much money on gear and can occasionally luck into a good shot, I end up taking enough different kinds of photos that I need the versatility of a DSLR.  This summer I spent a lot of time on macro photos but I also had to shoot some events with some action involved and then a medal ceremony for a world championship that was outdoors at night and now I'm setting up a table top studio.  I couldn't do all these things with a rangefinder.  In fact, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing any of these things with a rangefinder and that was my last ~7500 photos.


 
   
  
  
 I agree entirely. I love my Leicas, but I do not do much professional work with them. I would only be comfortable with it as a sole camera if I really liked documentary/street work, and never wanted to shoot anything else.
  
  
  
   


> And, while I understand the motive, you could upset a Leica purist or two if you skimp out on the lens.  What makes a Leica so magic is the glass.  As I've said before, I would be OK with only having one lens and I would want it to be a 35 but I just don't know about "skimping" on glass to get into a system.  I don't know the used market in MY but around here a used Canadian 35mm Summicron tops out at $1500.  Even though those same purists would give you flack for having a Canadian lens, that would be my choice instead of a Zeiss.


 
   
  
 I disagree here. Leitz glass is good, but there is no magic fairy dust here. I have and used Rangefinder lenses from Canon (1950s), Zeiss (1940s), Cosina/Voightlander (2000s), Zeiss (2000s), Leica (1960s, 70s, 90s, 2000s) - they all paint differently and all have their strengths. The newer Zeiss lenses are better than just about anything out there, including the Leica lenses until you hit the newest asph summicrons and lux's. And those are very incremental improvements in IQ for the extra money you are paying. For what it's worth, my favorite lens is the Canon 35/1.8 LTM lens from the mid 60s. With an M-adapter, it ran me about $300. I'd put the images it can create up against anything ever made for 35mm film or digital.
  
 Shoot more, worry less. All modern RF lenses in the 35-50mm range are capable of out-resolving film or small format digital sensors (especially at print sizes). Pick one in your budget and shoot with it for a while before worrying if you need to "upgrade."
  
  
   


> But, I'm glad this discussion is taking place. I'm going to go to the store and buy some film or maybe thaw out some FP4+ and load up the M4 this weekend.


 
   
  
 Sounds like heaven. I've got a brick of TriX and the last of my APX 25 calling my name.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> I would only be comfortable with it as a sole camera if I really liked documentary/street work, and never wanted to shoot anything else.


 
   
  The less time there is to take a photo and the less control there is over the scene, the better a Leica becomes.  If ones start to obsess over composition or lighting, one is better off with an (D)SLR.
   
  I'd add non-landscape travel to the two genres above but if you were to claim that travel is a subset of documentary, I wouldn't really argue.


----------



## liamstrain

Yes. Travel would fit there. I've often only taken a Leica and 1 or 2 lenses (35, 35/50 or at most 21/35/50) on extended trips.


----------



## MadCow

You guys are right, it was just an impulsive, fleeting thought anyway. I always thought that I would never be able to afford a Leica, but with the recent price drops due to the upcoming M-240, it seemed like I had an opportunity so I just did the math to see what I could get away with. But it is also a non-trivial amount of cost (both monetary and paradigm), when the cheaper solution (at least in my case) is to just learn to develop a thicker skin when I pull out my DSLR.
   
  Quote: 





liamstrain said:


> Yes. Travel would fit there. I've often only taken a Leica and 1 or 2 lenses (35, 35/50 or at most 21/35/50) on extended trips.


 
  Funny how I was also thinking, if I switched to Leica 21/35/50 would be my end goal. Anything over 50 and I'll reach for my DSLR instead.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





madcow said:


> Funny how I was also thinking, if I switched to Leica 21/35/50 would be my end goal. Anything over 50 and I'll reach for my DSLR instead.


 
   
  A 35 'Cron is pretty much glued to my M4 but I also have access to 90 and 135 Elmarits.  Funny how my most used Canon primes are the 35L, 85/1.8 and 135L.  Things get a bit tricky with the rangefinder and the 135 but_ I think _anything wider than 28 on a Leica, depending on the viewfinder magnification of the body, requires an external viewfinder.  I've said it a few times but I am a 35mm whore but I really think that's the sweet spot on an M and I think if I were to travel with a Leica, it would be with the 35 and 90.
   
  On a slightly related note, I'm in the middle of a discussion on another board about vintage gear.  I snapped this tonight with my phone:
   

  (the 5D2 does have the grip installed)
   
  Not that it's a quality photo or anything but really shows why the M is a great travel system.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





leftnose said:


>


 
  Very nice, I love the look of vintage gear over modern functionality. I miss my Fuji X100 that I sold previously to help finance the 5D3. When I go back to my hometown next year, I need to go dig out the old AE-1 and shoot some film again.


----------



## MadCow

It has *not* been a good weekend for me.
   
  I discovered what is very likely fungus infection in my 70-200/2.8 L IS, on at least 2 glass elements deep inside the lens. Tiny little dots across the glass that at first glance looks like dust or oil droplets, but the way they are distributed and spread out is too organic to be dust or oil. I have no idea when or how it happened either, that lens sits in my dry box most of the time except when I take it out to shoot, and then it promptly goes back into the dry box at the end of the day.
   
  Currently I have the lens bagged in an airtight ziplock bag with some silica gel to keep it quarantined, but I haven't decided what to do with it yet. It is out of warranty so a trip to Canon is going to be expensive.


----------



## hyogen

I have two flashes now..!  Both I got for very cheap I would say...$25 for a used 430EZ (i think TTL might work with a camera like 5d2, but I only use it in manual on my 500D).  $70 for a used 420EX, which has TTL...ETTL maybe even....the metering is pretty much perfect everytime for any setting that I put my camera in--the only downside is that it doesn't have manual mode......    
   
  This was an accidental spot-light effect when I was playing with the new 420EX with my Rokinon 8mm fisheye lens, which has a built-in hood.  Even with pop-up flash it creates a larger spot-light, but I like how this one turned out:
   


  Pretty sure I bounced the light from the ceiling as I normally do.  I've recently found that using the "black foamie thing" isn't absolutely necessary...that I can just point the flash up.  I think I will modify it to be more of a bounce card for when I don't have a ceiling to bounce the flash off of. 


  the first two could perhaps be a tiny bit warmer, and the next 2 could be just a tiny more cool in color...
   

  and one non-cat picture  
   
  hope everyone is having a splendid holidays.  I'm sure you've all heard of the mall shooting here in Portland, OR yesterday.. kinda crazy.  Only 5 or so years ago, we pretty much didn't hear about any big crime/shooting in the news.  It's now pretty regular--almost daily...although, not as serious as this mall shooting...


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> Pretty sure I bounced the light from the ceiling as I normally do.  I've recently found that using the "black foamie thing" isn't absolutely necessary...that I can just point the flash up.  I think I will modify it to be more of a bounce card for when I don't have a ceiling to bounce the flash off of.


 
   
  This is the single best photo you've shared here.  Very nice!
   
  As for a bounce card, get a rubber band and an index card.  You don't need anything else.  You want a bit of light going forward even if you're bouncing off the ceiling to fill shadows and get catch light in the eyes of your subjects like in the cat above.


----------



## leftnose

LensRentals has posted a short review of the new 35/2 IS.
   
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon
   
  Good but not great and not a huge leap up from the old 35/2 except in the corners which is more-or-less what I expected as I've always thought the old 35/2 was better than it got credit for.
   
  I'm still going to buy this lens but I think I'll wait for the first price drop or for it to be included in the rebate program.  I'm sure I'll have it by this time next year but it's not that much of an improvement on my current 35/2 to pay the early adopter's premium.


----------



## daigo

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> LensRentals has posted a short review of the new 35/2 IS.
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon
> 
> ...


 
   
  I was eying a Sigma 35/1.4 to replace my 30/1.4, and maybe as a gateway to full frame.  So far the only thing dissuading me is the lack of sales pricing on it, for the time being.


----------



## leftnose

35mm is the reason why a 5D2 was my first DSLR.  The 35mm perspective is my favorite and no one that I know makes a reasonable 35mm equiv. for a crop body.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  thanks leftnose!  How about for outdoor use, though?  With no ceiling


----------



## leftnose

I asked a similar question here myself not that long ago so I am probably not your best resource.
   
  I bought one of Peter Gregg's "Better Bounce Cards" because I found them on sale for, I think, $7 and it didn't seem worthwhile to make one myself for that price.  It works pretty well as you can bend it forward slightly over the flash head so much less light is lost to the sky.


----------



## Philimon




----------



## MadCow

I feel like I'm on an idiot streak lately.
   
  I sold my 85L under the pretense of already having too much stuff, and need to cut down based on what I use most often... but now I am missing it and instead of respecting my decision and moving on, I am actually entertaining the thought of saving up to buy another one again. And what's so special about it? Just its wide open bokeh.
   
  I've heard of people selling and buying back the 135L (several times, in fact), but price-wise that's peanuts compared to the 85L.
   
  Someone shoot me please. T__T


----------



## leftnose

I have the 85/1.8, not the L, and I would never sell that.  Price/performance, it may be the best lens in the Canon line and is only really flawed with some fairly bad purple fringing wide open.  Closing down even 1/3 stop clears it up (as does Lighroom 4, in fact, with the really nice fringe dropper).  The 85L is too expensive for me given its handling characteristics and the way I shoot.  I can't justify spending that much on a lens that isn't perfect for me and my needs.
   
  The 135L, OTOH, I do own.  And It would be the second to last lens I sell.  There's something just so right about that lens, the way it handles, focuses, its bokeh, sharp but not too sharp like my 100L for some uses.  And that oh so pretty front element to look at!


----------



## MadCow

I believe the 85L purples more than the 85/1.8, which is why I called it the purple monster the first time I acquired it. But it only shows up in high contrast transitions where one edge becomes overexposed (e.g. specular highlights, or shooting up into the bright sky through foliage) so I learn to watch out for those situations when shooting.
   
  (edit) It seems to be a common property of fast lenses in this class... the 85/1.8, 100/2.0 and 85L have it... the Sigma 85/1.4 has it, the Zeiss 85/1.4 and 100/2 has it...


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





madcow said:


> I believe the 85L purples more than the 85/1.8, which is why I called it the purple monster the first time I acquired it. But it only shows up in high contrast transitions where one edge becomes overexposed (e.g. specular highlights, or shooting up into the bright sky through foliage) so I learn to watch out for those situations when shooting.
> 
> (edit) It seems to be a common property of fast lenses in this class... the 85/1.8, 100/2.0 and 85L have it... the Sigma 85/1.4 has it, the Zeiss 85/1.4 and 100/2 has it...


 
  And let's not forget the DLO (Digital Lens Optimizer) feature of Canon's Digital Photo Professional software/RAW converter, which is much more effective than simple non-Canon lens correction in removing purple fringing as well as a myriad of lens aberrations.  It can even make 50L files look super sharp and fringing-free!


----------



## raymondlin

madcow said:


> I feel like I'm on an idiot streak lately.
> 
> I sold my 85L under the pretense of already having too much stuff, and need to cut down based on what I use most often... but now I am missing it and instead of respecting my decision and moving on, I am actually entertaining the thought of saving up to buy another one again. And what's so special about it? Just its wide open bokeh.
> 
> ...




Why oh why? It is the single most amazing lens Canon makes, both optically and technically, just look at that massive rear element that is so big, the contact has to sit above it!

I have the 24L, 35L (my favourite), 85L, 100L and 135L.

I would not sell any of them, now where is the 50L? Lol


----------



## castleofargh

Quote: 





jon l said:


> And let's not forget the DLO (Digital Lens Optimizer) feature of Canon's Digital Photo Professional software/RAW converter, which is much more effective than simple non-Canon lens correction in removing purple fringing as well as a myriad of lens aberrations.  It can even make 50L files look super sharp and fringing-free!


 
   
  you'd say it does better than dxo for lens aberrations?  last time i ve installed a canon software was ... 2002 or 2003. it might be time to give those a second chance.
  purple fringing for me is a special case that should be taken separately as it depends as much on the lens as on the scene taken.
  also it is easy to get rid of purple fringing manually in almost any software. it's not visually so easy and fast for other aberrations.
   
   
   
  @madcow, i agree, the 85L is the purple fringing master/monster. that lens was the hardest to tame, i ve considered selling it several times the first year i got it. now i couldn't live without it.


----------



## leftnose

Every year around Christmas, I MFA my lenses but this year I bought Reikan's Focal Pro to do the work for me.  After setting-up the target, tripod, and lights, less than 45 minutes later, I had adjusted 9 lenses.  My adjustments from last year were all within 3 points on all lenses.  Reikan agreed that neither my 100L or 70-300L needed any adjustment.
   
  Since using the software was new to me, I went out and took a few test shots to verify the results.  This (before the forum software does its thing) was a 100% crop from the right middle third of the frame.  5D2, 135L, f/2, 1/200, ISO 200, handheld.
   

   
   
  RAW was imported into LR4, cropped, and exported without any further adjustments.  Really shows why this is such a magical lens, so sharp, it'll cut you!
   
  Reikan, BTW, seems to work pretty darn well.  There are a few other tools included that you can use to verify the software's auto adjustments but I didn't go that far since all the adjustments were pretty close to where I had them before from my old, manual, method.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





castleofargh said:


> you'd say it does better than dxo for lens aberrations?  last time i ve installed a canon software was ... 2002 or 2003. it might be time to give those a second chance.


 
  Canon's DLO is a totally different approach to any other software.  Purple fringe correction is just one part of many things it does, with each lens profile only available from Canon.  One can see some samples of differences at the link below:
   
  http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1097029/0
   
  Word of Warning.
  When DLO is applied to my RAW file, the RAW file size essentially doubles, e.g. ~25 MB becomes 50 MB.  In order to save space, what I do is  convert the 50 MB RAW file to JPEG, then I un-apply the DLO to the RAW file before saving the RAW, which remains 25 MB.


----------



## castleofargh

thx for the intel. i've looked around on several forums and it is intriguing.
  i'll try it (when i can find my cd) but i doubt this will make me give up on dxo+lightroom. any change in my workflow is a painfull and long process now (aging is a bitch)
  plus last dxo version is amazing, i actually didn't crash using it. that is a tremendous advance for that company. ^_^


----------



## leftnose

So, apparently, Canon is going to announce the 35L II in early January.  If it's a 35/1.4L IS, my piggy bank will be broken _wide_ open!


----------



## musubi1000

Yeah but I have a funny feeling if it is a 1.4 it's not gonna have IS


----------



## leftnose

Well, it'll have to have something over the Sigma since it will probably cost 2x as much.  Maybe f/1.2?  Certainly weather sealing.


----------



## MadCow

My wallet glares at a potential 35/1.2 with much enmity.


----------



## hyogen

Lately, I've been really feeling the desire to go full frame, but I was kinda inspired by this popular photographer on POTN forums who I found out started with the T1i (Kiss X3/500D).  http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielstoychev/sets/72157625701671707/with/5357987318/  He shot those with my same camera and a nifty fifty.....granted, he was probably using studio lights or flash.
   
  Anyway, I aspire to get to this level of _marketability _someday--here are some of his more recent pics:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielstoychev/sets/72157632179163323/  The guy must make 6 figures a year with as many photo shoots he seems to be pumping out...  I could only do this on the side if at all, but one can dream  
   
  So, I've been trying to shoot at lowest ISO possible to maximize my dynamic range/color depth.  I probably could for the same money switch to a 5Dc soon, but the goal is to go full frame in a year and half when the wife allows -_-  Even then I plan on either going with a used 5d2, 6D or possibly even switch to Nikon -- used D700 or D600 maybe.  The one lens I almost have dreams about which will most likely keep me with the Canon camp is the 135L. 
   
  Just shot these this past weekend/week:
   
  The first two I played around with light leaks in PS. 

   

   

  not the most natural looking smiles--the wife always gets mad at me when I get so into taking photos and changing lenses, when she'd rather that we be holding hands, walking, and talking -_________-   After a year and a half of marriage, I still need to learn this balance.  The first time we ever fought was on our honeymoon--atop a volcano in Hawaii waiting for the sun to rise   
   

  Sigma 50mm 1.4     -   Yay or Nay on the light leaks? 
   
   

   

   

   

  Sigma 10-20
   
   

  8mm fisheye
   
   

   

   

  30mm 1.4 handheld.  
   
  I took one with the wide angle, but couldn't get a sharp picture without a tripod  
  Here it is anyway, since the pics here are really small.  (Obviously there were a lot of less sharp ones, but this was the best of the bunch). I tried to brace the camera the best I could against my body.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Well, it'll have to have something over the Sigma since it will probably cost 2x as much.  Maybe f/1.2?  Certainly weather sealing.


 
   
  How important is weather sealing for lenses?  I've never shot for more than a minute in rain here in Portland..  Is it more useful/practical for protecting against humidity?  Is it still sealed if the lens is not attached to the camera and in your bag? 
   
  My friend is basically gonna give me his 40mm 2.8 pancake lens!  i probably won't use it much until I go full frame.  It's too early to be counting my apples yet, but my planned lens line up for FF is:  Samyang 14mm 2.8, 40mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 135 f2L and later on I'll add a full circular fisheye...     I might even get the fully manual Samyang 35 1.4 and 85 1.4.... If you guys haven't considered these, you might want to consider them.  I almost bought a 85 1.4 like new for $150.......both of these lenses are considered to be pretty much as good as the 35L and 85L in terms of IQ--the only downside being that you need to manually focus which can be aided with focus confirmation chip / split focusing screen / live view + zoom.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> How important is weather sealing for lenses?  I've never shot for more than a minute in rain here in Portland..  Is it more useful/practical for protecting against humidity?  Is it still sealed if the lens is not attached to the camera and in your bag?


 
   
  If you don't shoot in the rain, it's not important at all.  Pros who need to get the shot no matter the situation want weather sealing.  And if you're shooting with a non-weather sealed body, a weather sealed lens isn't going to be of much use when the body goes down for the count.  IIRC, Canon bodies aren't weather sealed until the 7D.  Also, note that it's called _weather _sealing.  It's good for rain (up to a point), fog, snow, etc..  Don't expect it to survive if you take a fall while wading in a river and it gets dunked.
   
  If the rear lens cap is on, a weather sealed lens should be pretty tight if it's off camera.  But, if you need a lens to be weather sealed inside your bag, you need a new bag.  Nothing should get wet at all when it's in your bag.


----------



## hyogen

cool.  I'm guessing 5Dmark I is weather sealed--but i'll look into it.  Can you comment on any pics above, leftnose?


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> *Big nay from me on the light leaks.  Your photos need to speak for themselves on the strength of their content and composition.  You shouldn't feel the need to add to your photos in post.  You comment on the lack of smiling from your wife.  I actually like the second one.  Drop the light leaks convert to black and white, add a bit of clarity and contrast and see what it looks like.  Actually, I was curious so I did this in about 45 seconds.  I did add a post-crop vignette as well to darken the sky:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  Much of what I say above can be construed as negative but you continue to make much progress.  I think I've said this from the beginning but you really need to learn how to take a _proper_ photo before you start playing too much with adding stuff in post.  Once you've got composition and the technical side down pat, only then should you play with effects and filters in post.  Learn how to take a _perfect_ photo first by getting everything right in camera and thenusing not much more than the technical adjustments in Lightroom before you do anything else.
   
  I also think you rely a bit too much on the fisheye.  I think, if you did a survey, most photographers use it as a specialty lens, not for general purpose.  A UWA and a fisheye are two different things and they aren't necessarily interchangeable.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
*I come for the negative harsh feedback.  Noted about perfecting the shot first   Thanks*


----------



## hyogen

I agree this is better now.. I think before I wanted to make the photo as sharp and defined as possible.  It'd be fun to stitch these 2 together...
   
  well that was easy... took 2 seconds using Microsoft ICE

   
  next time I'll use a tripod.  These were shot at iso3200, f/5.0 for the left half and 1/6 shutter, and right half at f/3.5 1/25sec


----------



## musubi1000

Hyogen. Your compositions are proper. If you've been shooting less than 5 years you are far advanced compositionally than your peers.  I can see how you are experimenting with subject placement for maximizing impact.  Photography is a interesting art. you can have the gear heads that love the mechanical, electrical, optical, accessorizable elements of it and you have the people that use it to create visual images to their liking. but to complete the criticism with the bridge shot may try it a bit sooner when the sky still has a touch of blue in it. A Twi-night photo. It'll be a better challenge for you anyway as you have to balance the sky to the city light. think you can pull it off? but manually as the exposure should remain constant for panos.


----------



## leftnose

I'm selling a low actuation (less than 7,000 clicks) 5D2 kit (body, grip, battery, cables, RRS QR plate for the body) for a friend who isn't very internet savvy.  PM me if you're interested.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> Hyogen. Your compositions are proper. If you've been shooting less than 5 years you are far advanced compositionally than your peers.  I can see how you are experimenting with subject placement for maximizing impact.  Photography is a interesting art. you can have the gear heads that love the mechanical, electrical, optical, accessorizable elements of it and you have the people that use it to create visual images to their liking. but to complete the criticism with the bridge shot may try it a bit sooner when the sky still has a touch of blue in it. A Twi-night photo. It'll be a better challenge for you anyway as you have to balance the sky to the city light. think you can pull it off? but manually as the exposure should remain constant for panos.


 
   
  Thanks for the encouragement.  I have only been shooting seriously for several months and an SLR for a couple years...I've always loved taking pictures and used to shoot a ton with point and shoot cameras--moved on to waterproof cameras--and before SLRs was into the Casio Exilim high speed cameras that take super slow mo videos and 40-60fps...haha.  I'm only recently starting to get the hang of an SLR and trying to optimize the use of my camera and lenses, but I have lots to learn.  I'll definitely try the twi-night shot sometime.  My cousin has asked me to shoot his wedding for him several months from now, so I feel the pressure to get as good as possible before then. 
   

  New years morning. 
   
  i wish I would have framed this better--had to stop on the highway bridge and quickly take this--I just took one (I was lucky my wife even let me stop for one )  How better could I have framed this?  It only somewhat follows the rule of thirds in this crop.
   
  Here it is in "normal" aspect ratio with part of the guard railing cropped out:
  I added a lot more blue hues to this one below--real life was closer to the above picture.

