william_castleman

Oops.....I'm mistaken. Your 550EX will work fine in E-TTL II mode with your 1D mk2.

It really is worth getting a fast lens. The EF 85mm f/1.8, EF 135 f/2L, and EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS are each excellent (and progressively more expensive). The down side of these fast lenses is that your photographs of your daughter will look so good that the Moms of your daughter's friends will begin pestering you to take photographs of their daughter too.

You will get the best flash performance if you get a 580EX and take full advantage of the E-TTL II flash system of this camera. It pays off at weddings and under unusual lighting background conditions. I rarely shoot above ISO 1250 but can't remember noise ever being an issue with the 1d mk2.

Agree that it is best to wait and see what the 20D replacement will be before going to the 5D. You probably won't be able to see that much difference between the 10D and the 20D to warrant the "upgrade".

I should have added in the last thread that I usually stop it down at least to f/2.8 for best results (although the example I posted is at f/3.5).

The 28mm f/1.8 lens on a 20D would be a great lens for street photography. I evaluated the lens for full frame cameras and wasn't overly impressed with corner performance.

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28mm/index.htm

 

However, put it on a 1.6x 20D and it performs beautifully. It focuses fast, is lightweight and small, and has wonderful contrast. I use the combination for close up grab shots at gymnastics meets and am shooting with 4 cameras and bodies. For shooting the floor exercise, I have