   
  I saw that Costco sells those stretched canvases for a decent price--I might print either the top photo or the night pano shot in my previous post at like a wide 16x36" for around $65.  Which one should I print... This landscape or the city above?


----------



## MadCow

I prefer the morning pano, and I think a large wide shot like that would look cool on the livingroom wall, if you have the wall space for it.


----------



## musubi1000

both are cool. if the morning shot take a look at how the sky doesn't add much more than color. the Sky doen't add much to the shot so you could try cropping the upper portion and see if it appeals.


----------



## leftnose

God, I love full frame.


----------



## Jon L

Me, too, especially full frame bokeh with long lens.


----------



## Phoenix Jackson

Whoah!  I didn't know there's a thread here for photographers!  I felt lonely at Headphone Full frame section.
  Hi!


----------



## MadCow

Doesn't seem like anything interesting is coming from Canon so far, no sight of the rumored 35L replacement. Guess this means I can save more money this year. :-D


----------



## kkcsm

Quote: 





madcow said:


> Doesn't seem like anything interesting is coming from Canon so far, no sight of the rumored 35L replacement. Guess this means I can save more money this year. :-D


 
   
  There's a fine line between "save" and "postpone spend".


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





madcow said:


> Doesn't seem like anything interesting is coming from Canon so far, no sight of the rumored 35L replacement. Guess this means I can save more money this year. :-D


 
   
  I was wondering what happened to the rumored "January 8th Canon announcements."  My wishful thinking is that Canon has decided to delay their 35L II and 14-24mm announcements because the prices they wanted to charge seemed ludicrous, even to Canon exec's themselves, due to the pricing of the competition such as the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and Sigma 24-70 OS.


----------



## leftnose

There are some grumblings over on FM about the AF accuracy of the new Sigma 35.  Seems that the lens can be set-up with only minor AFMAs to focus bang on at moderate to long distances but then will be off at close distance.  The poll shows 6 out of 37 having problems.  Very informal/unscientific/small sample group but over 10% isn't a small portion of users.


----------



## MadCow

Just noticed that thread. I just lurk there, so I can't see the poll results, but seems a bit similar to my initial experiences when I tested it at the store: spot on at one distance (near for me), and off at the other (front-focused on far objects).


----------



## MegaHurtz

When I was younger and... financially gifted (moreso than now anyway), I had a 20d, 10d, 17-40 F4L and 70-200 F2.8L. Sold it all over the years because it was never being used, and I wanted the money for other ventures (including an engagement ring, which has worked out well for me). When we had our first baby though, I got back into it, bought a T2i kit and a 50 F1.8. Trying to focus on skill to get the best photos this time, not relying on having professional level gear. With it, I am using a Yongnuo TTL flash that came from Amazon, as well as some cheap studio lighting equipment that we use for taking formals of the baby each month. It didn't cost too much at all, and the results have been great.


----------



## hyogen




----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





hyogen said:


>


 
   
  I am so tempted to lolcaption that! :-D


----------



## MadCow

Echoing "I love fullframe", and I love f/1.2


----------



## aqsw

I love full frame too, but I love carrying my X pro 1 better. IQ is better on the Fuji IMO
  Sold off all my 5d stuff and don't regret it for one second.
   
  Don't hate me!!


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





aqsw said:


> I love full frame too, but I love carrying my X pro 1 better. IQ is better on the Fuji IMO
> Sold off all my 5d stuff and don't regret it for one second.
> 
> Don't hate me!!


 
   
  I do wish Canon would take the morrorless market more seriously, judging by the meager EOS-M effort.  
   
  Fuji's new X-trans II sensor looks mighty tasty to me also, but 2 things, actually 3, give me pause:
   
  1.  Very limited choices when it comes to serious strobist and studio lighting work, especially wireless transceivers, not to mention  E-TTL capable transceivers.  
   
  2.  Limited choice and quality of RAW converter program for Fuji files.  
   
  3.  No full frame.  
   
  These limitations, at least for me, makes Fuji at most a supplement to my FF DSLR, not a replacement..


----------



## leftnose

I've been planning on swapping my 5D2 for a 5D3 and I will still do so but I have a feeling it will be the last (and only 2nd) DSLR that I buy.  The Fuji X100s looks really interesting to me and I'd be tempted to buy one, shoot JPG and not sweat the details.  I understand that Fuji's JPG engine is truly outstanding as well.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> I've been planning on swapping my 5D2 for a 5D3 and I will still do so but I have a feeling it will be the last (and only 2nd) DSLR that I buy.


 
  I dunno.  If I were in your shoes, unless you shoot fast sports, I would tend to just wait another generation.  I just don't see significant RAW IQ jump from 5D II to 5D III.  From reviews of 6D, which has a bit better high iso noise and definitely better AF (although center AF only) in darkness (-3 EV! Better than even 1Dx), I get the feeling Canon has better sensor technology in hand or in development for the next generation of bodies, e..g 5D MKIV.  
   
  I have a large collection of Canon lenses, but I have been selling them off slowly, starting with non-L lenses.  Like countless other Canon shooters, unless Canon shows us they are serious about real improvements in their bodies/sensors, not just fancy advertising, I will seek a better solution next generation around.


----------



## musubi1000

The 5 D MK III will crush the MK II and the 6D in terms of high ISO. The 6D is a fine cam but the MK III reigns supreme in the high ISO dept.


----------



## castleofargh

i'm with jon on this one.
  to me the only real reason to go from 5Dmk2 to mk3 is the real massive improvement in autofocus. the few tests i ve done (i don't own the mk3, i just go bother some merchant from time to time) i had like 3 times the amount of out of focus shots on the mk2. anybody a little concerned by speed and quality of focus should upgrade.  for image quality the mk2 is so close, i don't see the point of wasting money.
   
   if your real concern is high iso... nikon does a much better, be it for noise or autofocus in low lights. sad but true.


----------



## musubi1000

The MK 2 is a good daylight /studio camera and at low ISO there isn't any viable dif. But beyond ISO 400 the image starts to smear. 
Nikon does indeed do better. Especially the D4. ISO 6400 with hardly any color noise.


----------



## daigo

Quote: 





castleofargh said:


> if your real concern is high iso... nikon does a much better, be it for noise or autofocus in low lights. sad but true.


 
   
  Even though I'm a Canon shooter, this does appear to be the case.  Nikon's newer bodies are excellent performers in low light situations.  Hopefully Canon will catch up with their sensor technology.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> The 5 D MK III will crush the MK II and the 6D in terms of high ISO. The 6D is a fine cam but the MK III reigns supreme in the high ISO dept.


 
  Well, I don't know where you are getting that info from.  Although I shoot 5D III, in most tests, the 6D is at least as good (slightly better even) as 5D III for high ISO noise.  There are some side-by-side ISO charts in the review below.  
   
  http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx
   
  As for Nikon, most comparisons show that the main advantage is the dynamic range of Nikons, mostly in shadows.  Another usual Nikon advantage is the LOW ISO noise (say for iso <400), but at such low iso's, most cameras are plenty clean to begin with anyway IME.  Once looking past Megapixel/resolution, Canons actually tend to be tiny bit better for high ISO noise, and then there are many who feel Canon colors are "better" (subjective of course).  Just what I've consistently noticed in my readings and my 5 cents


----------



## hyogen

i had the opportunity to shoot a 5D3 for the first time...full frame for the first time actually... omg, I was blown away. 
   
  Guy sitting next to me at Benihana happened to have his 5D3 and 135L and 50mm 1.4 manual Zeiss lens.  I tried to manually focus but it was pretty tough as our chef was moving around pretty fast.  With the larger viewfinder I was able to manually focus decently when he was standing kinda still. I put my SD card in his camera and took this..
   
  ISO400, 1/100, f/1.6 in manual mode:
   
  SOOC:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyofoto/8413409509/
  and a heavy crop:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyofoto/8414509612/in/contacts/
   
   
   
  and from my Rebel T1i.............Iso 1600, f/1.4, and 1/320 (I wish I had changed it to compare exact same settings, but I was too excited.. I had raised the ISO to hopefully get some action shots of the chef...).
   
  sigma 30mm 1.4...which is not great at focusing in low light.. SOOC:
   
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyofoto/8414518052/
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyofoto/8414518138/ 
   
  The wife finally gave me the go ahead to trade bodies and lenses for a FF and more likely less lenses.  I am seriously considering jumping to either a Nikon D700 or D600 which I know has much better AF than the 5D2...and I believe low light performance as well....
   
  I'm tempted to either get a 5D1 b/c it's so cheap... or the 5D2 which has the video recording advantage over the D700...but I think especially the 5D2 is overpriced for used right now   I'd love to get one for about $1000. 
   
  Here are a couple of better photos I've taken lately I think. 
  And these are certainly my best product photos so far..
   




  I took these last night, but already sold the fisheye and the 430EX that I used to take them on Craigslist today...  Like I've said before, I'm quite impulsive -_-
   
  Here are a couple portraits I think are my better ones: 

   

  I've been focusing on trying to get skin tones to look right--obviously the top one is a little more stylized, though.  Flash really helps because with my camera..anything higher than ISO200 and I start to dramatically lose dynamic range and color depth. 
   
  I think I could be very satisfied with the 5Dc...I know the noise usability is only good to 1600...maybe 3200...   I like the smaller pixel density and 12MP...   But the wife won't be letting me switch again if I miss video or want to upgrade....so this body change has to last me quite a long while.. 
   
  Just a couple more fun pics

   

  These two I added the tilt shift effect using de-sharpen in Lightroom. 
   
   
   

   
   


 this last one I revisited the PP a little bit.  I am learning to adjust colors individually a little better I think in LR.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> The wife finally gave me the go ahead to trade bodies and lenses for a FF and more likely less lenses.  I am seriously considering jumping to either a Nikon D700 or D600 which I know has much better AF than the 5D2...and I believe low light performance as well....
> 
> I'm tempted to either get a 5D1 b/c it's so cheap... or the 5D2 which has the video recording advantage over the D700...but I think especially the 5D2 is overpriced for used right now   I'd love to get one for about $1000.


 
   
  Pretty good job nailing focus on manual on the 5D3 -- its focusing screen is not suited for manual focus work, and therefore doesn't show the proper DOF necessary for critical MF work.
   
  Personally, I would recommend either a 5D2 or 6D. Don't fall for the incorrect assumption that larger pixels == less noise; noise is all about the efficiency of the sensor, not the size of the pixels. The 5D2's sensor performance, despite being 3 years old, is still very comparable to the 5D3 and 6D, losing out only at the very high ISOs so it should last you much longer than the 5D1 or D700. I can't say much about the D600, but I would be wary of the Nikon's QC issues on dust/oil.
   
  Also, don't sweat too much on lenses again; some people can go far with just a cheap 35mm or 50mm. You don't need to try and cover all the focal lengths, just the ones you use the most.
   
  And talking about being impulsive... that reminds me a lot of someone I know, that I always meet in the morning in front of the mirror lol. But here's my advice: hold on, and don't buy the thing you want for at least 2 weeks. Each time you're about to hit the buy button, do a double-take and ask yourself, "do I NEED this thing, or do I just WANT it?". After 2 weeks, if the enthusiasm for that new toy is still there, then by all means go ahead and buy it. If you've lost the urge, then cool -- you've saved yourself some money.
   
  I found that most of the stuff I bought and sold within less than a year, have been due to impulse buys while things that I have thought long and hard before buying, I keep them and use them for a much longer time.
   
  ---
   
  On a somewhat-related topic... I have agonized over this for countless nights, sometimes even bordering on insomnia, so recently I bit the bullet (having passed my 2 weeks threshold) and have a new system to partner/backup my somewhat depleted Canon system:
   

   
   
  :-D


----------



## hyogen

very nice, and congrats.  I should probably not even look at how much those kinds of cameras cost     Here's a processed version of the one from the 5D3. 
   

   
   
  I didn't mean to accumulate 6 lenses....the pancake I got for free.  I could have gotten rid of the fisheye before, but now I'm pretty convinced that I just don't need it.  my 70-300 lens was dirt cheap. I used the 30mm and 50mm a ton, but the 10-20mm not as much as I thought--would be good for trips mainly. 
   
  After hearing my 2 photography enthusiast friends who got me into SLRs rave on and on about the D700 and D600 I was pretty convinced.  But after more research and looking at buying used lenses and watching some pretty unbiased comparisons on youtube, I am now actually leaning towards either 6D or 5D2.  I would go with the 5Dc, but this switch has to last me like 6 years (after Dental school the wife says....we have fought a lot b/c of my obsession with photography in general and she's really giving in a LOT to let me go full frame before I got accepted into school..).  This time it will seriously seriously be written in BLOOD.  I'd be pretty happy with keeping my rebel and getting 5Dc...but 2 bodies is out of the question.
   
  I agree I don't need that many lenses.  I think I'll eventually end up with a 14mm 2.8 samyang fully manual for my wide angle (I can wait till summer for this one).  I'll either keep my 40mm 2.8 or preferably the 50mm 1.4 (sigma) as my general purpose lens.  Aaand, for the time being I'll probably try to get a 85mm 1.8.  quite cheap--$315 new and a pristine one sold for $250 today on POTN......I was so sad I missed it.    Nikon's used lenses seem to be more expensive and less of them for sale...
   
  So this will be the difference... 5D2 and 2-3 lenses now.  OR 6D and 1-2 lenses now and be patient.  I think I would be completely satisfied with a wide angle like 14mm 2.8,  50mm 1.4, and a huge jump to the 135 f2L......  Although on my crop right now, I end up using my 30mm more even though I like the 50mm 1.4 better....when I DO use the 50mm (85 on full frame as you know) a lot of times I have plennnty of space to back up and wish I could get an even thinner DOF. 
   
  I'm really disappointed with the single cross type focus point on the 6D.....but I guess I don't take pics of a lot of moving stuff too often (except for my cats...which I guess is actually a lot). 
   
  Insomnia...yes....  I force that upon myself.  in the last 4 days I've slept maybe 15 hours  :-/    It's too bad my local Fry's doesn't have the 6D + 24-105 kit lens in stock.  Can buy the kit for $2300 and sell the lens for $700-750 pretty easily.  No tax in oregon also.  Otherwise pay essentially $100 more for the 6D by itself which they do have in stock......  
   
   
  Here are a couple photographer's processing styles I really like and would love to mimick in case you're curious.  http://voltronofawesomeness.com/   This guy was named one of top 10 wedding photographers in the world by American Photography Magazine last year.    Also, http://www.jordanvoth.com/


----------



## MadCow

I checked out Jordan Voth's collection -- his portraits that immediately stand out to me are the ones taken in evening light. At this time, the lighting is warmer, and he often positions his subjects with the light coming from behind. I love this kind of lighting a lot and have taken a lot of pics of my daughter this way, so it is not just the lens that does the job but the environment and lighting too.
   
   
  On lenses, here's a suggestion:
   
  1) keep the 70-300; it's cheap enough that you probably won't get much back in return.
   
  2) get a 50 and 85, since that seems to be the FL that you're often at. For the 85, that's the 85/1.8. For 50, I guess 50L is out of the question so the next best option, price/performance-wise, is Canon's 50/1.4. Or if cash is an issue, the 50/1.8 can also pretty good; you'll still be getting slightly thinner DOF with a fullframe + 50/1.8 vs rebel + 30/1.4.
   
  3) that Samyang sounds very nice, but 14mm is very wide on fullframe. It's even wider than your 10-22, so I'm questioning are you sure it's what you want? A wide prime is much harder to tame than a normal or telephoto prime, perhaps a zoom such as the 17-40L would be a better option?
   
   
  And one final thing: don't mix up AF performance and cross points. They're not mutually exclusive. A cross point simply means it is sensitive to both vertical and horizontal features, e.g. so a vertically-sensitive point will not AF on a horizontal line. A non-cross point can still be good if presented with a suitable AF target, and many real world features have some vertical edges to AF on; don't automatically assume it's useless just because it isn't a cross point. It's worth noting that 6D does have better AF performance than the 5D2 though, and the 5D2's peripheral points aren't reliable in low light.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





> Nikon's used lenses seem to be more expensive and less of them for sale...


 
   This is a huge practical point in real life that many don't realize.  There's simply much less "good stuff" on the used market for Nikon gear, especially the popular lenses, thus more competition and price to grab them.  Even for new gear, Nikon seems to have large issues with their production and distribution volume, as many popular new products will simply be "Out of stock" at many stores and take months and months to be in stock.  In addition, Nikon relies much more on out-of-Japan countries for production, e.g. Thailand, China, and Nikon's recent and multiple QC issues have gotten my attention as well.  Third-party accessories, such as wireless speedlite triggers, lenses, and even speedlites, always come out for Canon first, then Nikon, if at all.  
   
  This is one of the big reasons I am still sort of forced to give Canon another chance to come up with some real advancements for their bodies before switching..


----------



## leftnose

Look through your EXIF data at focal lengths and make your lens buying decisions based on that.  I just culled my 2012 Lightroom catalog to 4008 images. Of those, 1254 images were taken at 35mm (mix of 35/2, 35L, and 24-105L).  Add together 85 and 135mm and I've got nearly another 1200 photos.  So I can take 35, 85, and 135 primes and know I have lenses that were responsible for ~60% of my "un-flawed" images last year.  Of those, the 135 would be the first to go and I'd be happy as a clam with nothing more than the 35 and 85.  Most of the rest of my images were taken with my 100L Macro, 70-300L, and 17-40L in that order.  I didn't take a single keeper with my 200/2.8L last year so it may be time to sell that lens.
   
  A used 35/2 and 85/1.8 combo should cost you in the ballpark of $600.  That's money better spent in terms of IQ than, say, a used 24-105L and you'd still have money left over for an extra CF card and a spare battery.
   
  And I would definitely skip both the 5Dc and D700.  The decision between 5D2, 6D, and D600 is a tougher one.


----------



## hyogen

leftnose, I thought I your post said that you decided to go Fuji.  My friend recommended me that exact same model (or maybe I'm mistaken about your post??)  He said it was the ultimate wedding camera.....
   
  My decision to go FF was accelerated by the last event (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyogen82/sets/72157632641336362/) I shot recently in which I realized I really only needed the 50mm 1.4 (85mm on FF) and maybe an ultrawide.  And of course a wider lens like a 50 or 35mm.  I used pretty much the 50mm exclusively.  On my aging Rebel T1i I was forced to shoot at ISO800, 1/60, and f/1.6.  I could have shot at 1.4, but I would have liked to have stopped down to get a greater DoF.  I had to rely on the center dot focus + recompose in which sometimes I missed the shot.  I didn't want to go higher than ISO800 because of noise and I definitely could have used a faster shutter speed. 
   
  I'm going with the 50mm 1.8D because I've read it's significantly sharper than the 1.4 or 1.8G version.  I got one on _Canon_ forums for $90...hehe.  Fred Miranda buy/sell seems to have high prices, Craigslist has even higher used prices...and eBay is pretty high also.  Another example of how much cheaper Canon is for used lenses and how much more available they are is the 135mm F2.0 L lenss which goes regularly for between $700-800 used in-like new condition.  It's an amazing lens, which I only hope the Nikon 135 2.0 can match--although it has the Defocusing--it's something like $1000+ used! 
   
  Going from some pretty nice and cheap and large lenses with lots of glass like the sigma 50mm 1.4 to an oooold 50mm 1.8 D and 85mm 1.8D which have a manual aperture ring with no built-in motor will be kinda interesting.  Even though I'll have a way nicer body, I'll look less like a pro   In order for me to switch cameras, I had to sign a contract with my wife to not switch bodies for 6 years and not switch lenses (up to 3 maximum)--she added a clause to let me switch one time.  So, I need to choose really wisely.  Right now I only have the budget for the 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8.............she's gonna get me a wide angle in 6 months for my birthday   The one switch may possibly be the sigma 35mm 1.4 when it gets cheaper in the next few years (LOL).  Or, maybe it'll be something like a 85mm 1.4--Sigma/Nikon. 
   
  The high pitched shutter sound of the Rebel was ridiculously annoying and loud during the baby shower at least to me.  I prefer the quieter noise of the better Canons...and was surprised at how loud the D600's shutter was.  It is a much more mechanical sound and I like it more, but it's still pretty loud.  My wife thought it was louder than my Rebel...  It at least has a quiet mode, though 
   
  It was a tough choice between 6D and D600, even though D600 was better overall.  The -3EV center focus point of the 6D is really nice, while the D600 is supposed to have an inferior focusing system to the D700 and D4...and will hunt in the dark :-/  The wifi remote camera control via smartphone is really slick and useful IMO, and of course the video quality is better on Canon side.  On 100% crops, the D600 has quite a bit more noise than the 6D at ISO6400, but hopefully I wont' really need to use that high. 
   
  I'm quite proud of the images I got from the baby shower shoot - here are some of the best ones I think.  I cannot wait to start shooting my D600!  I particularly like the processing I did with these--I never had thought to move the blacks to the left in Lightroom before.  I got a ton of compliments and a couple people wondering if I could shoot their family pics   Not so bad shooting with a Rebel if I do say so myself   I hope I don't end up kicking myself for not just getting the 5D mark II and having a little more budget for lenses right now and cheaper lenses to switch to in the future.......  but all in all, just $200 or so more to get the newest D600 over a used 5DII made sense to me. 
   

   
  On second glance, a tighter crop on the image above may have been better.  There is garbage showing in the lower right. 

   
  These two images above... i can't believe they came out of my camera and was taken by me.  The bottom one was with the sigma 10-20 and I bounced the flash from the ceiling.  But pretty much everything about these two shots I feel like I would have been impressed with them and believed they were taken by my friend who is a pro wedding photographer.  I have started getting better skin tones and overall color by simply desaturating a tiny bit....and doing something I had never done before----turn DOWN the blacks slider.  Usually I turned them up to make pics look even sharper/contrasty.    I might have mentioned that in my previous post.  The lighting was a little dark overall (except for kitchen), and the settings I said before on my 50mm 1.4 (iso800, 1/60, f/1.6) underexposed them a little bit.  I could have exposed a little more in lightroom, but I only boosted it a little bit.  I kinda like the warmer, nostalgic tone for this series.  Shooting manual was awesome because I only had to spend a little bit of time instead of having to compensate for all the different exposures like my last church event (took me like 10 hours.....)
   
   

  Wish I could have stopped down more because of shots like this. 
   


  These two were taken pretty much in the dark.  I had to pull the highlights/shadows to get them like these--I was pretty impressed with how they turned out considering how little light there was.  They were looking at a slideshow projected on a screen


  10-20 with flash pointed a little up.  A diffuser of some sort may have worked better here. 


   
  I read a review that compared the D600's grip to the D7000.  Right before I met the guy to buy the D600, I tried out the D7000 inside of Best Buy and was disappointed.......It was very narrow and crampy like a Rebel's grip...and had this weird angle to it that made the camera feel like it was being wrenched out of my hands..   Luckily, I found D600 grip to be thicker and without that weird angle


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





hyogen said:


> leftnose, I thought I your post said that you decided to go Fuji.  My friend recommended me that exact same model (or maybe I'm mistaken about your post??)  He said it was the ultimate wedding camera.....


 
   
   
  No, not me.  I've never used the Fuji X-series so it would be negligent of me to suggest one.  They're not full frame, anyway.
   
  Honestly, I think you made the right choice with the D600.  If I weren't so tied to the Canon system and were looking for a FF camera today, that would probably be my choice.  That said, I just sold my 5D2 and I'll order a 5D3 a bit later today.  Maybe later this year after the first price drop I'll pick up an X100s.
   
  50mm is certainly a very good choice for a primary lens on FF but, if you're going to be stuck with 3 lenses max for the next 6 years, I don't know that I would choose 85mm as one of the other lenses.  That's pretty close to 50mm.  I might go with the 105 "Micro" which, I understand, is also a good general purpose lens.  VR and Macro to boot.  A very versatile lens.  On the wide end, I'd be tempted to get a zoom as there is a huge change in FOV for every few mm on the wide end and I wouldn't want to be stuck with say, a 16mm lens when, 24 or 28 might be a better choice.  I don't know price points on the Nikon side but somethng like Canon's 17-40L would be a good choice.  17-40, 50, 105.  That's a pretty complete general use set-up.


----------



## MadCow

Mayday! Mayday! We have a deserter on site! Request backup!
   
  j/k :-D enjoy your D600.
   
  I suspect a 6-year freeze on equipment is going to just be a temporary pact, judging from personal experience. 
   
  17-40, 50, 105 sounds good, I used to run around with 17-40, 50, 85 ten years ago with the EOS 10D and EOS 33 combo. However, I think Nikon doesn't have any 17-40, or other "affordable" ultrawide for that matter. A manual focus Samyang 24mm might be a more suitable complement, it does match up with one of the common 3-prime trinities (24/50/100).
   
   
  edit: looks like I spoke too soon, Nikon just released a relatively affordable AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED.


----------



## leftnose

Got my 5D3 today. Holy Christmas! Non center AF points that are useful! Now I just need to get used to using the joystick to change AF points. I've been using the AF point button and spinning the dial for 15 years, since I got my A2. That worked fine with only 9 points on the 5D2 but is a bit cumbersome now.


----------



## castleofargh

@leftnose: i though the same a few years back and went for a 16-35L II instead of the 16-40 or other choices. i can't seem to remember the reasoning behind my choice but at the time it seemed legit.  even the smallest uv filter will add sensible vignetting and 16mm and 35mn suck.  but else i m satisfied with it. not super sharp but dxo does wonders on that lens.
  again i agree with the moderate purpose of having both 50 and 85. i really use the 85 only as a blur tool and not much for its fov, as the 50 would usually do the trick.
   
  on the tele side, with time i feel more and more that i should sell my 85 and 135 and get the latest 80-200. i m not a fan of zooms as they make me lazy as a photographer. but this 80-200 is really such a powerful lens.  arrrgh cornelian dilemma !!!!! i love my 85 and 135 so much.
   
   
  and grats on the new 5d . autofocus is really something else compared to the mkII
   
   
   
   
   
  @hyogen:  again i'm on a non calibrated laptop so others will confirm (or not) but from here it looks like you color balance is seriously wrong.


----------



## MusicalChillies

Hi folks. Not sure when you say D600 you mean the Canon 600D but here are my efforts with that camera. I like it, my first DLSR.
  http://www.ephotozine.com/user/sinth-45236


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Got my 5D3 today. Holy Christmas! Non center AF points that are useful! Now I just need to get used to using the joystick to change AF points. I've been using the AF point button and spinning the dial for 15 years, since I got my A2. That worked fine with only 9 points on the 5D2 but is a bit cumbersome now.


 
   
  Awesome, enjoy your new camera. I'm a bit surprised you were still using that old technique to change AF points; since the joystick appeared on the 20D and onwards, it was my default method. In fact, the joystick was absolutely perfect with 9 points -- each direction mapped the peripheral points, no nudging around the screen.
   
  And indeed, peripheral AF points are useful now. 50L at 1.2:


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





musicalchillies said:


> Hi folks. Not sure when you say D600 you mean the Canon 600D but here are my efforts with that camera. I like it, my first DLSR.


 
   
  Nice photos!  But the D600 we're talking about is the Nikon D600 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892427-REG/Nikon_D600_Digital_Camera_Body.html which is their relatively new "entry-level" full frame camera.
   
  Quote: 





madcow said:


> Awesome, enjoy your new camera. I'm a bit surprised you were still using that old technique to change AF points; since the joystick appeared on the 20D and onwards, it was my default method. In fact, the joystick was absolutely perfect with 9 points -- each direction mapped the peripheral points, no nudging around the screen.


 
   
  Well, my journey with SLR cameras jumped from the A2 which didn't have a joystick to the 5D2.  And, frankly, I never really used the peripheral points often enough on the 5D2 to bother learning a new method.  I'm also a left-eyed shooter and the joystick was in a slightly odd spot that was cramped to reach because of my face.  Maybe because of the bigger screen on the 5D3, the joystick moved just enough that it's an easy reach.
   
  A couple of ergonomic changes on the 5D3 that I think might be negatives compared to the 5D2.  When I chimp, I like to go all the way and look at EXIF data and histograms.  So I like the playback button to show this view first.  With the 5D2, it was then a click of the zoom in button to get a full screen view of the image and you could zoom in from there.  With the 5D3, you press the playback button to see the histogram and EXIF.  Then you have to press the zoom button to be able to see just the image.  But, the zoom button defaults to a zoomed in view at the focus point.  I get why; a quick way to confirm focus but if I want to see EXIF/histogram and then just the image, now it's two button presses and a dial spin whereas it used to be just two button presses.
   
  I also AF on the shutter button, not the back button.  With the 5D2, though, the shutter button wouldn't activate AF, you had to press the back button.  I liked this because I mainly use live view on a tripod and if I'm shooting something static, I could AF once with the back button and take multiple frames without AF'ing again.  Now, if you have the shutter button set for AF, it also AF's in live view so, I think, you have to AF for every frame.  Yes, you could just flip to MF after the inital AF but that's a bit tedious.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> I also AF on the shutter button, not the back button.  With the 5D2, though, the shutter button wouldn't activate AF, you had to press the back button.  I liked this because I mainly use live view on a tripod and if I'm shooting something static, I could AF once with the back button and take multiple frames without AF'ing again.  Now, if you have the shutter button set for AF, it also AF's in live view so, I think, you have to AF for every frame.  Yes, you could just flip to MF after the inital AF but that's a bit tedious.


 
   
  You can configure the functionality of various buttons on the 5D3 to behave the same way, e.g. configure the shutter button to AE Lock only, then configure the AF-On button to AF Start.
   
  Many of the other buttons can be configured to various functions. One that I find particularly helpful to me is to remap the DOF preview to toggle between One Shot and AI Servo AF. I usually have my 5D3 on AI Servo by default, but when I need better accuracy and low light sensitivity I can simply hold down the DOF preview and instantly get One Shot without needing to fiddle with AF modes.
   
  Another useful option that I found was that you could have two separate AF buttons; e.g. you could setup AF-On to AF on the currently selected focus point, and the * button to AF on the registered focus point. This way I can move my focus points around with the joystick, but still have instant access to one registered focus point without affecting the location of the current one.
   
  The moving of the playback zoom button from the right hand side to the left column is an annoyance though. On the 5D2, sometimes when I wanted to focus critically (handheld, not on tripod) I could easily engage live view, magnify with my right thumb and then manually focus with my left. Now, with all the controls on the left side, it can be more difficult to manual focus this way especially when heavier lenses are mounted.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





castleofargh said:


> @leftnose: i though the same a few years back and went for a 16-35L II instead of the 16-40 or other choices. i can't seem to remember the reasoning behind my choice but at the time it seemed legit.  even the smallest uv filter will add sensible vignetting and 16mm and 35mn suck.  but else i m satisfied with it. not super sharp but dxo does wonders on that lens.
> again i agree with the moderate purpose of having both 50 and 85. i really use the 85 only as a blur tool and not much for its fov, as the 50 would usually do the trick.
> 
> on the tele side, with time i feel more and more that i should sell my 85 and 135 and get the latest 80-200. i m not a fan of zooms as they make me lazy as a photographer. but this 80-200 is really such a powerful lens.  arrrgh cornelian dilemma !!!!! i love my 85 and 135 so much.
> ...


 

 It may be the processing style I was going for.  It is more on the magenta and warmer side.  These new pics I took with the D600 have a little stylized processing also.  First pics I've taken with my new full frame and I couldn't be happier!
   
  http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyogen82/sets/72157632666128109/with/8437667878/


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





madcow said:


> You can configure the functionality of various buttons on the 5D3 to behave the same way, e.g. configure the shutter button to AE Lock only, then configure the AF-On button to AF Start.
> 
> Many of the other buttons can be configured to various functions. One that I find particularly helpful to me is to remap the DOF preview to toggle between One Shot and AI Servo AF. I usually have my 5D3 on AI Servo by default, but when I need better accuracy and low light sensitivity I can simply hold down the DOF preview and instantly get One Shot without needing to fiddle with AF modes.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Thanks.  I played around with the button assignments and the trouble is that the setting are the same for both standard and live view shooting.  So, I can set back button only-AF as I like for Live View but then, I get back button only AF for standard shooting when I prefer to use the shutter button.  You can't have it one way for standard shooting and another way for live view.  Oh well, I guess I'll learn to live with that.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





madcow said:


> The moving of the playback zoom button from the right hand side to the left column is an annoyance though. On the 5D2, sometimes when I wanted to focus critically (handheld, not on tripod) I could easily engage live view, magnify with my right thumb and then manually focus with my left. Now, with all the controls on the left side, it can be more difficult to manual focus this way especially when heavier lenses are mounted.


 
   
  That was the most annoying thing I found initially; however, you can reassign the "playback zoom" function to the "Set" button in the middle of the dial wheel, which you can press with your right thumb when manual-focusing with left hand.  Lifesaver for me personally.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Got my 5D3 today. Holy Christmas! Non center AF points that are useful! Now I just need to get used to using the joystick to change AF points. I've been using the AF point button and spinning the dial for 15 years, since I got my A2. That worked fine with only 9 points on the 5D2 but is a bit cumbersome now.


 
   
  You'll get used to it quickly.  Another shocking improvement you will see is Ai Servo focusing for moving objects, i.e. it's actually possible now!
   
  One thing always perplexed me about Canon.  On my EOS 3 film body, Canon had this neat "Eye Focus" thing where AF focus point would automatically move to the AF point your pupil looked at without having to mess with joysticks, etc.  It works great, even better with careful eye calibration, and I always wondered why Canon stopped using this neat technology.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Thanks.  I played around with the button assignments and the trouble is that the setting are the same for both standard and live view shooting.  So, I can set back button only-AF as I like for Live View but then, I get back button only AF for standard shooting when I prefer to use the shutter button.  You can't have it one way for standard shooting and another way for live view.  Oh well, I guess I'll learn to live with that.


 
   
  Aaah, I see what you mean.
   
  I'm not sure if this works, but if you're not using the * button for anything else you can try assigning it to AF Stop. I'm not sure if that will override another button's AF Start, but if that works, you will be able to hold down the * button to avoid refocussing when you press the shutter button in Live View mode.
   
  Quote: 





jon l said:


> That was the most annoying thing I found initially; however, you can reassign the "playback zoom" function to the "Set" button in the middle of the dial wheel, which you can press with your right thumb when manual-focusing with left hand.  Lifesaver for me personally.


 
   
  Sounds good, unfortunately I already have my Set button assigned to ISO. Makes it convenient for me to change settings without taking the eye off the viewfinder.


----------



## musubi1000

jon l said:


> Well, I don't know where you are getting that info from.  Although I shoot 5D III, in most tests, the 6D is at least as good (slightly better even) as 5D III for high ISO noise.  There are some side-by-side ISO charts in the review below.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx
> 
> As for Nikon, most comparisons show that the main advantage is the dynamic range of Nikons, mostly in shadows.  Another usual Nikon advantage is the LOW ISO noise (say for iso <400), but at such low iso's, most cameras are plenty clean to begin with anyway IME.  Once looking past Megapixel/resolution, Canons actually tend to be tiny bit better for high ISO noise, and then there are many who feel Canon colors are "better" (subjective of course).  Just what I've consistently noticed in my readings and my 5 cents


I don't go by anything I read on the internet. I actually take the cameras in question and actually test them for myself. If you were to take a 5D mk2 and watch how at ISO 400 and higher the colors and detail start to smear. the Mk 3 handles this much better at the same ISO. the 6D is a bit better than the mk2 but no match for the Mk3. teat them for yourself. I've actually seen the differences


----------



## MadCow

"colors and detail start to smear" ? That sounds like JPG talk...


----------



## musubi1000

Jpeg or raw it's true.


----------



## musubi1000

Jpeg or raw it's true.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





jon l said:


> That was the most annoying thing I found initially; however, you can reassign the "playback zoom" function to the "Set" button in the middle of the dial wheel, which you can press with your right thumb when manual-focusing with left hand.  Lifesaver for me personally.


 
   
  I tried, this, BTW, changing playback zoom to SET and this works much better for me than using the default playback zoom.  Now, I hit playback, check the histogram, hit set, and zoom from there.  My brain seems to accept this change but it would not accept hitting the default playback zoom on the left side of the camera.  Now I wish there were a setting where playback zoom will default to a fullscreen view of the whole image rather than starting zoomed in somewhat.  If I could have that, I would be totally satisfied.


----------



## MadCow

leftnose, did you get the new 35/2 IS ?
   
  Just curious what you thought of it, if you have one.


----------



## leftnose

No, not yet.  Had to install a new furnace so the fun money fund will be a little dry for a while.  At this point, I think I'm going to wait for the first price drop or for it to be included in the rebate program.


----------



## MadCow

Got the new Fuji X100s. Funny, I seem to be taking more pictures of it, rather than with it... o.O
   
  All shot with the 100L and two 600EX-RT flashes off-camera; the teal and orange theme is intentional. :-D


----------



## hyogen

just wanted to say hello and share my newborn album.  I couldn't be happier with my new camera.  I have 2 lenses--50mm 1.8 and an old 85mm 1.8 and don't really feel the need to upgrade to more expensive lenses (I went from having 6 lenses + Rebel).  I may want to switch to a little wider lens, though...maybe the 28mm 1.8, or the Sigma 35mm 1.4 when I can afford it later.  I decided not to get an ultra wide for now.  As much as I'm loving the full frame difference, off-camera flash is making another big improvement also. 
   
  The rest of the series here:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyogen82/sets/72157632928114879/


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





madcow said:


> Got the new Fuji X100s. Funny, I seem to be taking more pictures of it, rather than with it... o.O
> 
> All shot with the 100L and two 600EX-RT flashes off-camera; the teal and orange theme is intentional. :-D


 
   
  Please post your thoughts on this once you've used it for a bit.  Eventually, I want a smaller camera and I've always been intrigued by the X100.  Ultimately, though, I may "have" to go with the next EOS M because of all my EF glass.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





hyogen said:


>


 
  Whoa psychokinetic baby :-D


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Please post your thoughts on this once you've used it for a bit.  Eventually, I want a smaller camera and I've always been intrigued by the X100.  Ultimately, though, I may "have" to go with the next EOS M because of all my EF glass.


 
   
  Personally, I wouldn't recommend an EOS M... at least not in it's current state. AF is slow, and it will be even slower with adapted EF lenses. Furthermore, unless you only mount small and light lenses like the 35/2, 40/2.8 and 50/1.8 on it, it's not going to balance well. I'd recommend the Sony NEX line along with the Metabones adapter if you want to adapt your lenses to a mirrorless body.
   
  The X100s, on the other hand, is a completely different beast. I think you need to first decide if you want a fixed lens camera, or an interchangeable one. If ultimately you want to adapt your EF lenses then there's no point in considering the X100s.
   
  I haven't had much time to use the camera this weekend; I stayed home sick and it rained heavily today so I didn't get to take it out for a spin. But shooting random test shots around the house, and in low light, I find that it's high ISO performance is unique. My go-to RAW converter, Capture One Pro, doesn't support the X100s yet so I shot JPG with noise reduction set to the lowest setting. Even with minimal NR, chroma noise seems to be non-existent even up to 6400 and above. This seems to match the results of DPReview's studio comparion samples of the X-Pro 1.
   
  AF performance has improved greatly; I find that if the subject you are focusing on is very close to the lens' current focusing distance, it can be almost instantaneous to lock focus even in low light. However, if the lens has to move some distance, it can get slower especially in low light. I suppose it also has to do with the mechanical design of the lens, where the entire barrel moves to focus (instead of using internal floating elements). I also found out that the contrast detection algorithms only focus on horizontal contrast (vertical lines) -- which is the same behavior as the X100.
   
  The X100s features two new manual focus aids -- digital split image and focus peaking -- but after playing around with it I find myself preferring peaking over split image. The split image tries to emulate an SLR's split image prism, but the problem with the implementation is that the image still blurs when it is out of focus, unlike an actual split prism, so it is harder to get a feel of how much to turn the manual focus ring to get the image to align in the focusing patch. On the other hand, focus peaking is very effective. It uses hard white edges to show the areas in focus and, unlike Sony's implementation, it highlights both horizontal and vertical edges.
   
  The other appealing feature to me is the fact that you can operate the camera in three different ways, depending on your preferences. It can act as a regular live view camera, you can use the EVF, or you can use the optical VF and shoot in a rangefinder-like fashion, with many of the same rangefinder baggage (e.g. frame lines, parallax). The camera is also relatively light (depending on where you're coming from; after being used to handling the 5D3 and M9P, the this thing feels like a toy) so it's a no-brainer for me to always have it with me.


----------



## hyogen

Quote: 





madcow said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  hehehe..   for some reason, the only negative feedback I've gotten on the series is this floating baby shot -_-


----------



## leftnose

Thanks for your comments.  I'm not at all interested in the current EOS M.  I want some sort of VF and the AF definitely needs to improve.  I want to see what the next gen looks like.
   
  The problem I have with the NEX cameras is that I find the native glass somewhat underwhelming.  I want to see the system flesh out a bit more.  And with 4/3, the sensor is getting too small and I prefer wider aspect ratios.
   
  You're right that there is something of a decision between fixed and interchangeable lenses.  A 35/2 equiv. would be the one lens I could live with, though.  I've also got a fair bit of Leica experience so the Fuji form factor is appealing.
   
  This rumor is kind of interesting as well: http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/03/a-new-dslr-line-from-canon-cr1/
   
  At the end of the day, just like I waited for the 5D2 before diving into the DSLR world, I think the compact EVIL segment (I'll include the RX1 and X100 even with fixed lenses) needs to mature a bit more before I buy something.  I also need a new P&S and I want the 35/2 IS and, having bought the 5D3 earlier this year, I can only rationalize spending so much on camera gear in a year!


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Thanks for your comments.  I'm not at all interested in the current EOS M.  I want some sort of VF and the AF definitely needs to improve.  I want to see what the next gen looks like.
> 
> This rumor is kind of interesting as well: http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/03/a-new-dslr-line-from-canon-cr1/


 
   
  I noticed that Canon dslr is rumored to sport an EVF.  I tried the widely-acclaimed 2.4 Million-pixel OLED EVF from NEX-7, expecting to like it well enough.  Unfortunately, I could NOT stand it!  Indoors, it felt like looking at a cheap TV with saturation and color turned way up, like looking at a cartoon of the real thing in front of my eyes.  I've been looking at compact cameras with at least aps-c sensor, and I think EVF is out, which makes it tough.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> At the end of the day, just like I waited for the 5D2 before diving into the DSLR world, I think the compact EVIL segment (I'll include the RX1 and X100 even with fixed lenses) needs to mature a bit more before I buy something.  I also need a new P&S and I want the 35/2 IS and, having bought the 5D3 earlier this year, I can only rationalize spending so much on camera gear in a year!


 
   
  I think of all the current large sensor fixed lens compacts available now, the X100s offers the best value for money compared to the rest -- and there isn't much choice out there, so far.
   
  While the RX1 may offer the best IQ and true 35mm experience, it is also the most expensive and (in my opinion) I think not good value for money in the longterm wise. The Leica X2 is also quite "up there" in price but sports a slow elmarit and ancient LCD screen. Then there are the three Sigmas that are quite niche products, their Foveon sensors being quite unique having both pros and (glaring) cons as well. Finally there's the Nikon Coolpix A which is of an unknown quality at the moment, but either way I am not at all comfortable with the 28mm-equivalent fl nor the slow 2.8 aperture... but it is probably going to be the most compact and pocketable camera of this lot.
   
  Quote: 





jon l said:


> I noticed that Canon dslr is rumored to sport an EVF.  I tried the widely-acclaimed 2.4 Million-pixel OLED EVF from NEX-7, expecting to like it well enough.  Unfortunately, I could NOT stand it!  Indoors, it felt like looking at a cheap TV with saturation and color turned way up, like looking at a cartoon of the real thing in front of my eyes.  I've been looking at compact cameras with at least aps-c sensor, and I think EVF is out, which makes it tough.


 
   
  Interesting thoughts. I thought it was a significant improvement over the 1.44K EVFs when I tested it indoors, until I used the thing outdoors under bright afternoon sun. That's when its narrow dynamic range became a nuisance to me.


----------



## Makaveli6103

Not sure if anyone has used the new Sigma 35 1.4 but from what I have seen it is the only 35mm anyone that anyone should be buying right now.
   
  http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/03/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-sets-new-benchmark-for-excellence/


----------



## MadCow

Tiny 100D is tiny. I wonder if Canon will make an EF-s 22mm f/2 for it...


----------



## leftnose

I'm intrigued.  The little I've read about it, it may be the camera I've been wanting.  
   
  However, from what I've read, the T5i has a new 18MP sensor.  I wonder if the 100D has the new 18MP sensor or the old.  I'll take a pass if it's the old sensor.
   
  EDIT: Oops, just a bit of further reading and it's the "new" sensor.  Now it's a question of reading the first reviews but at $650 for just the body paired with my 35/2, this may be just the thing.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





makaveli6103 said:


> Not sure if anyone has used the new Sigma 35 1.4 but from what I have seen it is the only 35mm anyone that anyone should be buying right now.
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/03/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-sets-new-benchmark-for-excellence/


 
  True enough, but if one digs deeper in various photo forums, the threads are "peppered" with some user posts regarding Sigma 35 f/1.4's possible quirks with Canon AF system, e.g. lower AF keeper rates, slower AF speed in low light, Sigma/body choosing odd AF points (not center of frame but too much on side), not focusing well when lens is wide open, etc.  
   
  As usual, when buying Sigma lens for Canon bodies, make sure to buy from somewhere that has a good return/exchange policy; it's even better to buy from local store where one can test the lens/body combo in person.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





jon l said:


> True enough, but if one digs deeper in various photo forums, the threads are "peppered" with some user posts regarding Sigma 35 f/1.4's possible quirks with Canon AF system, e.g. lower AF keeper rates, slower AF speed in low light, Sigma/body choosing odd AF points (not center of frame but too much on side), not focusing well when lens is wide open, etc.
> 
> As usual, when buying Sigma lens for Canon bodies, make sure to buy from somewhere that has a good return/exchange policy; it's even better to buy from local store where one can test the lens/body combo in person.


 
   
  I wonder how much the Sigma USB docking station can help in such situations... haven't heard or seen much news of this dock so far....


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





madcow said:


> I wonder how much the Sigma USB docking station can help in such situations... haven't heard or seen much news of this dock so far....


 
  From what I have read, some of the problems are related to distance.  The lens will focus just fine within a certain range but then, at a different range, the lens will front focus or back focus.  So, in body AFMA won't fix it.  Unless the Sigma dock will allow mutliple adjustments based on distance, it may not be able to fix the problem.  Beyond that, who wants to do all the necessary testing to determine the adjustment at various distances?  That would be a complete pain!
   
  Maybe, though, the whole issue can be resolved with a firmware update and then the dock would be a help.


----------



## MadCow

FINALLY Canon has decided to bring in a new batch of ST-E3-RT transmitters and supply them to the local stores. So I now have one in hand:
   

   
   
  Here are some quick test shots using a pair of 600EX-RT flashes:


----------



## Romis

Quote: 





jon l said:


> True enough, but if one digs deeper in various photo forums, the threads are "peppered" with some user posts regarding Sigma 35 f/1.4's possible quirks with Canon AF system, e.g. lower AF keeper rates, slower AF speed in low light, Sigma/body choosing odd AF points (not center of frame but too much on side), not focusing well when lens is wide open, etc.
> 
> As usual, when buying Sigma lens for Canon bodies, make sure to buy from somewhere that has a good return/exchange policy; it's even better to buy from local store where one can test the lens/body combo in person.


 

 Sad news to hear, I thought the new Sigma is flawless... already have planned to buy one for my 5D MarkII


----------



## Jon L

After fighting the temptation for a long time, I finally gave in and got myself a Lensbaby, Sweet 35. Some first test shots.


----------



## hodgjy

I've always been tempted to get a Lensbaby.  But, I always chicken out.  Plus, Instagram allows me to make some edits that slightly approach the Lensbaby effect.  At least, that's what I tell myself.
   
  Quote: 





jon l said:


> After fighting the temptation for a long time, I finally gave in and got myself a Lensbaby, Sweet 35. Some first test shots.


----------



## leftnose

It might be because I've had a bit to drink tonight but this is probably the funniest thing I've seen on YouTube in a long time.
   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EfWPrjNMNo&feature=share


----------



## MadCow

A couple of shots from this weekend with 50L and 100L.


----------



## leftnose

Luma Cinch v2 announced: http://luma-labs.com/blog/2013/4/7/cinch-2-preview
   
  I've got the original Cinch and it's the best neck strap I've ever used.  While this one has some neat upgrades like QD and an AR plate, I don't think I'll be replacing mine.


----------



## MadCow

Looks simple and efficient, though not for me. I mostly prefer the traditional kind of over-the-neck strap, attached as short as possible so that when I wear it diagonally across the body, the camera hugs my body tightly to avoid any unwanted swinging around. Very important to minimize free camera movement around kids.


----------



## leftnose

I know what you mean about swinging cameras and kids.  I remember getting beaned by my dad's F3 on a few occasions.  That thing packed enough mass to really hurt!


----------



## daigo

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> Luma Cinch v2 announced: http://luma-labs.com/blog/2013/4/7/cinch-2-preview
> 
> I've got the original Cinch and it's the best neck strap I've ever used.  While this one has some neat upgrades like QD and an AR plate, I don't think I'll be replacing mine.


 
   
  For $55, that's a fairly reasonable price compared to some other straps I've looked at.


----------



## leftnose

So B&H is clearing out the GX1 for $275.  That was too good a price for me to pass up even though it's not exactly the camera I'm looking for.  So I'm now (or later this week when it arrives) part of the EVIL clan.
   
  I haven't bought a lens yet but I'm thinking of going with an M-mount adapter to use my Leica glass plus the 20 pancake.


----------



## MadCow

That's a bargain. The 20/1.7 is a great lens, I kind of like that focal length too (though I never got the Canon 40/2.8... but that's due to my issues with some physical construction/design).
   
  One problem with using Leica glass on micro Four Thirds is the 2x focal length multiplier, if you like wide angles this really limits your options. The native wide angles are also relatively expensive, the only exception being the 14/2.5. Still, it's a nice and compact system that can be carried everywhere.


----------



## leftnose

I'm a huge wide angle fan.  I'd rather have a 16-35 or 17-40 to a 24-70 or 24-105 (though I have both a 17-40 and 24-105).

But I'm getting this for two reasons.  One, to have a small 'travel' system and to have a 'back-to-basics' system.  I'm really going to limit myself to 2-3 primes on this and get back to making the most of what I've got.  In EF-mount, I've got 17-300 covered with "L" zooms plus more than a handful of primes in that range as well.  It's kinda nuts.

However, balancing the small size desire, sort of limits me on the native wide angles.  They're all pretty big other than the 14/2.5.  But I'd rather have the extra stop of speed from the 20/1.7.  I'd actually kind of like to get the PanLeica 25/1.4 as it has been years since I've had a 50 prime but, again, size.  For now, I'm thinking the 20/1.7 and my 35 'Cron on an adapter.  I may add the 12/2 and the 45/1.8 later.  That would give me roughly 24/50/100 in m4/3 to counter my 35/85/135 that I use for Canon.


----------



## leftnose

The size is a nice change.  The battery finished charging too late last night to give it any sort of test.  I'll set aside some time this afternoon and see how it goes.


----------



## MadCow

Been shooting exclusively with the 50L wide open this weekend.


----------



## leftnose

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/2013/04/lightroom-5-beta-now-available.html
   
  The Lightroom 5 beta is out.  The only info provided so far is that the tools have been tweaked.  No word on how the adjustment sliders have been changed.


----------



## hodgjy

Is anyone getting the new Rebel when it's released on April 19?


----------



## leftnose

It's already available.
   
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/945054-REG/canon_8595b003_eos_dig_rebel_t5i.html


----------



## Jon L

I just don't see the point of this T5i..At..All.  I would look at a close-out on T3i or so, at much lower price for basically the same thing.


----------



## MadCow

Yeah, it's not much, just a new model to maintain the yearly refresh schedule with incremental features. I'm more interested in the 100D though, waiting for it to be available locally so I can get a feel of how it handles in my hand.


----------



## hyogen

Just wanted to stop by and announce that I launched my website and facebook page today!  Thank you for all the feedback you all have given me.  I'm still very driven to improve always.  I remember when I had 6 lenses at one point...!    Right now I only have a 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 and am happy with these.  I had to take a few pictures already on paid assignments that required a much wider lens-- a condo and dental office.  I've gotten by with stitching a bunch of images (50mm stitched looks a little fisheye unfortunately), but they turned out satisfactory for now.  
   
  Although I am using a full frame, I have found i can use the cheap aps-c 18-55 VR lens on DX mode of my camera and get good quality.  I am limited to 3 lenses total by the wife, so I'm still deciding what to do.  
   
  The 50mm 1.8G lens is a superb versatile lens and I used it more than 90% of the time during my first engagement shoot.  It would have been nice to have a little more wider perspective in some shots, however.  The 85mm 1.8 is great, but I can great very nice portraits with the 50/1.8 close-up with no distortion as well... so maybe I should get a longer lens to replace the 85?  I would enjoy the extra compression and longer reach of either 105mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8, or 135mm 2.0, but all of these are significantly more expensive.  For my wide end, I imagine the 28mm 1.8G lens or older 35mm 2.0 / 24mm 2.8 lenses would be okay--with 35mm being just not wide enough in certain circumstances.  Ideally, I'll get the Sigma 35 1.4 when it drops in price and I won't miss the cheap but superb 50mm 1.8.  
   
  3 lenses is all I can have -_-  Perhaps I should just rent a 70-200 2.8 for weddings for now.  
   
   
   
  My site:  www.hyofoto.com  - any suggestions welcome.  The mobile site is very different and I may get rid of it.  
   
  My main portfolio can be seen here:  http://hyofoto.smugmug.com   
   
facebook


----------



## Jon L

Sigma announces [size=13.333333015441895px]Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art lens, world's first zoom to remain at f/1.8 through the range.  [/size]
   
http://petapixel.com/2013/04/18/sigma-drops-bombshell-announces-a-18-35mm-f1-8-lens/
   
  I remember a time when CaNikon were actually innovating and leading the field, but now..


----------



## daigo

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Sigma announces [size=13.333333015441895px]Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art lens, world's first zoom to remain at f/1.8 through the range.  [/size]
> 
> http://petapixel.com/2013/04/18/sigma-drops-bombshell-announces-a-18-35mm-f1-8-lens/
> 
> I remember a time when CaNikon were actually innovating and leading the field, but now..


 
   
  It seems both companies have focused completely on developing new bodies and haven't had any of their new glass be all that innovative.


----------



## leftnose

jon l said:


> Sigma announces [size=13.333333015441895px]Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art lens, world's first zoom to remain at f/1.8 through the range.  [/size]
> 
> 
> http://petapixel.com/2013/04/18/sigma-drops-bombshell-announces-a-18-35mm-f1-8-lens/
> ...




It's APS, though, which makes it slightly less impressive. Smaller image circle means it's easier to build a fast lens. Apparently, there are already doubts about its sharpness but I haven't looked into it too carefully.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> It's APS, though, which makes it slightly less impressive. Smaller image circle means it's easier to build a fast lens. Apparently, there are already doubts about its sharpness but I haven't looked into it too carefully.


 
   
  True.  It's just that f/2.8 seems like such an unchangeable fact and mental block for modern zooms; it's great for anybody to break it.  It's tougher to build a longer focal length zoom with wider aperture, but if somebody came out with a good 24-70 f/2 full frame, heck even just 28-55 f/2, I would buy that over the $$$$ Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II.


----------



## MadCow

I handled the new 100D at the store today. It was a display unit, but I didn't take any test shots as I just wanted to hold it and see how it fits.
   
  It really feels nice especially if you mount it with a small prime (so, anything with a red ring is out), the grip is still holdable though suffers from the same problem as the Rebels -- the last pinky finger usually has nothing to grip on. I can't imagine anyone wanting to get an EOS-M after handling this little thing, if only Canon produced a matching EF-s 22mm f/2 lens for it.
   
  But anyways I am going to give this a pass. Besides the 35/2, I don't have anything I would want to mount on this camera and have it still balance properly in my hand.


----------



## leftnose

Thanks for the review.  I'm more and more glad I bought the GX1.  I really haven't had a good chance to put it through its paces but I'm having fun with it.
   
  On another note, I'm finally getting a bit tired of the wobbly tripod ring I have for my 100L so I was going to buy a Canon one tonight.  $190!!  Seriously, Canon?!?!?


----------



## D2000

Hey all,

 Been on HeadFi a little while now but never in these threads. Just wanted to share a quick link about my best friend being chosen as Australia's Tourism Lifestyle Photographer.

https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderLeewayLifestylePhotographer
  
  This is his 30 second entry 






   
  As camera enthusiasts I hope you can support a passionate friend of mine in getting this job  
 I'm sure many of you have facebook and just liking his page would be a huge help. 
  We're trying to generate as much buzz as possible about him 

 Thanks very much - I hope this isn't considered spam. I will be happy to remove it if it annoys anyone. 

 Thanks


----------



## MadCow

Just updated my 5D3 firmware to 1.2.1. Process went smoothly. Admittedly there's nothing in there that I really needed, just the software engineer in me wanting to ensure everything is always up to date.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





madcow said:


> Just updated my 5D3 firmware to 1.2.1. Process went smoothly. Admittedly there's nothing in there that I really needed, just the software engineer in me wanting to ensure everything is always up to date.


 
  Darn..I was looking forward to the F/8 autofocus feature and improved AF speed with speedlite focus assist beam, but Canon apparently decided to screw those of us who use third party batteries.  Boo.. I will not be updating the firmware unless I desperately need the F/8 AF in the future.
   
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14562.0


----------



## musubi1000

Hey Everyone, How have your LP E6 batteries been holding up?


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





musubi1000 said:


> Hey Everyone, How have your LP E6 batteries been holding up?


 
   
  I've had four of them but I'm down to three now as I had to let one go when I sold my 5D2.  Mine are all OEM Canon as I have a "thing" about spending $3K+ for a camera/lens and then skimping on the battery (same with memory cards).  They've all been good for me.  Hold their charge well and I don't notice any diminished capacity.  I use only the OEM Canon charger as well.


----------



## silvrr

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> I've had four of them but I'm down to three now as I had to let one go when I sold my 5D2.  Mine are all OEM Canon as I have a "thing" about spending $3K+ for a camera/lens and then skimping on the battery (same with memory cards).  They've all been good for me.  Hold their charge well and I don't notice any diminished capacity.  I use only the OEM Canon charger as well.


 
   
  This is my experience also, I have 2 of these batteries and none seem to be lacking power even after a few years now.
  
  While I agree with leftnose on the cheap battery comment I do have to say that when I had my 40 & 50D the BP511a replacements from sterlingtek were fantastic, better life than the Canon OEM and from my own experience and feedback on various forums its seems they are rather reliable.  That being said, I haven't used sterlingtek for E6s yet as mine are doing fine and I only need two.


----------



## MadCow

I don't have any ones older than my 5D3 currently, both which are OEM and now report 2 "boxes" health but are holding up very well. I let go two of them, one when I sold my 7D and another when I sold my 5D2, both of them also down to 2 boxes. I've not personally owned anything that dropped below that before, so all good experience with them so far.
   
  On an unrelated note, I am particularly pleased with this shot today even though it has some flaws.


----------



## musubi1000

I was noticing how the batteries from the 2009 7D are starting to go bad. the old BP 511 lasted forever. like 5-6 years.


----------



## leftnose

The magnolias in front of my house are in bloom now (finally -- over a month later than last year!).
   

   

   

   

   
   
  and a 100% crop of the above (at least before the forum does its thing)

   
  First two taken with my 17-40 and last two with my 100L.


----------



## MadCow

Nice work with the 17-40, using wides for closeups and macro is not something that I have had much success with.


----------



## leftnose

Thanks.  I can only really offer two suggestions.  One is to compose to be able to add a vignette in post.  Often there is still too much in the frame of a wide angle close-up that you have to give a bit of help to the viewer's eye to get it where it needs to go.  Second, don't be afraid to get REALLY close.  Often I startle myself when I lower the camera as I'm much closer to the subject than I would have thought; I see so much through the viewfinder only to find myself a few inches from the subject!
   
  I also upgraded to FW 1.2.1 last night.  I don't do video or own a tele-extender so better AF-assist speed is the only improvement in there for me and it is noticeably faster.


----------



## Romis

Quote: 





madcow said:


> I don't have any ones older than my 5D3 currently, both which are OEM and now report 2 "boxes" health but are holding up very well. I let go two of them, one when I sold my 7D and another when I sold my 5D2, both of them also down to 2 boxes. I've not personally owned anything that dropped below that before, so all good experience with them so far.
> 
> On an unrelated note, I am particularly pleased with this shot today even though it has some flaws.


 

 Really nice shot!


----------



## daigo

I couldn't help myself and bought the 100 /2.8L that was on sale earlier this week from buydig.  Wasn't sure if the order was going to be processed since there were rumors of lack of stock, but just received my shipping notice.  Going to be a little long on my crop 60D for typical shots, but should  be just fine for zoomed in macro shots.


----------



## Jon L

Love the 100L. Below is 100L on crop body (550D).


----------



## silvrr

Love the 100L, so sharp and the IS is fantastic. I use it more for non macro I think.


----------



## MadCow

100L is also a great focal length for still life and product shots.


----------



## leftnose

Did you say product shots with the 100L?


----------



## MadCow

Nice watch, but I find the glow trail from the long exposure distracting. Makes the watch look like it's smiling, though.


----------



## leftnose

Thanks for the feedback.  The image above isn't quite what I set out to capture.  I inadvertently wound the watch after everything was set-up so the game plan changed a bit.   I've still got everything set-up so I may try again tonight to do a straight lume shot.


----------



## Jon L

Just got this Marumi DHG 77mm CPL, but I haven't opened the seal due to second thoughts, especially how it has noticeable flare compared to something like top-line B&W (see link below). I hate flares in filters. Anybody have experience with Marumi, B&W, Nikon CPL, or any other thoughts?
   
  http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?art=115&roz=23


----------



## anoobis

_That_ test 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  See here http://www.head-fi.org/t/648977/camera-filters-circular-polarizers-and-that-test
   
  Two areas of caution with the test. The ranking is very sensitive to the weights assigned to each test. You will have to assess how well they match your priorities and whether you agree with the results of the subjective tests. Secondly, the transmission charts are not all scaled the same. Further, I don't entirely agree with their analysis in every case.
   
  I don't recall reading what the C1, C2 curves are; I'm not sure how to interpret those curves.
   
  HTH


----------



## MadCow

In the shop that I regularly visit, they have a 300/4L IS that has been sitting on the shelf for a long time already, and I got curious today and asked to test it. Well, it feels like a very fine lens; it's not too heavy, AF is very fast and accurate, and is quite sharp wide open. However I wasn't too impressed with the old generation IS, although it helps but once you get used to modern 4-stop IS this feels significantly inferior. Also due to the f/4 aperture I was always at ISO3200 and above... so I guess it's mainly an outdoor lens. I can see the appeal of the lens, and its close focusing distance is quite decent also -- add an extension tube and it can be a good butterfly lens -- but it does feel a bit dated. Dated because of its IS system, and also dated because of the other alternatives that are available today: the excellent 70-300L, as well as the 70-200/2.8L II IS with x1.4 converter.
   
  My interest in the Sigma 35/1.4 was renewed this weekend also, so I gave the store copy a try. Unfortunately this copy has consistent front focus of about 3" on my 5D3, so I gave it a pass also. The store said they're ordering a new batch, so maybe I will give them a try when they arrive. I know I can MFA or get the USB dock to handle this lens... but maybe I'm just using it as an excuse to deflect another impulse buy.


----------



## leftnose

I've got the 70-300L and, though it is one of my least used lenses, I really like it.  It does its job really well and I am more than satisfied with its performance.  
   
  The lens that I would like to see refreshed is the 400/5.6L with added IS.  That lens in that price range would attract my attention.  I really have limited use for super-teles but it would really round out my lens collection.  I've got 17-300 covered natively with zooms and primes so with that last lens, and a 1.4x converter I really would be able to do pretty much everything I could ever want to do.


----------



## daigo

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> I've got the 70-300L and, though it is one of my least used lenses, I really like it.  It does its job really well and I am more than satisfied with its performance.
> 
> The lens that I would like to see refreshed is the 400/5.6L with added IS.  That lens in that price range would attract my attention.  I really have limited use for super-teles but it would really round out my lens collection.  I've got 17-300 covered natively with zooms and primes so with that last lens, and a 1.4x converter I really would be able to do pretty much everything I could ever want to do.


 
  Just arrange for that safari trip to Africa and you'll get plenty of use out of that 400/5.6L!


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> The lens that I would like to see refreshed is the 400/5.6L with added IS.  .. 1.4x converter I really would be able to do pretty much everything I could ever want to do.


 
   
  There are so many people waiting for that 400 f/5.6L IS it's not even funny, with it becoming 560 mm f/8 with 1.4x TC, with f/8 autofocus now possible with new Canon firmware.  I do believe it's coming, but I'm also sure Canon will price it way out there also


----------



## musubi1000

jon l said:


> Just got this Marumi DHG 77mm CPL, but I haven't opened the seal due to second thoughts, especially how it has noticeable flare compared to something like top-line B&W (see link below). I hate flares in filters. Anybody have experience with Marumi, B&W, Nikon CPL, or any other thoughts?
> 
> http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?art=115&roz=23


Marumi is a Japanese company with a good line of filters but make sure you dont cheap out on your polarizer and get an uncoated or single coated filter. the multi coated filters handle the ghosting and flare


----------



## MadCow

I took my daughter to the Aquaria KLCC, a local oceanarium this weekend. The last time I was there, I was using the 16-35 and constantly at ISO3200-6400 on the 5D2. I no longer have an ultrawide, so this time I brought the 24L and it stayed on my 5D3 pretty much the entire time.
   

   

   

   

   
  (edit: weird, the third image is showing no image... but I can see it in the editor and it also shows up if I click on it)


----------



## GSARider

Just bought the Edelkrone Slider online yesterday, should arrive within a week or so hopefully. 

Pretty cool piece of kit for video, will be using with my 5D...


http://www.edelkrone.com/slider-plus


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





madcow said:


> My interest in the Sigma 35/1.4 was renewed this weekend also, so I gave the store copy a try. Unfortunately this copy has consistent front focus of about 3" on my 5D3, so I gave it a pass also. The store said they're ordering a new batch, so maybe I will give them a try when they arrive. I know I can MFA or get the USB dock to handle this lens... but maybe I'm just using it as an excuse to deflect another impulse buy.


 
   
  The dock looks pretty interesting in that it allows different MFAs for different distances:
   
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/sigma-optimization-pro-and-usb-dock
   
  but I've still got my 35L and I'm still waiting for the 35/2IS to join the rebate program.


----------



## GSARider

Edelkrone slider plus arrived...first test below...


----------



## castleofargh

the result is not ultra perfectly smooth all the way, but still light years better than what i could do handling the camera. really cool.
  you moved it by hand right?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  ps: can i has your amp? ^_^


----------



## GSARider

Yep, moved by hand, the tripod head that i used wasn't ideal for this - didn't fit properly, so I had to be careful how i moved it - have a new one arriving tomorrow. Also my first time using a slider, so hoping it will improve with a few practice runs...


----------



## Jon L

[size=13.333333015441895px]Canon EF 28mm F/2.8 IS USM lens for $399 shipped!  This thing goes for $600+ usually.[/size]
   
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370784493891


----------



## Jon L

Groupon has a smoking deal on $49.99 for JLab Pro Roller Camera Spinner Bag ($179.99 List Price)
  
 http://www.groupon.com/deals/gg-jlab-pro-roller-camera-spinner-bag?utm_medium=afl&utm_campaign=404255&utm_source=rvs
  
 I ordered one as I never bought a bag that will hold everything in past due to the usual higher prices.


----------



## Jon L

Oh, and Canon has finally come up with a new 20.2 MP aps-c sensor, in the 70D.
   
http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/canon-eos-70d-spec-list/


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Oh, and Canon has finally come up with a new 20.2 MP aps-c sensor, in the 70D.
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/canon-eos-70d-spec-list/


 
   
  I'm glad they're continuing to stick to the LP-E6 battery.


----------



## Jon L

Quote: 





leftnose said:


> I'm glad they're continuing to stick to the LP-E6 battery.


 
  It's unfortunate genuine Canon LP-E6 goes for $60 each 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  and that the latest Canon firmware updates don't support third party LP-E6 batteries fully.  I just ordered a "genuine" Canon LP-E6 from an overseas vendor who swears it's genuine, at a better price, so we'll see..


----------



## GSARider

Pretty cool autofocus feature in video mode on the 70D.


----------



## leftnose

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Groupon has a smoking deal on $49.99 for JLab Pro Roller Camera Spinner Bag ($179.99 List Price)
> 
> http://www.groupon.com/deals/gg-jlab-pro-roller-camera-spinner-bag?utm_medium=afl&utm_campaign=404255&utm_source=rvs
> 
> I ordered one as I never bought a bag that will hold everything in past due to the usual higher prices.


 
   
  Thanks for the tip.  Got mine earlier this week and I finally filled it this morning
   
  Like you, just bought it to have a bag that would hold everything but, unfortunately, I've still got too much gear!
   

   
  I've actually got four more Canon lenses but two of them I never use and I'm thinking of selling the third.  Ideally, I would have liked to get one more lens in there plus a GX1/20 combo.  I'll play with it a bit more to see if I can make it work but it was still worth the $50!  On the other hand, you can also see why ThinkTank charges what they do and still get it.


----------



## Jon L

Yeah, I need more llike two of these for all my gear, but for $50 shipped, I'm happy with the purchase.
   I could definitely use this bag with those rolling wheels if I shoot a wedding or something.


----------



## Jon L

I ordered the EOS-M/22mm kit on $299 sale from B&H when it was already backordered, but they honored the backorders unlike Adorama who cancelled all the backorders. I just received it, and to my surprise, B&H is honoring the EOS-M/22mm backorder with EOS-M/22mm/90EX kit! That's right, 90EX flash included for my $299 order 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   



   
  I was also happy to find out the cheaper Viltrox adapter works great with EF lenses.
   



   
  Finally, a sample shot with EOS-M/Viltrox adapter/85L with the 90EX acting as master to fire an off-camera 580 EX II.


----------



## castleofargh

ahahahah I wanna go out on the street with the eos m/85mm combo. the look on people's face must be epic.


----------



## leftnose

Nice.  If that had an option for some kind of viewfinder, I would have jumped on that as well, to hell with the GX1 I just bought.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  Does the adapter have electrical contacts for aperture and AF?


----------



## Jon L

Yup, full contacts for AF and metering. My 85L is not exactly a snappy AF champion even on DSLR, and I was happy to see its AF speed is decent enough for real-world use on EOS-M/adapter. That EF-M 22mm f/2 is a real gem, too. Very nice sharpness, bokeh, and build quality, and I especially love the MFD of 15 cm with 1:2 near-macro ability.


----------



## Circuitbender

Quote: 





jon l said:


>


 
   
  You just made my night <3


----------



## Jon L

How about 70-200 + 2x TC for 640 mm of awesome reach?


----------



## daigo

Man, that is an awesome set up on that tiny body, Jon!


----------



## Jon L

Finally got some Rogue Flashbenders and diffusion panels. I was happy to see the pseudo-softbox gave off a pretty even light across the panel without big hot spots, and these are definitely much easier to carry around than other "portable" softboxes I have. With the small Canon 90EX flash acting as master, the Rogue makes a softened two-speedlite portable light setup much more convenient.


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





jon l said:


> Finally got some Rogue Flashbenders and diffusion panels. I was happy to see the pseudo-softbox gave off a pretty even light across the panel without big hot spots, and these are definitely much easier to carry around than other "portable" softboxes I have. With the small Canon 90EX flash acting as master, the Rogue makes a softened two-speedlite portable light setup much more convenient.


 
   
  Looks neat, how secure are they when attached? And do you need to (semi-)permanently attach something onto the flash head itself (Velcro, etc)?


----------



## Jon L

Nothing semi-permanent on flash.  The whole thing goes on flash via strap, so it's not as secure as Mt. Rushmore but secure enough for the job.  
http://www.expoimaging.com/product_info.php?cPath=18&products_id=26


----------



## Cat Face

http://youtu.be/L_nmyN_ABGs Shot this yesternight, the sun doesn't even set yet properly but the Northern Lights were still bright enough for the EOS 550D to catch them at ISO 800. I used Magic Lantern to set the video FPS to 0.5, shutter angle to 360° (thus, 2s of exposure per frame). I was surprised how little noise there was, although I wish I had been there in time to shoot the really flashy ones yesterday. I guess I'll start taking regular walks in the dark park to see if there are any northern lights to shoot!


----------



## MadCow

Quote: 





cat face said:


> http://youtu.be/L_nmyN_ABGs Shot this yesternight, the sun doesn't even set yet properly but the Northern Lights were still bright enough for the EOS 550D to catch them at ISO 800. I used Magic Lantern to set the video FPS to 0.5, shutter angle to 360° (thus, 2s of exposure per frame). I was surprised how little noise there was, although I wish I had been there in time to shoot the really flashy ones yesterday. I guess I'll start taking regular walks in the dark park to see if there are any northern lights to shoot!


 
  Nice, not something I get to see over here. Though composition-wise, I would have preferred if you either shown more of the houses in silhouette or cropped them off completely -- right now they appear more as a distraction.


----------



## MadCow

Nothing spectacular this time around, got myself two new lens caps to replace the 50L's and 100L's. Also got a longer USB cable for tethering work -- the local Radio Shack and other PC accessory shops didn't have any in stock so I had to get the expensive Canon version.


----------



## Cat Face

Quote: 





madcow said:


> Nice, not something I get to see over here. Though composition-wise, I would have preferred if you either shown more of the houses in silhouette or cropped them off completely -- right now they appear more as a distraction.


 
  Thanks, I'll definitely pay more attention to the composition and cropping the next time, as this was more of a techy attempt at as little noise as possible, and correct image style settings on a relatively "noisy" body. As opposed to what people recommend, using Cinestyle in low-contrast scenes like this would result in greatly increased compression artifacts and less dynamic range of actual content (as opposed to absolute dynamic range) that gets saved in the 8-bit H.264. There's nothing 0,0,0 or 255,255,255 about this scene so increasing contrast lets me catch some more detail in the faint aurora borealis range of luminosity within the 14-bit raw stream sent to the internal processor, without losing anything due to blowouts.
   
  I'm also planning on lowering FPS to 0.25 to double the speed to make it more interesting (the northern lights in here are quite dim and don't move too fast usually, so slow shutter speeds are okay). The longer exposure time would also let me use the less bright 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 widest angle instead of a boring 30mm that hardly captures a portion of the sky.

 Gawds, if I get a job I'm so getting a Canon EOS 6D and a Samyang 14mm f/2.8, they would be an amazing combo for timelapse scenery.


----------



## MadCow

My first A3+ printer!

   
  They had a promotion at the local mall, and it came with a bunch of weird free gifts: a personal organizer, calculator mouse, some orange bag-thingy, and an Angry Birds mug.

   
  Hauling 26kg up two flights of stairs to my computer room is NOT fun... but totally worth it!


----------



## uofmtiger

jon l said:


> I ordered the EOS-M/22mm kit on $299 sale from B&H when it was already backordered, but they honored the backorders unlike Adorama who cancelled all the backorders. I just received it, and to my surprise, B&H is honoring the EOS-M/22mm backorder with EOS-M/22mm/90EX kit! That's right, 90EX flash included for my $299 order
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you liking this camera? I thought about buying one, but went with micro four thirds for now. However, I would love to use my Canon lenses with autofocus on such a mall package. I am hoping they continue to Improve on this model.

If I had not just ordered the EPL5 right before the price drop, I may have tried it out.


----------



## Jon L

Fitting EF lenses on EOS-M is fun, but honestly, for its intended use of easy portability, I prefer the EF-M 22 mm f/2 lens, which is fantastic. Below at f/2 wide open.


----------



## uofmtiger

Yeah, my main issue with it is the current lack of EF-M lenses, when compared to the numerous lenses for micro four thirds. The 50 & 85 f1.8s would still be in the right size range, but I would just use the FF DSLR if I was carrying something bigger. I still may get one down the road, but I may wait to see if they continue supporting the format.

Is the autofocus as bad as I have been reading? I heard they did a firmware update, but I haven't heard if it fixed this (supposed) issue.


----------



## Jon L

uofmtiger said:


> Is the autofocus as bad as I have been reading? I heard they did a firmware update, but I haven't heard if it fixed this (supposed) issue.


 
  
 Yeah, I wish it had an EF-M 35 or 50 fast lens, but then again, many people have a Canon nifty fity or 35 f/2 to use which are pretty light.  I unfortunatley sold off my nifty fitty and 50 f/1.4, leaving me with the large 50L 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 The firmware is mainly meant to fix the AF speed, and I would say it does a great job.  Unless you are shooting fast-moving sports, I don't imagine you will find AF speed to be the limiting factor.  See video below:
  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSbGLFuWRVY


----------



## uofmtiger

jon l said:


> Yeah, I wish it had an EF-M 35 or 50 fast lens, but then again, many people have a Canon nifty fity or 35 f/2 to use which are pretty light.  I unfortunatley sold off my nifty fitty and 50 f/1.4, leaving me with the large 50L
> 
> The firmware is mainly meant to fix the AF speed, and I would say it does a great job.  Unless you are shooting fast-moving sports, I don't imagine you will find AF speed to be the limiting factor.  See video below:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSbGLFuWRVY


Thanks for the video. It is definitely a lot faster. I am going to wait to see if the new EOS M, that is rumored to be out before year end, has more lens support. To me, that is the main weakness in the format now that AF is fixed. Like you mentioned, there are some regular lenses that are small and work with it, but if they could add just a few more it would show more commitment to the format. I do plan to keep am eye on it, but this next year will tell me whether I should commit more fully to micro four thirds, when I want I carry a small camera, or whether I should switch over to EOS M. Personally, I would prefer EOS M since I could get double use (with autofocus) out of my Canon Lenses.


----------



## MadCow

If the new EOS M is equipped with the 70D's sensor, it would bring it back in line with the competition in regards to AF speed, and also give it an edge in AF tracking.
  
 However, I am also curious about the growing rumors of Sony's fullframe NEX, that's going to be another big thing to look forward to, if true.


----------



## Jon L

madcow said:


> However, I am also curious about the growing rumors of Sony's fullframe NEX, that's going to be another big thing to look forward to, if true.


 
  
 The big issue is the estimated body-only price of $2800 or so, with each Zeiss prime in $1500 range, so the body + 2 lens will run you $5800 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  I just don't see how the current NEX E-mount will support full-frame sensor, which means one will be limited to the expensive NEX-FF mount lenses Sony/Zeiss offers.


----------



## Cat Face

As far as not-huge FF bodies are concerned, I would look no further than Canon EOS 6D. Smaller body than EOS 5D Mark III, with slightly better IQ at high ISO sensitivities, for nearly half the price. Sounds really delicious for under $2000. I'm getting one the second I get a job, unless they release something absolutely revolutionary soon (to beat 5D mkIII already is better than I could've ever imagined from a budget FF body)


----------



## uofmtiger

The main issue is that most of these smaller cameras still use large lenses.  Personally, I have no issue carrying a typical FF camera, but the lenses start to get really heavy and take up a lot of space when you carry several of them.  I don't feel that the Rebel or other small cameras that use heavy lenses like the 100-400mm compare with the micro four thirds that use a 100-300 ( 2x) that weigh nothing in comparison.  EOS M really needs more lenses for it fit that same need.
  
 The idea is that the full package needs to be small, not just clipping off 7 or so ounces for the body.


----------



## MadCow

jon l said:


> The big issue is the estimated body-only price of $2800 or so, with each Zeiss prime in $1500 range, so the body + 2 lens will run you $5800
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Yeah, initial entry and early adopter price can be stiff. However, if it turns out that they put a really good sensor in the body, then when someone eventually makes an M-mount adapter I am already covered in the 35/50/75 range.


----------



## BoyFreak

Well there is suppose to be a EF to E mount full frame adapter so that will make the transition for most of us with EF & EF-S lenses to the sony FF mirrorless camera a little less painful. 
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/mxphoto-working-on-a-ef-to-e-mount-full-frame-adapter/


----------



## uofmtiger

boyfreak said:


> Well there is suppose to be a EF to E mount full frame adapter so that will make the transition for most of us with EF & EF-S lenses to the sony FF mirrorless camera a little less painful.
> http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/mxphoto-working-on-a-ef-to-e-mount-full-frame-adapter/


 
  
 Do any of them have autofocus?  That is the main issue with the micro four thirds adapters.


----------



## BoyFreak

Sounds like there is some electronics in the adapter - but cannot be completely sure how much control / feedback there is from this.


----------



## Jon L

Each time I use an adapter, I hate them more, leading me to not use them eventually.  
 Rather than EF to E adapter, I'd much rather see Sony/Zeiss make NEX mount 35 f/1.4 lens instead of the 35 f/2.8(!) that's coming.  An expensive slow 35 mm prime.. Argg.


----------



## musubi1000

The Zeiss/Sony 24 is cool.


----------



## Yazen

Any reason I should return the brand new D5100 kit I got new at target for $375 after tax? 

My other camera is the sx230 hs with chdk.

t3i is $450, body only afaik.

does a novice like me go for the d5100 or settle for the PS?

I hate the kit lens, and the autofocus speed is poor compared to my PS. 

I use both in manual and auto depending on scenario.

Image quality is obviously better, but my Nokia 808 I returned seemed to crop nicer.

Not sure to spend extra to look at the canon spectrum, invest in some $$$ glass, or return the damn thing lol


----------



## Yazen

lidunchaa said:


> very interesting, and educative. I liked it a lot. I shall get the book


 
 Don't forget to check out the sequel, _4.png_


----------



## BoyFreak

yazen said:


> Any reason I should return the brand new D5100 kit I got new at target for $375 after tax?
> 
> My other camera is the sx230 hs with chdk.
> 
> ...


 
 Yazen - Are you okay with the size of DSLR like the D5100 and T3i?  If you are than either of those are suitable for your needs.  But there is a lot of push towards the mirrorless camera now especially how it is lighter and the lenses are more compact.  Especially if you do a lot of hiking trips, every ounce counts.  
  
 If you are willing to wait for a Canon refurbish sale you can usually score a T3i with kit lens for about $400 or less.  From what I've heard, most of the refurbished cameras have low shutter counts.  Plus Canon does offer 1 year warranty on their refurbish products now. 
  
 The benefits of a mirrorless camera is not only in the size, but also in-body stabilization like the Olympus PEN PL5 or the OMD.  Which means you still get the image stabilization for using old manual focus lenses (Canon FD). 
 The Fuji mirrorless cameras have some really nice colors in their images because there is no AA filter.  So the straight out of camera (SOOC) jpegs looks really nice compare to others.  In addition they do have a nice focus peaking system. 
  
 It really depends what your needs are, but I definitely see the mirrorless camera catching up the the DSLRs in terms of capabilities and function.


----------



## Yazen

boyfreak said:


> Yazen - Are you okay with the size of DSLR like the D5100 and T3i?  If you are than either of those are suitable for your needs.  But there is a lot of push towards the mirrorless camera now especially how it is lighter and the lenses are more compact.  Especially if you do a lot of hiking trips, every ounce counts.
> 
> If you are willing to wait for a Canon refurbish sale you can usually score a T3i with kit lens for about $400 or less.  From what I've heard, most of the refurbished cameras have low shutter counts.  Plus Canon does offer 1 year warranty on their refurbish products now.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I was really interested in the mirrorless line, but the D5100 was such a nice deal!
 The SX230 HS has been great in manual mode, but the IQ in higher isos and dynamic range was lacking for me.
  
 The Samsung NX20 looked like a good mirrorless option for $300, but was just as bulky as a DSLR.
 EOS-M is a mixed bag in auto focusing, the Fuji line looks interesting 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Not sure if there are any comparable mirrorless options in the same price range I got the D5100 kit for, I might just get a bigger camera bag and be done with it lol.
  
 I'm just afraid I won't use it enough to justify the money I paid for it.  I love what a DSLR does, but its not something I want to carry everywhere.  Makes me a little sore for my Nokia 808, I really wish they published a firmware to adjust shutter speed.


----------



## BoyFreak

yazen said:


> I was really interested in the mirrorless line, but the D5100 was such a nice deal!
> The SX230 HS has been great in manual mode, but the IQ in higher isos and dynamic range was lacking for me.
> 
> The Samsung NX20 looked like a good mirrorless option for $300, but was just as bulky as a DSLR.
> ...


 
 Well if you do get a bigger bag just make sure to get a real backpack if you plan on full day hiking.  I made the mistake of using one of those shoulder sling bags and it is a killer on your shoulder when hiking around for a full day with a 60d + 3 lenses and a flash + tripod. 
  
 Since you already have the D5100, you can always play with it first and if you don't like it just resale it on FM or ebay.  
  
 EOS-M is a very capable camera and I have one as well.  The autofocus on it is not as good as a DSLR or other mirrorless, but for what I shoot most of the time (landscape and family portraits) it works since none of the subjects are moving too fast. 
  
 If you are ok with refurb you can always keep an eye on Cameta for some nice mirrorless kits. There is currently a Oly PM2 with kit lens for about $190.


----------



## daigo

Do you have a recommendation for a hiking/travel backpack with room for one body/lens and 1-2 extra lens?  I've been looking into a bag for my trip to Peru where I can still fit some other things in there while providing protection for the camera, and at this point, I'm leaning toward just using a normal hiking bag with a holster insert that fits inside like I've used in the past.


----------



## BoyFreak

daigo said:


> Do you have a recommendation for a hiking/travel backpack with room for one body/lens and 1-2 extra lens?  I've been looking into a bag for my trip to Peru where I can still fit some other things in there while providing protection for the camera, and at this point, I'm leaning toward just using a normal hiking bag with a holster insert that fits inside like I've used in the past.


 
 Clik Elite has some good camera backpack options.  You definitely do not want to use a "Canon" or "Nikon" backpack that just screams steal me, especially when you are traveling to unfamiliar places.  
 Ape Case and Kata has some nice backpacks as well. 
  
 When looking for a hiking camera backpack I like the option of a waist belt so that the weight is not all on my shoulders.  
  
 A normal hiking backpack will definitely be better in terms of fit and comfort for your back than a camera backpack, especially if you already have it sized properly at a REI or something.  
  
 If it is only one body w/ lens + 1-2 lenses I would go with a hiking backpack with the camera inserts that you can get on amazon (BBP, Timbuk2, or ApeCase).  
  
 Most of the shots I take when hiking is more landscape - so I don't need quick access to any of my lenses.  
  
 If you're concern about hiking and holding your camera you can always free up your hands by getting a Capture Clip from Peak Design that will hook up to your belt or your backpack.  That way you still have quick access to your camera while being able to free up your hands.


----------



## Jon L

For those Canon L glass lovers who secretly wished they could use them on the 36 MP Nikon D800E sensor, there is now reason for celebration.  The new Sony A7 and A7r mirrorless full frame camera allows L glass use (among others) with autofocus intact via Metabones adapter (about 11:30 into the video below).  I never thought I would say this, but I see a Sony camera in my near future  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bnvgceTEV3c


----------



## BoyFreak

Yes that does make the transition to mirrorless a little less painful.  
  
 At this point I seriously don't see what is the point of DSLRs especially when a Canon 5d Mk III is only 22 MP.  Seriously Canon needs to pick up the pace a little here or else they are going to be left behind.


----------



## Yazen

boyfreak said:


> Yes that does make the transition to mirrorless a little less painful.
> 
> At this point I seriously don't see what is the point of DSLRs especially when a Canon 5d Mk III is only 22 MP.  Seriously Canon needs to pick up the pace a little here or else they are going to be left behind.


 

 L
 O
 L
  
 Good joke 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  My "128" megapixel webcamera takes the best photos ever
  
 Digital SLR's essentially replace Film SLR's.  Most popular format is 35mm film, which makes 22MP a little overkill.  Not to mention the presence of more noise.  Great for crops
  
 I was hoping anyone had tips on how to getting photos looking more like those taken by an SLR.  Something about film I find appealing, especially with B/W.


----------



## MadCow

jon l said:


> For those Canon L glass lovers who secretly wished they could use them on the 36 MP Nikon D800E sensor, there is now reason for celebration.  The new Sony A7 and A7r mirrorless full frame camera allows L glass use (among others) with autofocus intact via Metabones adapter (about 11:30 into the video below).  I never thought I would say this, but I see a Sony camera in my near future
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 and at a very reasonable price too. I am considering replacing both my Fuji X cameras with an A7R; don't really care about the native FE mount lenses but with the right adapter I will be able to use both EF mount and M mount lenses on it.


----------



## Jon L

madcow said:


> and at a very reasonable price too. I am considering replacing both my Fuji X cameras with an A7R; don't really care about the native FE mount lenses but with the right adapter I will be able to use both EF mount and M mount lenses on it.


 
 I'm torn between A7 and A7r because my practical side tells me A7 is really the camera for my intended uses, i.e. portable full frame camera I can carry around easily and snap photos of informal events, family, friends, in low-light situations (basically all restaurants).  But then, A7 is not different enough from my 22.4 MP 5D III to get too excited about.  A7r's 36 MP sensor without low-pass filter, now there's something real fun to play with.  But in order to fully take advantage of that sensor, we're talking tripods, meticulous pre-shot routines and set-up, something not possible in most portable, event-style shooting.


----------



## GL1TCH3D

Hello Camera-Fiers!
I'm interested in advice regarding my first DSLR purchase.
I was recommended the Canon T3i which looks great but I saw the Canon SL1 going for just a bit over the same price even though the msrp price is quite a bit more than the t3i.
As for my uses:
Looking for something I could bring with me regularly on little excursions around the city and to small events to take informal pictures.
Also to take pictures of all my head-fi equipment too.

For the portability factor the SL1 appealed to me but seeing the price, it made me think there's something wrong with it?


----------



## Jon L

gl1tch3d said:


> For the portability factor the SL1 appealed to me but seeing the price, it made me think there's something wrong with it?


 
  
 Well, if portability is important, then SL1 is still larger than mirrorless cameras such as Canon EOS-M ( Mk II probably coming within months), Samsung NX, Sony NEX, Fuji, etc, etc.  
  
 The Fuji's probably have the best image quality but also most expensive.  Read about the Fuji XE2 here:
http://fstoplounge.com/2013/10/fujifilm-x-e2-everything-you-need-to-know/
  
 Sony NEX offers great quality at very reasonable prices also; read about NEX6 here:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_NEX_6/
  
 If those are too pricey, Samsung has been steadily improving their gear and take great photo's.  Samsung NX2000 costs less than half of above with same sized aps-c sensor.
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/samsung_nx2000_review/
  
 If you get the feeling I'm trying to convince you to buy something other than Canon, well you'd be correct.  Canon SL1, EOS-M, T5i, etc all use basically the same old 18 MP sensor that's been around since T2i, and basically all of the above offer better IQ (well, perhaps Samsung only matches it).  To get a newer-tech sensor from Canon, you would have to go with Canon 70D, but that sensor is only slightly better per prelim reports.  
  
 If you just want to dip your toes into dslr size sensor, I would still recommend EOS-M, which can be bought right now on frequent sales at $300-400 range with one or two lenses included, with same IQ as T3i you are considering.  
  
 If you don't want mirrorless and want a mirror box for some reason, then I would strongly recommend you wait a couple of weeks when Nikon's new D5300 ships. It's going to be a great dslr and class-leader.  It pains me to say that since I shoot Canon, but it's true. 
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d5300


----------



## Jon L

Wow, there's Samsung's latest camera NX300 with 2 lens included (20-50mm and 50-200mm) for $598 (free shipping) from B&H Photo right now.  
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1001142-REG/samsung_samsung_nx300_mirrorless_digital.html


----------



## GL1TCH3D

jon l said:


> Wow, there's Samsung's latest camera NX300 with 2 lens included (20-50mm and 50-200mm) for $598 (free shipping) from B&H Photo right now.
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1001142-REG/samsung_samsung_nx300_mirrorless_digital.html




I live in Canada so I can't exactly take advantage of that deal.
The sony one looks quite nice and I may wait for the nikon d5300.


----------



## Yazen

jon l said:


> Well, if portability is important, then SL1 is still larger than mirrorless cameras such as Canon EOS-M ( Mk II probably coming within months), Samsung NX, Sony NEX, Fuji, etc, etc.
> 
> The Fuji's probably have the best image quality but also most expensive.  Read about the Fuji XE2 here:
> http://fstoplounge.com/2013/10/fujifilm-x-e2-everything-you-need-to-know/
> ...


 
 D5100 + 18-55mm kit lens at $375 New
 VS D5300 at launch price (~$1200?) 

 Any reason to get the D5300 considering the gap?  Will I be missing out staying with the D5100?  Afraid the difference in night ISO performance/IQ is too big of a gap to keep the D5100.


----------



## musubi1000

Eos M has below average AF but good IQ be prepared to miss a lot of shots with this camera. 
Sony NEX controls are all menu based and time consuming to find. Good IQ and high ISO performance from the 16 mp sensors. 
Sony alpha A58 is something no one mentions. A new 20mp sensor AF during video and EVF you can review images in direct sunlight. 8fps and an articulated LCD for creative perspectives. Under $500. 
nikons 5k series is good even the old 5100 w/ the 16mp d7000 sensor. Cheap too. 
The newer 52 and soon to be 5300 have very good resolutions but the 5200 has less ISO performance than the 5100. 
The 5300 will have wifi and GPS built in. Good stuff. High ISO performance remains to be seen with this new model. It will be Nikons first new expeed 4 processor. So it's possible that the newer 5300 could have better high ISO performance due to better backside processing. 
The Canon slrs are all good. The SL1 and T5i both can AF during video and touch screen pan focusing. Still a good sensor.


----------



## GL1TCH3D

musubi1000 said:


> Eos M has below average AF but good IQ be prepared to miss a lot of shots with this camera.
> Sony NEX controls are all menu based and time consuming to find. Good IQ and high ISO performance from the 16 mp sensors.
> Sony alpha A58 is something no one mentions. A new 20mp sensor AF during video and EVF you can review images in direct sunlight. 8fps and an articulated LCD for creative perspectives. Under $500.
> nikons 5k series is good even the old 5100 w/ the 16mp d7000 sensor. Cheap too.
> ...




Would you recommend the samsung nx300 over the canon sl1?
I'm new to the mirrorless camera world.


----------



## otherlives

K, let me give you my opinion. 

The sensors are so good these days it doesn't matter. Worry about lenses. Find the manufacturer that makes lenses that are in your budget that fit your shooting. For me, that's Canon, so I shoot Canon. I would be just as happy shooting Nikon. Pro fotogs shoot both, you certainly won't know a difference. 


Note: This is not about mirror vs mirrorless. This is about brand vs brand or waiting for the new body because it's going to have a better algo for noise at 16,000 ISO.


----------



## musubi1000

I would never recommend any Samsung camera. They have no idea what they're doing. Parts are impossible to find and they break down a lot.


----------



## Jon L

musubi1000 said:


> I would never recommend any Samsung camera. They have no idea what they're doing. Parts are impossible to find and they break down a lot.


 
 Hmm, which generation Samsung camera's are you referring to?  I've played with the more recent NX series cameras, and a couple of friends own them as well, all without any problems.  Samsung also happens to have a very good selection of NX series lenses to choose from, most at very reasonable prices.


----------



## musubi1000

Everyone I know that's had a Samsung regretted it within 6 months as the cameras broke down. Even after repair the cameras broke down again. No dropping or misuse. Batteries weren't available locally either.


----------



## stang

Just sold my 50D + grip and a couple of nice lenses and picked up a 135mm f2 and am going to get an OM-D E-M5 and the new 12-40 f2.8 in December sometime. My 1D Mk III is too good to let go, so I will definitely continue purchasing EF lenses


----------



## musubi1000

Cool! I just saw a 20x24 print comparison of a 5D MK III vs M4/3. I had difficulties telling which was which. Granted it was a daytime shot but it was hard to tell the diff. Nighttime high ISO is another story I'm sure.


----------



## MadCow

Just sold my 24L II for the second time, to fund another purchase. I have a very odd relationship with the 24mm... when I need it, it is my most important lens. But that is like... less than 5% of the time. The 50L and 100L get the most use while the 24L stays in the bag or dry cabinet most of the time until needed.
  
 I have a strange but familiar feeling I might pick up a 24mm again next year....


----------



## leftnose

I agree about the attraction to 24mm.  It's just a bit too wide for me as a prime for general use, though.  But the overwhelming percentage of shots taken with my 24-105 are at 24mm.  Like over 60%.  After 35mm, 24mm is the most common focal length in my Lightroom catalog.


----------



## MadCow

The Nikon Df is the first Nikon that's got me seriously tempted by the dark side..... I wonder if Canon will consider an AE-D or something?


----------



## leftnose

Here'e the problem with the Df:
  
http://www.engadget.com/gallery/nikon-df-nikon-df-dslr-retro-nikkor-d4/1290980/#!slide=1291001
  
 I actually have an F3 so this is a good comparison to me.  The Df is still a big, bulky DSLR despite its retro looks.
  
 I also think it's overpriced by about $1K.  I don't mind the 16MP sensor but they're charging almost D800 money for the camera.  I also think the weird amalgamation of retro and modern controls makes for a bit of an unruly person child.  I mean, if you're shooting aperture priority the main dial (or whatever Nikon calls it) will be the primary control.  But if you're shooting shutter priority, that dial suddenly becomes the main point of control and you have to completely let go of the camera with your right hand to change that setting at eye level.
  
 I think it's an interesting camera but Nikon tried to make it too much to too many different people and I think the end result is a bit half-assed.


----------



## MadCow

The thickness is a given, due to the additional electronics behind the film plane. I wasn't bothered with the additional height, I think it balances better with bigger lenses such as the 50/1.2 and 85/1.4 D lenses.
  
 But the more I read about it the more I am turned off at some of Nikon's design choices. The PSAM mode dial, for example -- Fuji did it right, A mode on shutter dial, A mode for aperture, no need for a separate PSAM dial at all. Otherwise you create confusion and redundancy, if your mode dial is P and your shutter dial is at 60, what is your shutter speed?
  
 Without the mode dial, they could have put the exposure compensation dial on the right. It is more convenient to operate with the right hand with the eye at the viewfinder.
  
 Lack of split prism or interchangeable focusing screens is another disappointment.
  
 Now wondering if Canon will jump on the retro bandwagon and do it right... I'd love to see one based on the AE-1.


----------



## Jon L

madcow said:


> Now wondering if Canon will jump on the retro bandwagon and do it right... I'd love to see one based on the AE-1.


 
  
 People have reported that right after Sony A7r announcement, Canon exec's called an immediate meeting 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I hope this means Canon seriously considers something similar, at least in the ballpark, to A7r, meaning mirrorless full-frame.  Most Canonites are expecting a high-Megapixel camera body announcement in 2014, in a large 1D type body for $$$$$, but I sure hope Canon sees the need for a compact mirrorless full-frame camera to compete with Sony and Fuji (rumored to launch FF mirrorless in 2014). 
  
 If Canon plans to ignore above, they'd better release some long-due and rumored lenses if they hope to keep people from slowly leaving Canon, e.g. 135L Mk II with IS, 50L MkII, 14-24, 35L II..


----------



## musubi1000

The Nikon Df is an interesting camera. It offers D4 image quality at less than half the price of a D4. Smaller and lighter than a D4 should be a great imaging tool. No focusing screen means Nikon is hoping the population will just AF or accept an electronic focusing aid. The shutter dial is cool but hopefully it will only lock down on the 1/3 stop click. Knowing Nikon I suspect you will then be able to adj shutter via the main command dial in the norm Nikon position. I feel this is a camera that will appeal to someone who takes images on a more personal level. By accepting lenses as far back as the invention of the f mount is another big plus. The used market will rise again. Every camera that comes out will have good things and bad things for some or others. Only what you create with it is important. The camera is secondary


----------



## Jon L

Nice..


----------



## musubi1000

Hey Jon is that Suzies lens? And Armando's camera?


----------



## MadCow

Don't really like the new Zeiss designs. At all.
  
 You can clearly see from that photo, the lens body won't hold out too well against fingerprints, grease, oil and scratches.


----------



## randy98mtu

New to Head-fi, but I've been on POTN for a long time.  I have a 5D3, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 4IS, 35L, 85 1.8 and 135L.  It's taken me many years to build this collection and I feel it's very well rounded and aside from adding the 17-40 and 5D3 this year, I haven't made any changes in a couple of years.  I don't anticipate making any for a while either!


----------



## Jon L

madcow said:


> Don't really like the new Zeiss designs. At all.
> 
> You can clearly see from that photo, the lens body won't hold out too well against fingerprints, grease, oil and scratches.


 
 Yeah, I much prefer the Distagon series look.
 I am hoping that since Sony and Zeiss often cooperate on AF lenses, there will be a Sony-mount AF version of Otus 55 mm in the future, hopefully with more traditional Zeiss construction.


----------



## MadCow

So the objective reviews are out and the MTFs are really impressive on the Otus... though not as jaw-dropping as the 135 f/2 APO. Seems quite weak in the vignetting department though.
  
 It is a nice lens, but I still don't like the looks, along with the size and weight. For its price, I'm actually eyeing a 50mm summilux instead for my M.


----------



## Jon L

Both Otus and Summilux IQ peak around f/4-5.6 with still a big drop towards the wide open end, which just demonstrates how difficult it is to have excellence wide open, even for these price-no-ojbect lenses.
http://www.lenstip.com/390.4-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Otus_55_mm_f_1.4_ZE_ZF.2_Image_resolution.html
  
 It's just too much money for me anyway, especially without AF, and I will keep waiting for the inevitable next Canon 50 mm.  In the meanwhile, my  50L's less-than-spectacular sharpness works pretty well for portrait work anyways.


----------



## MadCow

EOS M2 only released in Asia with marginal improvements is such a disappointment. I think a lot of people were already expecting Dual Pixel AF. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 I like the idea of a small, pocketable and stabilized ultra-wide though... maybe I'll look at it again after the price drops to a bargain (again/eventually/hopefully).


----------



## leftnose

Yeah, that M2 is a pretty horrible "upgrade."  Makes me glad I bought a GX7.  Now I just need to sell my GX1.


----------



## MadCow

Congrats on the GX7, I briefly played with it at the store and liked its features and handling, even better than the Olympus E-P5. In fact, a couple of dealers told me the price of the E-P5 was dropped the minute the GX7 hit the market.


----------



## Stealthy Ninja

makaveli6103 said:


> Not sure if anyone has used the new Sigma 35 1.4 but from what I have seen it is the only 35mm anyone that anyone should be buying right now.
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/03/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-sets-new-benchmark-for-excellence/


 
  
 I own it. It's a very, very good lens.


----------



## leftnose

madcow said:


> Congrats on the GX7, I briefly played with it at the store and liked its features and handling, even better than the Olympus E-P5. In fact, a couple of dealers told me the price of the E-P5 was dropped the minute the GX7 hit the market.


 
 The accessory viewfinder of the GX1 was one thing I didn't like about it.  It increases the effective size of the camera quite a bit so I never really considered the E-P5.  (As an aside, I think Oly's naming convention is horrible: E-PM2, E-PL5, E-P5, E-M5, E-M1.  Not very well thought out to me).
  
 The GX7, with the integrated EVF, Wifi, two dials, better high ISO, and IBIS, addresses all the complaints I had with the GX1.  Though it is a bit bigger, it's still very small and handy.  Build quality is considerably better as well.  What I especially like is the customizability of the buttons and dials.  I've got it set-up so the dials rotate in the same direction as my Canon, that I can move the AF point, change ISO, change the drive mode, etc. almost as easily.
  
 Also, I've sold the kit lens which I "had" to buy to get the black version so I've got less than $800 in the body.  An EP-5 plus the viewfinder is over $1200 here.  Obviously, they're very different cameras but an E-M1 is $1400 and an E-M5 is $900.  Just a very odd pricing strategy by Olympus to me.
  
 Now, I'm just waiting for the Leica 15/1.7 to be released!


----------



## leftnose

A little beauty shot. 
  

  
 The changes to the MF aids are fantastic, BTW. Auto enlarge and focus peaking combined works really, really well.


----------



## MadCow

leftnose said:


> A little beauty shot.
> 
> 
> 
> The changes to the MF aids are fantastic, BTW. Auto enlarge and focus peaking combined works really, really well.


 

 Nice.
  
 A rotated shot? The ball head threw me off for a moment until I realized how it was angled.
  
 What converter are you using? Also, from the looks of the review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx7/6), it seems like there is picture-in-picture magnification together with peaking, and you can change the position of the PiP box? Funny none of that was mentioned in the review, I just noticed from the screenshot.


----------



## leftnose

Nope, not rotated.
  
 A Manfrotto 055XPROB with convertible center column.
  

 (I need to buy a second flash to balance shadows better)
  
 I use Lightroom 5.  I've never used Panasonic's software even when I had my GX1.
  
 Yes to all your questions, PiP magnification that can be moved around on-the-fly with on-the-fly variable magnification and peaking inside the magnified view.  Just really, really good.  With the 4:3 ratio, you can also have a live histogram in the EVF that's outside the image area.  With 3:2, there's some overlap, though.  The camera is just really well thought out.  And it's so customizable that if there's a behavior you don't like, you can probably change it.
  
 Yeah, that dpreview piece isn't especially good for the GX7.  There's some grumbling on the MFT forums that dpreview tends to be a bit Olympus biased.


----------



## MadCow

Sorry, by "converter" I was referring to the M-to-M4/3 converter you were using for your 35cron.


----------



## leftnose

Ah!
  
 Vello's: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/743382-REG/Vello_LA_MFT_LM_Micro_4_3_To_Leica.html
  
 Honestly, though, I don't remember paying that much for it.  Fits tight on both the camera and lens with no perceptible play.  I think if I changed lenses more often, I would get the OE Panasonic or Voightlander adapter but my other M-mount lenese are 90 and 135mm which are effectively too long for what I want to do with MFT.


----------



## musubi1000

RRS head. Really good stuff


----------



## leftnose

musubi1000 said:


> RRS head. Really good stuff


 
 Except for the price.  I've got way too much invested in just plates!


----------



## Yazen

Anyone try lens adapters before?  Thinking about mounting k lenses on my nikon.
  
 Macro is all I care about, I really do not need metering either.


----------



## musubi1000

leftnose said:


> Except for the price.  I've got way too much invested in just plates!



Hahaha. The phrase "You get what you pay for." is so true with photo gear.


----------



## leftnose

I've only been talking about it for a year but I finally cashed in some Amazon points after an appropriate price drop on the lens itself:
  

  
  
 and a 100% crop from a 1/5 second handheld exposure:
  

  
  
 I'll be spending more time with this lens going forward.  It's certainly larger than the old 35/2 but should still make a good walkabout lens.


----------



## Jon L

leftnose said:


> I've only been talking about it for a year but I finally cashed in some Amazon points after an appropriate price drop on the lens itself:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Niicee..  Congrats. I sure wish my 85L II had IS; if so, that's all I would ever carry..


----------



## MadCow

Congrats! I'm also waiting for a price drop over here. Are you planning to get the hood for it?


----------



## leftnose

Yup.  When I buy a lens from Amazon, I always wait for my points to come in before buying any accessories for it.  In this case, it'll pay for more than half the price of the hood.  Makes the overpriced nature of the hood easier to swallow.


----------



## Yazen

So I guess nobody has tried lens adapters before... or maybe you guys are Nikon haters! haha
  
 I think the D5100 at $375 is a better value than a similar Pentax.  They really don't get cheap, even on CL


----------



## leftnose

yazen said:


> So I guess nobody has tried lens adapters before... or maybe you guys are Nikon haters! haha


 
 You could try your question in the Nikon thread....


----------



## MadCow

This place is quiet compared to that-other-not-Canon thread, lol.
  
 Anyway, I picked up a Phottix tripod collar for my 100L. At one fifth the price of the Canon version, it is a bargain. As far as I can tell, build quality is good. The entire construction is metal, the tripod mount and bushing seems strong enough, and the insides of the collar is lined with a soft material to protect the lens from scratching.
  
 The fit is quite tight though, so it will take more effort to rotate between landscape and portrait orientation.
  


 (please don't mind the frankenplate in the shot, lol)


----------



## Jon L

madcow said:


> This place is quiet compared to that-other-not-Canon thread, lol.
> 
> Anyway, I picked up a Phottix tripod collar for my 100L. At one fifth the price of the Canon version, it is a bargain. As far as I can tell, build quality is good. The entire construction is metal, the tripod mount and bushing seems strong enough, and the insides of the collar is lined with a soft material to protect the lens from scratching.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Which rail is that and how much?  Is it pretty stable when camera is cranked to the end?


----------



## MadCow

That's the Manfrotto 454 micropositioning plate (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554343-REG/Manfrotto_454_454_Micrometric_Positioning_Sliding.html).
  
 Can't really comment on stability of the plate alone, because currently I have it mounted on a Manfrotto 498RC4 and the old version 055ProB tripod -- not really the most stable combination in the world. The legs are the weakest point, certainly doesn't make it suitable for any sort of focus stacking.


----------



## leftnose

I've got a third party collar for my 100L as well.  I think it's Vello branded.  The main issue I have with it is that the detent is very stiff so it's hard to get off the lens even when loosened completely.  It feels like I have to pull/rotate the assmbly a bit too much to get it off and I worry that I'm stressing the lens too much.  It's probably OK, though, and I leave the collar on the lens most of the time anyway.


----------



## Jon L

For those Canon shooters who were looking at Sony A7/R..
 
Focus Camera is offering a hot deal on Sony A7/R, ending up with total of $650+$300=$950 off for package including body, lens, and flash.
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/focuscamera-gives-you-300-if-you-trade-in-your-old-camera-for-the-sony-a7-a7r/
 
I called Focus Camera, and the $300 credit is good for any camera, even a broken point-and-shoot, which is stackable on top of the Sony $650 rebate, leading to total of $950 off the package.  
 
Needless to say, I broke down and ordered the package of A7R, Zeiss 55 f/1.8, and Sony HVL60M flash.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  The flash has known overheating issues, but I figure I could use it for non-continuous shooting or send it to Sony service and see what they will do for me.  
 
BTW, Focuscamera website does not list the package of A7R/55mm/HVL60M under the $300 trade-in deal, just one with the 35mm lens.  However, I found their ebay listing for the package I prefer, and they honored the $300 deal when I called them.  
http://www.ebay.com/itm/291079850904?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649


----------



## Yazen

jon l said:


> For those Canon shooters who were looking at Sony A7/R..
> 
> Focus Camera is offering a hot deal on Sony A7/R, ending up with total of $650+$300=$950 off for package including body, lens, and flash.
> http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/focuscamera-gives-you-300-if-you-trade-in-your-old-camera-for-the-sony-a7-a7r/
> ...


 

 Saw the deal this morning.  Looked interesting.. Maybe too interesting to look a second time..


----------



## MadCow

That's a very good deal there.
  
 Though personally, I am still wary of Sony's commitment and will wait to see what comes out of their lens line-up, as well as their second iteration/generation body.


----------



## Jon L

Well, I returned the Sony A7R+FE55 package.  It was not due to image quality, which was excellent, lossy Sony RAW or not.  If one worked as a paid pro and had to sell large prints, then the higher MP definitely would come into play, but for those of us who don't view photo's at 100% for the sake of pixel-peeping, I did not see a significant improvement in overall IQ over my 5D III.
  
 I just felt $3K+ was too much money to be tied up in a second system, especially with A7R's inability to be useful for anything moving, with poor Strobist Sony options.  We shall give Canon another chance to come up with a competitive mirrorless body in the next year or two; if not (likely scenario, knowing Canon), Sony is supposed to announce a bunch of new full-frame mirrorless bodies this year with reportedly much better AF compared to A7R, so we shall see.


----------



## MadCow

lol so I also ended up with an A7R, but got the FE35/2.8 instead. Still waiting for the damned batteries to charge, it seems to be taking ages.
  
 But I do agree it's probably not worth maintaining two expensive systems; I think if I like the A7R enough I'll get a metabones adapter to use it alongside my Canon lenses, instead of accumulating any more FE lenses (not that there are many to accumulate).


----------



## Jon L

Pentax 645Z Medium Format camera review.  One of the most thoughtful reviews I've seen.
 I know this is a Canon thread, but heck if Canon doesn't come up with something awesome soon, why not?


----------



## MadCow

So when are you getting one?


----------



## hyogen

Hey guys, long time no see!  
  
 I see the gang is all here still.  I'm a bit of a working professional now...hahaha.  Selling off my audio gear to get camera gear has paid off.  Going full frame was the best decision I ever made.  If you recall, I had a Rebel T1i, 8mm fisheye, 10-20mm, 30mm, 40mm, 50mm, and 100-300mm.  For the first 6 months of getting a full-frame body I had just two lenses.  Now I have two D600 bodies and 5 lenses:  28 f1.8, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8, and 105 f2.8....although I generally use only 2 or 3 lenses for an event.  I'm not sure which lens I could do without honestly...  I wouldn't mind zooms, but working with fixed focal length lenses have definitely helped me to pre-frame shots before I even start to take them.  
  
 I really want to take my work to the next level and by next year I may switch to Canon simply because I find that I'm spending way too much time dealing with asian skin tones in post with Nikon--especially in lower light situations.  I've read other complaints about this issue--D600 in particular including in Ryan Brenizer's review of the D600.  Ideally I would like to get the 5D3 and at least for a while have a 6D as a backup.  I adjust color hue, saturation, luminance individually, but I have a hard time getting the look I want even with the use of different filters that are available out there such as VSCO and Replichrome.  That being said, a couple of my favorite wedding photographers use Nikon (Dennis Berti and Sam Hurd), but I prefer the style of a few Canon shooters.  
  
 I'm still trying to push myself to improve and learn to deal with different lighting situations and use strobes, but I kinda feel using Nikon is a bit of a hindrance for me to achieve the style I want.  Recently, I've learned that I should be using the neutral color profile in Lightroom instead of the default one...hopefully this will help.  If I switch, I will definitely miss the dynamic range and the controls of Nikon, but since I shoot mostly people it may make sense for me---also, the 135L has been calling my name for a long while now 
  
 Here are my websites: http://www.justinleewedding.com  
  
 and http://500px.com/hyofoto


----------



## Jon L

hyogen said:


> I really want to take my work to the next level and by next year I may switch to Canon simply because I find that I'm spending way too much time dealing with asian skin tones in post with Nikon--especially in lower light situations.


 
  
 I don't think switching to Canon would be necessary.  While tons of wedding photographers use Canon, with Canon "colors" somewhat becoming the de facto look, the fact is ALL camera brand files need proper white balancing for professional (read "paid") work.  
 Before you spend money into various white balance tools, some very expensive, I recommend you look into the WhiBal card, which is probably the most cost-effective way to properly white balance your shots.  Not all grey cards are created equal.  You would shoot one shot with the WhiBal card in the frame, shoot the rest of the shots in same lighting, then later use the WhiBal shot to white balance in post, then copy/paste same WB to the rest of the shots in the same scene.
  
 http://www.whibalhost.com/_Tutorials/WhiBal/01/index.html


----------



## MadCow

Yeah, I too don't think switching just for the sake of colours is a good idea, especially when other avenues such as profiling haven't been fully explored yet.


----------



## hyogen

Thanks.  I do have a whibal card, but have not really used it.  Is it useful even in mixed lighting situations?  I'm not sure if I should have gelled my flash when I was shooting in an indoor area that had large windows with some natural light coming in, incandescent lights, and I needed to use flash for the photobooth.  Also, I have been told that using AWB mode on the camera is fine, but in these mixed lighting situations will using a set Kelvin be easier to deal with correcting WB in post?  
  
 That being said, I have downloaded some 5D3 raw files and I must say it was significantly easier to get the skin tones I was looking for.  I think it's not even necessarily a Nikon issue--it's more of a D600 issue.  Anyway, I would hate to give up the controls of a Nikon, so I'm going to do my best to stick with what I have.  That de facto Canon colors look is really what I would like to go for for my wedding photos--I hope I can get there.  
  
 It's interesting that ever since one of the world's best wedding photogs, Dennis Berti, whom I've met, is currently using the D600.  He recently replaced his D700 and his style has definitely changed.  His pictures while more vibrant and more contrasty now still looks amazing and he's handling the files better than I am, so there is still hope.


----------



## Jon L

hyogen said:


> Thanks.  I do have a whibal card, but have not really used it.  Is it useful even in mixed lighting situations?
> 
> 
> It's interesting that ever since one of the world's best wedding photogs, Dennis Berti, whom I've met, is currently using the D600.  He recently replaced his D700 and his style has definitely changed.  His pictures while more vibrant and more contrasty now still looks amazing and he's handling the files, better than I am, so there is still hope.


 
  
 Ideally, one can custom white balance in-camera Before the shoot for the lighting conditions, mixed or not, right at the scene.  In actual use, it's difficult and time-consuming, especially because different parts of the large hall, venue, restaurant have different lighting conditions.  Leaving the camera in AWB is fine as long as you have a shot with Whibal (or equivalent) in the frame to later use to white balance in post.  If no Whibal shot for particular mixed light conditions, I usually have to pick something neutralish (white tablecloth, plate, etc) to use the WB dropper for rough adjustment in post, then manually tweak WB further.  HATE those halls with ugly flourescent lighting and way-too-warm incandescent lights all mixed in.  
  
 I think D600 is a great camera, the sweet spot in Nikon land IMO.   Make sure Nikon takes care of the oil spot issue on your bodies because my friend's D600 went back to Nikon 3 times and came back with the issue still recurring, before Nikon replaced it with a  new D610.


----------



## Suisou

jon l said:


> I don't think switching to Canon would be necessary.  While tons of wedding photographers use Canon, with Canon "colors" somewhat becoming the de facto look, the fact is ALL camera brand files need proper white balancing for professional (read "paid") work.


 
  
 +1
  
 But as a Canon user from the beginning, I cannot empathize with users who are looking to switch to a Canon for the 'colors'. They're all inherently good when balanced IMHO.
  


hyogen said:


> Going full frame was the best decision I ever made. [...] but working with fixed focal length lenses have definitely helped me to pre-frame shots before I even start to take them.
> 
> 135L has been calling my name for a long while now


 
 For me the path was 20D - 30D - 50D - 40D - 1D MK II
  
 and then I met the 5Dc. Promptly sold the rest and picked up a 1Ds MK II as a backup and never looked back. 35mm FF is hard to give up once you've experienced what it's capable of. 
  
 Paired with the 35L, 17-40L, 24-70L, and 135L - this covered most ranges I required. Often enough, a second shooter would be sourced with the 135L and worked from the rear while I worked from the mid-ranges upwards. I don't think you'll be disappointed with it. 
  


hyogen said:


> I really want to take my work to the next level and by next year I may switch to Canon simply because I find that I'm spending way too much time dealing with asian skin tones in post with Nikon--especially in lower light situations.


 
  
 Interesting. I find that Caucasians and Asian skin tones are more difficult to adjust in post. Darker skin tones look great in nearly all lighting variations, especially low light and high contrast images and usually require the least amount of work in post for me. 
  
 I absolutely hate post processing. I can shoot gigs for 7+ hours, but it's the chore of editing 700+ images at the end of the night that was a complete chore. So as a Canon user, I'm not sure I understand why you're placing blame on Nikon, as I myself have to adjust the same set of skin tones in post. 
  
  


hyogen said:


> I'm still trying to push myself to improve and learn to deal with different lighting situations and use strobes, but I kinda feel using Nikon is a bit of a hindrance for me to achieve the style I want.


 
  
 What style is this? Lighting is the final frontier and comes with time and practice. Adding the ability to trigger strobes wirelessly adds a new depth to the skill, but in the end is absolutely worth it if you dedicate the time into understanding how lighting works. I know plenty of people who use Nikon who produce better images than I, so again, I'm not sure where Nikon plays a role here.


----------



## Suisou

hyogen said:


> Anyway, I would hate to give up the controls of a Nikon, so I'm going to do my best to stick with what I have.


 

 I think that's for the best. I cannot for the life of me accustom myself to the layout of the controls on the Nikons.


----------



## musubi1000

Hyogen. It may help to have camera calibration tools in your pocket. Namely the x-rite color checker. If you have the time it can help display the exact color of the scene. It's a combination of hardware (an IT8 color checker chart (industry standard)) and software used to render true calibrated color. So in theory you could use a canon and nikon and have the color come out the same. I use it on every paid job whenever I can because it neutralize any color casts instantly. 

Have you ever done a shoot in the shade? Even after setting a custom white balance you usually have to tweak some warmth in post. If you have a color checker all you need to do is shoot a pic with the colorchecker unit in the scene. Using lightroom export the shot into the software and it will generate a custom ICC profile for that specific lighting at the push of a button. Oh and restarting lightroom. It will restart with that profile already loaded into lightroom for you to select. Once selected you can paste the profile into your whole session in that lighting condition. It has saved me hundreds of hours. 

It will help in a lot of ways. It will also show you the horrors of mixed lighting. 

Don't forget about black and white.


----------



## MadCow

Just got this today:


----------



## Jon L

madcow said:


> Just got this today:


 
  
 Congrats.  That 16-35 f/4 IS may very well be my next lens purchase as well.  
 I've used the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L as well as 17-40 f/4, but the new lens definitely is sharper and cheaper than I expected Canon to charge.
 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/canon-wide-angle-zoom-comparison.  
  
 The only big consideration for me is the rumored Canon 11-24 f/2.8L, which will mate better with my 24-70, but then again, it's rumored to be $2800


----------



## Suisou

madcow said:


> Just got this today:


 
  
 How do you like your 16-35L? The copy I had a few years ago had backfocus issues along with it being unsharp wide open.


----------



## MadCow

jon l said:


> The only big consideration for me is the rumored Canon 11-24 f/2.8L, which will mate better with my 24-70, but then again, it's rumored to be $2800


 
 Yeah, I heard about that rumor. I'm pretty sure it's going to be a sharp and impressive lens, Canon seems to be on a roll with all their new lenses, but the zoom range and price is probably not for me.
  


suisou said:


> How do you like your 16-35L? The copy I had a few years ago had backfocus issues along with it being unsharp wide open.


 
 I had the 17-40L during my early crop camera years (10D), then the 16-35L (version I) with the 40D onwards. This new 16-35 f/4L IS beats both of them especially in corners. The IS is also quite useful for handhelds; although I haven't stressed the IS mechanism yet, while testing the lens at the store I was getting consistently sharp images at 1/20s.
  
 The new lens hood is also very nice; it's not as fat and space-consuming as the previous ones, so it's more likely to find a place in the bag.


----------



## Suisou

madcow said:


> [...]..the zoom range and price is probably not for me.
> 
> I was getting consistently sharp images at 1/20s.


 
  
 I prefer primes over zooms, but there are times when the convenience of a zoom is much needed.
  
 Sharp images on my copy of the 16-35L MK at 1/20s was unheard of. If it wasn't the softness, it was the backfocus. And if all else failed, chromatic aberrations were there to seal the deal. I'm surprised to hear how the new versions have improved, considering that this was my least favorite L lens.


----------



## jay-w

suisou said:


> *I prefer primes over zooms, but there are times when the convenience of a zoom is much needed.*
> 
> Sharp images on my copy of the 16-35L MK at 1/20s was unheard of. If it wasn't the softness, it was the backfocus. And if all else failed, chromatic aberrations were there to seal the deal. I'm surprised to hear how the new versions have improved, considering that this was my least favorite L lens.


 
  
 I'm the same. On my last overseas trip I took the 35mm but found there were too many times when I wished I had the convenience of a wider zoom.
  
 I bought the 17-40mm f/4L when I got back. Getting over f/4 has been the only issue but I'm fine with it. All in all it's the perfect travel lens for me. Light, compact, inexpensive(for an L).


----------



## randy98mtu

Might as well join the conversation here.  I'm a Canon guy who has been building up my kit for years.  I haven't been using it so much this year, but I have a well rounded kit that feels end game in most ways.  I finally got up to my dream 5D3 and I love it.  At home I love using primes and I have a 35L, 85 1.8 and 135L.  On the road the zooms come out and I have the 17-40L, 24-105L and 70-200 f4 IS.  I would like to add a 50mm still, and I dream of the 85L, but the 85 1.8 is just too good to justify the cost of the L.


----------



## Jon L

randy98mtu said:


> I dream of the 85L, but the 85 1.8 is just too good to justify the cost of the L.


 
  
 I don't know, man.  I have both 85 1.8 and 1.2L as well as many of the lenses you have.  But there really is nothing like the 85L at f/1.2


----------



## jay-w

The 85L when it's done right is beautiful. I'm actually waiting on the Zeiss 85mm ZE.
  


randy98mtu said:


> Might as well join the conversation here.  I'm a Canon guy who has been building up my kit for years.  I haven't been using it so much this year, but I have a well rounded kit that feels end game in most ways.  I finally got up to my dream 5D3 and I love it.  At home I love using primes and I have a 35L, 85 1.8 and 135L.  On the road the zooms come out and I have the 17-40L, 24-105L and 70-200 f4 IS.  I would like to add a 50mm still, and I dream of the 85L, but the 85 1.8 is just too good to justify the cost of the L.


 
  
 I love that 135L. 50mm is not a focal length I'm too taken with but you've got a lot of interesting options there; Canon f1.4/1.2, Zeiss, Sigma.


----------



## randy98mtu

Not trying to take anything away from the 85L.  I've followed the threads on it for a long time.
  
 The 135L is magic.  Incredible bang for the buck.


----------



## MadCow

Got my Metabones Mk IV adapter today.
  

  
 AF is dog slow, but I didn't get the adapter for that; I got it for electronic aperture control. Manual focus is still feasible, but USM does not feel as good as a mechanical manual focus lens.


----------



## Suisou

madcow said:


> does not feel as good as a mechanical manual focus lens.


 
  
 Love the L-lineup loads, but I've yet to find a lens that gives me the fizz to be hadfrom a manual focus lens.
  
 I've adapted several takumars, yashicas, CJ Zeiss and Leica lenses to my 5D.
  
 Samples:
  

  

  

  
 Tack sharp, but I do miss AF in certain situations.


----------



## Jon L

madcow said:


> Got my Metabones Mk IV adapter today.
> 
> 
> 
> AF is dog slow, but I didn't get the adapter for that; I got it for electronic aperture control. Manual focus is still feasible, but USM does not feel as good as a mechanical manual focus lens.


 
  
 I was very disappointed that Metabones III to IV move did not include any AF speed improvements, which IMO was THE main thing that required improvement!


----------



## hyogen

I'm not sure what I've been crying about regarding the D600 and it's colors/skin tones, but I am in love with the photos I just took yesterday.  I could spend a little more time with them to match the color balance in a couple of them.  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 A couple from last week:

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 Quote:


musubi1000 said:


> Hyogen. It may help to have camera calibration tools in your pocket. Namely the x-rite color checker. If you have the time it can help display the exact color of the scene. It's a combination of hardware (an IT8 color checker chart (industry standard)) and software used to render true calibrated color. So in theory you could use a canon and nikon and have the color come out the same. I use it on every paid job whenever I can because it neutralize any color casts instantly.
> 
> Have you ever done a shoot in the shade? Even after setting a custom white balance you usually have to tweak some warmth in post. If you have a color checker all you need to do is shoot a pic with the colorchecker unit in the scene. Using lightroom export the shot into the software and it will generate a custom ICC profile for that specific lighting at the push of a button. Oh and restarting lightroom. It will restart with that profile already loaded into lightroom for you to select. Once selected you can paste the profile into your whole session in that lighting condition. It has saved me hundreds of hours.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks very much.  Can you not use the color checker in day light?  I usually shoot in the shade, but I have been pushing myself to shoot in daylight more often.  I also updated my Camera Raw version which a D800/D700 user told me made a world of difference.  I bought the $10 colorfidelity profile for the D600 which I think helps a little bit, but definitely choosing Camera Neutral in the calibration in LR helps make the RAW file more neutral.  Yes, I am very familiar with the horrors of mixed lighting...the HORRORS.  
  


suisou said:


> jon l said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think switching to Canon would be necessary.  While tons of wedding photographers use Canon, with Canon "colors" somewhat becoming the de facto look, the fact is ALL camera brand files need proper white balancing for professional (read "paid") work.
> ...


 
  

  
  
 I do use strobes and it's not that difficult if you use flashes in manual mode.  The style I'm talking about is the style from fashion magazines, bridal magazines, certain clothing catalogs (J.Crew for example).  It's no secret most wedding photographers use Canon and most landscape photographers use Nikon.  One person from a different forum went into depth about how Nikon has had many issues throughout it's line with skin tones due to the way they implement IR filters and such.. I'm not just trying to blame my camera.  Like I said, a well-known photographer Ryan Brenizer said the same thing about the D600 about it's skin tones.  I've never tried D700 or D800 so I don't know about those.  The pictures I see out of the D700 definitely look more neutral than the ones shot with D600.  I think I'm starting to get how to get the tones I want.  This is pretty much what I've been going for wedding photography:
  

  
  


jon l said:


> hyogen said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks.  I do have a whibal card, but have not really used it.  Is it useful even in mixed lighting situations?
> ...


 
  
 Thanks.  I took my Whibal card yesterday and I must admit I forgot to use it yet again.  Perhaps I need to give my D600 more time before I switch.  Can you believe it--the wife is on board with me switching to 5D3's... I guess she got tired of hearing me moan about D600 colors/skin tones.


----------



## hyogen

Sorry for the long post.  I'll make the decision on which side to be on soon


----------



## Jon L

hyogen said:


> Thanks.  I took my Whibal card yesterday and I must admit I forgot to use it yet again.  Perhaps I need to give my D600 more time before I switch.  Can you believe it--the wife is on board with me switching to 5D3's... I guess she got tired of hearing me moan about D600 colors/skin tones.


 
  
 Just shows you things always look greener on the other side.  I (kind of) love my 5D III (more the L lenses actually), but I've been thinking about picking up a used/fixed D600 on eBay for those landscape urges.  However, the new D810 looks mighty tempting; Nikon really improved the AF accuracy, speed, and frame rate over D800, and even 5D III.
  
 I actually think 5D III (and most Canons) error on the side of bit much magenta/red vs. Nikon's green for skin tones.  With either, post-processing on a decent calibrated monitor is inevitable


----------



## hyogen

36MP files...I'll have to think about the D810 if I stick with Nikon, but wow those are huge files.  For adequate processing/navigation speed in LR with my 24MP files, I need an i7 processor (laptop), 16gb memory, and SSD.  And I still need to render 1:1 previews in advance if I don't want any lag when zooming in.  
  
 Yes, the dynamic range on the D600 is simply amazing for landscape


----------



## jay-w

I use Photo Mechanic before going to LR because of the lag.


----------



## leftnose

madcow said:


> Just got this today:



 


What's the verdict? I'm tempted to swap my 17-40L for this. I'm thinking the 16-35/4L IS and my 100L IS Macro would make a great two lens "general" travel set.


----------



## MadCow

leftnose said:


> What's the verdict? I'm tempted to swap my 17-40L for this. I'm thinking the 16-35/4L IS and my 100L IS Macro would make a great two lens "general" travel set.


 
 Great lens, definitely a step above the old 17-40. Center is sharp at all focal lengths, corners are leagues ahead of the 17-40. The IS is very handy for handheld shooting.


 f/11 1/13s


----------



## slickooz

From this morning.


----------



## slickooz

Do what you love by slickoooz, on Flickr


----------



## castleofargh

I'm wondering more and more if I should get a 24-70 f/4 IS now that the price is starting to look ok, with a 135mm, and get rid of everything I have. that would make the ideal lazy guy got it all in 2 lenses.
  
 or I stay as I am with 16-35L 50 and 85L (still wish for a 135)and maybe get a second camera to stop switching lenses all day long(I'm on a 5DMKII right now)?
  
 the guy carrying the bag(me) find the second solution to be the dumbest in history and would be very pleased with a 1camera 2lenses combo for holiday trips. but the one forever in love with the 85 tries to find excuses. 
 I've been 2steps away from getting the 24-70 and selling the rest for 2months now and trying that lens in a shop made me feel like if it wasn't the 2.8version, it was a very good and practical lens for anything not moving too much.
 you guys who had it all and did it all, do you have an opinion? should I go for the simple and lighter option that I would carry around more, or stick with my lover85 and make the bag bigger at the risk of not taking it all the times?
  
  
 arrrrrghhhhhhhhhh I want them all!!!!!!


----------



## burnoutcat

slickooz said:


> From this morning.


 

 Nice shot, what DSLR are you using?


----------



## slickooz

I'm using 5dii.


----------



## raptor84

I'm lucky because I work with a rental house so I get exposed to the newest as it comes in. If anybody has any burning questions with regards to Canon gear I can prob give an answer since I've had hands on with the majority of canon's lens range (save for the super tele primes)  

 Current personal set = 5Dmk3, 24l II, 85 1.8, Sigma 50 1.4, 70-200 F4 (non-IS).


----------



## bhd812

Saving up for my first DSLR kit now. Looking at either the 7Dii or the 70D if it is on cheap sale. Going birding with it only, pairing it with the legendary 400mm 5.6 prime. Have rented 70D and 7D with this lens many times before. Can't wait till the 7D mark ii reviews hit, i really want to see the iso performance.


----------



## MadCow

Been playing around with this pairing during my last beach family outing.


----------



## MadCow

bhd812 said:


> Saving up for my first DSLR kit now. Looking at either the 7Dii or the 70D if it is on cheap sale. Going birding with it only, pairing it with the legendary 400mm 5.6 prime. Have rented 70D and 7D with this lens many times before. Can't wait till the 7D mark ii reviews hit, i really want to see the iso performance.


 

 From what I've read so far, sensor performance should be very similar to the 70D, which is quite good in Canon-land but still behind compared to the competition. Still, the main advantage of the 7DII would be its AF performance, which I hope they've significantly improved over the original 7D.


----------



## raptor84

Heck if it's equal to the 5d3 it would be an improvement! Given the specs and intended market I'm hoping for something closer to a 1dX level of AF performance. Nikon's D810 and D750 are really kicking ass so I hope they don't screw this up.


----------



## Jon L

madcow said:


> From what I've read so far, sensor performance should be very similar to the 70D, which is quite good in Canon-land but still behind compared to the competition.


 
  
 This is exactly what I expected, but after looking at the RAW comparison photo's from DPReview, I must concede that Canon did *something* with the sensor such that 7D II RAW files look about one stop or a little less better in noise compared to 70D RAW.  In fact, 7D II RAW looks to me a bit better than the Nikon D7100 and Sony A6000!   In Canon-land, we will take any RAW improvement we can get 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
  
 http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/8


----------



## MachBot

But still doesn't mention the fact that Canon is behind competition, the dynamic range won't be good I bet.

But we'll see.


----------



## bhd812

I know you long time full frame users won't be impressed, but I had to pull the 70D kit at the price it is..remember this is my first SLR. For years i have used super zooms mostly Sony stuff for their high fps. Last year i got into photography a bit more seriously learning aperture, iso, shutter speed modes. There was three problems i had with super zooms that made me look into crop DSLR, one is the small sensor can't crop later at all, two is there is no buffer and three any iso is horrible. I shoot mostly small perching birds mainly and with any bird photography you need to be able to track the bird which means later you need to crop. I did not have time to go out looking for any birds but i did get to play around in the yard a bit. This was taken with the 55-250 stm kit lens. I need to learn how to use RAW and adjust it where i get most out of my photos first, then once i save up some cash i will upgrade the lens to either the 400mm 5.6 prime or the 100-400mm used. After some time if i feel the need to upgrade to the 7Dmarkii I will but for now i have plenty of time to learn photography better.


----------



## raptor84

Skip the 100-400 and get the 400 F5.6 if you need the reach else get the 70-300 L IS  

 70-300 L IS has better iamge quality and less service issues especially with regards to the push-pull zoom mechanisms.


----------



## stang

I wish the 7D II wasn't so expensive. Wouldn't mind upgrading my 1D III. My 6D is amazing though to say the least, so that keeps me occupied. Definitely one of the best purchases I have ever made.


----------



## liamstrain

All the "behind the competition" comments strike me as a bit odd. We're mostly talking about situations and performance which: 

 1. skirt the shoals of situations 99.9% of us will never have to deal with - much less where incremental improvements in performance will make a real difference in getting the shot. and

 2. are a thousand times better than what the top cameras in the world could manage even 3 years ago. And those were cameras that were more than sufficient for National Geographic, SI, Conde Nast, and pretty much everyone who was not using Medium format digital or bigger. 
  
 Would it be nice if Canon was pushing the envelope of what was capable? Sure. But I'm also be happy with stellar image quality (because that's what we have) and better glass in most instances than Nikon's offerings (with very few exceptions, the Nik 14-24/2.8 for instance). Most of this sounds like spec masturbation, and not grounded in actual shooting needs.


----------



## MachBot

liamstrain said:


> All the "behind the competition" comments strike me as a bit odd. We're mostly talking about situations and performance which:
> 
> 
> 1. skirt the shoals of situations 99.9% of us will never have to deal with - much less where incremental improvements in performance will make a real difference in getting the shot. and
> ...



I shoot landscapes and i'll definitely appreciate a sensor with better dynamic range.

That being said, canon's glass is what kept me pondering.


----------



## bhd812

raptor84 said:


> Skip the 100-400 and get the 400 F5.6 if you need the reach else get the 70-300 L IS
> 
> 70-300 L IS has better iamge quality and less service issues especially with regards to the push-pull zoom mechanisms.


 
 That's what i was thinking. I played with the 100-400 but never cared that much about the sharpness. There are rumors of a new one coming in November and i won't be buying anything before then anyway. I will have to rent the 70-300 though, your suggestion makes sense.


----------



## bhd812

Red-Tail Hawk with a bit of Raw working and cropping. It was a horrible over cast day so this picture is good coming out of a 55-250 stm kit lens...I need to lean raw editing better though..
  
 btw Canon just announced their new 100-400 mkii.


----------



## castleofargh

might want to give a shot at DXO8 http://www.dxo.com/intl/dphotographer
  
 not saying it's amazing as the tools are limited(no mask, no brush) even compared to lightroom, and it's slow.  but hey, for free it's worth every penny ^_^ .
  
 the actual version is V10, that you can try for 30days. mainly with better noise treatment, and some funky "clearview" tool that's good at making postcards, but not doing anything we can't do with another software or a little time on our hands. I've updated because it's a lot less laggy(still not fast, just less laggy). and also because I'm desperate to find any alternative to adobe, given their renting license system that didn't please me too much.


----------



## Jon L

bhd812 said:


> btw Canon just announced their new 100-400 mkii.


 
  
 This is one of the few times I have been pleasantly surprised by a Canon lens release, mainly due to many people calling this lens vaporware and "unicorn" for some time and due to the reasonable MSRP, which is sure to become even more reasonable in a year or two for street prices.  I will be getting one eventually 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/11/introducing-the-canon-ef-100-400-f4-5-5-6l-is-ii/


----------



## hyogen

Almost 2 years ago now I sold all my humble audiophile gear and bought myself a full frame D600--  check out my website which I just completely remade www.justinleewedding.com  I really have the D600 to thank, but I did waste incredible amount of time fixing skin tones and correcting white balance.  I got better at it near the end I guess..  I'm really proud of my work in the past 2 years, but must say thank you to a few people in this thread including leftnose and Jon L.  The honest advice and criticisms really helped drive me and even now I'm pushing myself to be better with each shoot.  
  
 I was on the verge of switching to the 5D3, until I read this review:  http://shotkit.com/nikon-d750/  An open admission about how Nikon colors aren't as good for skin tones as Canon colors.  If you're happy with 5D3's dynamic range and AF and have heavily invested in lenses, I see no point in switching but it's nice to know the new Nikons are getting closer to Canon's skin tones.  There are a couple Canon lenses I really envy as well for the price they go for compared to Nikon including 45mm f/2.8 TS-E, 135 f/2, and 85 f/1.2.  
  
  
 First few shots of having my D750 since last week.  
  

  

  

  
  
 Below are some of my last shots with the D600 which I was very happy with, but overall I disliked skin tones and auto WB inconsistencies with the D600.  The AF was lacking a little bit to keep up with my events sometimes as well.  I have 0 complaints with the D750 so far.


----------



## MachBot

The D750 is a really good camera, I'm planning to get one as an upgrade from my 650d.


----------



## MadCow

hyogen said:


> There are a couple Canon lenses I really envy as well for the price they go for compared to Nikon including 45mm f/2.8 TS-E, 135 f/2, and 85 f/1.2.


 

 I thought the 45mm was the worst among the four Canon TS-E lenses?
  
 And speaking of TS-E, I just recently acquired this one:
  

  
 Two test shots right after getting the lens:


----------



## liamstrain

I know the older 24 was a dog (happy to sell it for the little bit I got for it), but the new 24 TS-E is amazing. Truly. I've not really seriously worked with the 45 though - did they do a V2 update on it as well?


----------



## MachBot

liamstrain said:


> I know the older 24 was a dog (happy to sell it for the little bit I got for it), but the new 24 TS-E is amazing. Truly. I've not really seriously worked with the 45 though - did they do a V2 update on it as well?


 
 The 24 TS-E mk2 is one of the sharpest lenses I've used. The glass is just top notch.


----------



## MadCow

liamstrain said:


> I know the older 24 was a dog (happy to sell it for the little bit I got for it), but the new 24 TS-E is amazing. Truly. I've not really seriously worked with the 45 though - did they do a V2 update on it as well?


 
 Only the 24 has gotten a V2 update. If I'm not mistaken, the 17 hasn't but doesn't need to as it is a very recent model. The 45 and 90 still remain their ancient, original selves.


----------



## raptor84

@hyogen have you tried Nikon's legendary 135 f/2 DC? quite a few portrait photogs love that as an alternative to canon's  Also having played with both 5D3 and D750 I'd switch to a D750 if i werent so heavily invested in Canon already!


----------



## MachBot

raptor84 said:


> @hyogen
> have you tried Nikon's legendary 135 f/2 DC? quite a few portrait photogs love that as an alternative to canon's  Also having played with both 5D3 and D750 I'd switch to a D750 if i werent so heavily invested in Canon already!



The D750's grip is just so damn deep!

I like the grip, feels so damn comfy.


----------



## hyogen

raptor84 said:


> @hyogen have you tried Nikon's legendary 135 f/2 DC? quite a few portrait photogs love that as an alternative to canon's  Also having played with both 5D3 and D750 I'd switch to a D750 if i werent so heavily invested in Canon already!


 
  
 Yes, I rented it once and it had really nice bokeh.  I wish they would update it with a newer lens with weather sealing at least.  I also hate to pay $1000+ for a used one when Canon's superior version can be had for like $750 used!  I found it to be quite long and I once found this very good comparison site between the 135 f/2 and 105 f/2 DC which look pretty much the same.  The bokeh was indistinguishable because you had to be closer to your subject to get the same FOV with the 105 as with the 135.  
  
 For now I have the 105 f/2.8 VR macro lens and it comes in kinda handy for macro shots sometimes, but I find even 105 too long sometimes.. 135 would be even less useful to me in situations.  I see now why zooms are so useful for when you just don't have the time to switch between lenses.  Even carrying two bodies with different lenses like 35 and 85 I feel a little restricted at weddings because I want to get closer or wider but want to limit my movement as to not be distracting.  I also hate to get Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 when it'll not be anywhere close to 200mm due to focus breathing--more like 160mm?  
  
 Although I'm quite happy with the D750, I still wish I had Canon's skin tones and Canon lenses.  The super cheap and sharp 70-200 f/4L lens would even be super useful to me for weddings or receptions where I need flash anyway since I have to top down quite a bit to get the DOF I want..  I'll be posting on the Nikon thread some of my recent work with the D750 soon...I'll stop contaminating this thread with Nikon photos 
  
 This is one thing I have noticed about the D750 that is a little annoying--I don't remember the issue being as pronounced on the D600..  When shooting in burst mode, sometimes it takes a full 2 seconds or so to be able to change my shutter speed or aperture...........NOT COOL!  I don't even think it is when my buffer has filled up...I think it happens only after about 5 shots on burst and I want to change a setting (I shoot in manual pretty much 100% of the time) It has happened to me on a few occasions now and I'm not sure if what I'm experiencing is normal.  I better test it out and send it back if my camera happens to be defective.  I don't even care about the 2 stuck pixels my screen has (OLED screens commonly have stuck pixels and it doesn't really bother me).   Could it be my memory card?  
  


machbot said:


> raptor84 said:
> 
> 
> > @hyogen
> ...


 
  
 Indeed, so much better than D600's grip.  I was worried about carpal tunnel after shooting for hours with heavy lens and flash.  I wish the grip were a tiny bit more full though--it is not as full and round as Canon's grip, but I'm satisfied with it.


----------



## raptor84

Hmm did not expereince the shutter/aperature change lockout issue described during my short use.  Is there some wierd safety shift or buffer setting buried in the menus?


----------



## hyogen

I'll report back.  Maybe I'm just mistaken or maybe it's my memory card issue.  I know recently I've had a really good Samsung PRO card and a cheaper Sony Class 10 SD card.  Maybe it's happening when one memory card fills up?  I know that it's happened at least a few times recently that my memory card would have been filled up and switched to the second slot..
  
  
  
 I was really surprised/appalled to find out that changing ISO on the 5D mark 3 (and probably previous versions also) does not change the exposure meter in real time.  To see the change in the exposure meter when changing ISO, you have to re-meter by half pressing the shutter.....   I asked the sales guy at the camera shop who was a pro himself and he said that that's just the way it was and agreed that it was not as fast as Nikon bodies.  Nikon's dual wheel system for aperture and shutter speed and the live real-time exposure meter has made it so easy and fast for me to shoot in manual.  Is there something I'm missing or do you just get used to the way Canons are set up?  My only previous experience is with an old Rebel T1i which I was shooting in manual almost exclusively close to the time I upgraded to D600.


----------



## raptor84

I'm in A/v 90% of the time so I don't really feel it  Plus I do mainly portraits so not that much fast fiddling needed for me. I've also gotten smitten by the Fuji X100s and Sony A7s HELP =p


----------



## hyogen

so you have felt it before?  
  
 EDIT:  Oh, you were talking about the live exposure meter.


----------



## MadCow

hyogen said:


> I was really surprised/appalled to find out that changing ISO on the 5D mark 3 (and probably previous versions also) does not change the exposure meter in real time.  To see the change in the exposure meter when changing ISO, you have to re-meter by half pressing the shutter.....   I asked the sales guy at the camera shop who was a pro himself and he said that that's just the way it was and agreed that it was not as fast as Nikon bodies.  Nikon's dual wheel system for aperture and shutter speed and the live real-time exposure meter has made it so easy and fast for me to shoot in manual.  Is there something I'm missing or do you just get used to the way Canons are set up?  My only previous experience is with an old Rebel T1i which I was shooting in manual almost exclusively close to the time I upgraded to D600.


 
  
 On the 5D3, there are two common ways to change ISO. If press the ISO button on the top panel, you are essentially entering a different "mode". Like a separate menu system, here your only options are to change ISO or Exposure Compensation; the half-press is just to leave the present mode (and so happens to reactivate the exposure meter at the same time).
  
 The other way to do it is to map ISO to the Set button, which I do and it is much faster and intuitive. Now you hold down the Set button and spin the top dial, and the exposure meter does change in real time.


----------



## hyogen

madcow said:


> hyogen said:
> 
> 
> > I was really surprised/appalled to find out that changing ISO on the 5D mark 3 (and probably previous versions also) does not change the exposure meter in real time.  To see the change in the exposure meter when changing ISO, you have to re-meter by half pressing the shutter.....   I asked the sales guy at the camera shop who was a pro himself and he said that that's just the way it was and agreed that it was not as fast as Nikon bodies.  Nikon's dual wheel system for aperture and shutter speed and the live real-time exposure meter has made it so easy and fast for me to shoot in manual.  Is there something I'm missing or do you just get used to the way Canons are set up?  My only previous experience is with an old Rebel T1i which I was shooting in manual almost exclusively close to the time I upgraded to D600.
> ...


 
  
 That's great to know.  When reviewing images can you instantly zoom in 1:1 on the focus point like you can with some Nikons (I know at least D750, D800, D810--i assume others)


----------



## MadCow

hyogen said:


> That's great to know.  When reviewing images can you instantly zoom in 1:1 on the focus point like you can with some Nikons (I know at least D750, D800, D810--i assume others)


 

 You can select the default magnification level (e.g. x2, x4, etc) when the magnify button is first pushed. However, the highest magnification level is mostly useless unless you're shooting JPG or RAW+JPG, because the image review is based on a JPG file and the embedded JPG in the RAW is not a full resolution image. Also I'm not really fond of magnifying so high -- usually I want to review at x4 first to get a more "overall view", only magnifying more if I really need to confirm critical focus. The Sony A7R magnifies to 1:1 and I really find it annoying, I always end up zooming back out to more comfortable levels in order to check overall focus.


----------



## hyogen

I can see your point MadCow.  
  
I was able to figure out that i have to half press the shutter in order to start being able to change aperture and shutter speed after burst shooting.  I'm pretty sure I did not need to do this with the D600, but I think it is because on the D750 I have set the front/back scroll wheels to move back and forth and jump 10 photos at a time when reviewing photos.  After taking a photo I have the camera set to review the photo, so the camera thinks I'm trying to review photos instead of change settings.


----------



## bhd812

Playing around with the Tamron 150-600mm on my 70D earlier. I am getting a little better at photography but still have a long way to go.


----------



## MadCow

Has anyone modified their TS-E so that both tilt and shift occur on the same axis? Instructions I found seem simple enough, but the four screws that I need to remove are very tight and I didn't want to apply too much force with my jewelers' screwdriver set for fear of leaving marks or worse, striping the screws. Any success stories by TS-E owners here?


----------



## raptor84

Hmm was wondering what you were talking about then i realised only the newer 24 and 17 allow you to tilt and shift on independent axis' . Never heard of anyone I know who did this mod :\


----------



## liamstrain

You shouldn't need to. There is a release so you can rotate the shift axis. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to do. 
  
 edit - ah, that release is on the 24 TS-E II


----------



## Jon L

Well, I guess somebody has to post about the new Canon 5Ds and 5Ds R 50 MP cameras.  Not too excited myself 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0348597696/nifty-fifty-canon-eos-5ds-5ds-r-first-impressions-review


----------



## jay-w

edit.


----------



## Jon L

New Adobe Camera RAW 9.0 now features HDR and Panorama right in ACR.   Fantastic!
  
 http://photorumors.com/2015/04/23/how-to-create-hdr-and-panorama-images-in-the-new-adobe-camera-raw-9/#more-70824
  
 *Edit*  
 Downloaded it, and bummer!  The HDR and Panorama tools only work for PS CC (subscription) not PS CS (me). Adobe sure knows how to rub it in to those who refuse to be slave to their subscription model


----------



## MadCow

Haven't been here for a while and it looks like I didn't miss much either.
  
 So anyone upgraded to the 5Ds or sr yet? Personally I decided to wait it out for now, as even processing 36MP is already quite slow on my dinosaur of a machine so 50MP is going to aggravate the situation even more. Besides, the biggest I go is 13x19" so I won't benefit from the extra MP... for now.
  
 Now the rumours of a new 35L... that would pique my interest more.


----------



## Jon L

Personally, I will not buy another Canon body until there is fundamental improvement in the Canon sensor fabrication process, i.e. move away from the ancient 0.50µm fab process (which only Canon still uses) and/or improve the read-noise by moving the off-chip ADC to on-chip like all the other companies.  
  
There's still hope for Canon lens-lovers like myself, since the new Sony A7r II has FAR faster AF speed with adapted Canon lenses than Mk I.


----------



## MadCow

The A7r II certainly looks tempting for its AF capabilities, BSI sensor and improved metal mount... can't wait for my regular shop here to bring them in so that I can play around with it and then tell myself I don't really need yet-another-camera, lol.


----------



## techfreakazoid

.


----------



## Oklahoma

I just bought some new (to me) glass.  I currently have a 7D MkII and just got a 24-70 F2.8L and a 70-200 F2.8L both used and in great condition.  Got to play around with them over the weekend in what conditions most people would hate.  High Speed and indoors.  I shot with a custom profile that locked the shutter speed to 1/500 or faster and the aperture at f4 or faster and auto iso.  Most shot at 1/500 f2.8 and iso 1600 to 6000.  Just quickly going through them here are a few from the weekend.


----------



## bhd812

i been practicing


----------



## hyogen

what a necromance of a thread.  Just switched to Canon mirrorless!  firmware 1.4 is amazing for the EOS R for eye tracking...perfect for my aging vision


----------



## bifcake

hyogen said:


> what a necromance of a thread.  Just switched to Canon mirrorless!  firmware 1.4 is amazing for the EOS R for eye tracking...perfect for my aging vision


I still use 5d2, which I bought in 2012.  I do mostly studio work, so eye tracking doesn't come into play.  It's amazing how well the 5d2 holds up at lower ISO settings.  I can do up to ISO 800 with minimal loss in image quality.  ISO 1600 is still passable and it's only at around 3200 that the image starts to break down.


----------



## Jayden

bifcake said:


> I still use 5d2, which I bought in 2012.  I do mostly studio work, so eye tracking doesn't come into play.  It's amazing how well the 5d2 holds up at lower ISO settings.  I can do up to ISO 800 with minimal loss in image quality.  ISO 1600 is still passable and it's only at around 3200 that the image starts to break down.


I am using 6D2, with my 35mm f1.4. I bring them around for walks and some basic product photoshoot. Boy the 35mm is razor sharp at f4. Noise levels on the 6D2 holds up fine too, but shots start to get unusable at about 6400.


----------



## Drak3

Still rocking my Canon 7Dmark 2
with 50mm F/1.2


----------



## LA2019

Thread resurrection. 

Not 'high-end' but I still use my old PowerShot S100. I gutted it to remove the IR block filter so I could take infra-red shots with it.  It's really fun for landscape shots.


----------



## Vandal

LA2019 said:


> Thread resurrection.
> 
> Not 'high-end' but I still use my old PowerShot S100. I gutted it to remove the IR block filter so I could take infra-red shots with it.  It's really fun for landscape shots.



Wonderful.


----------

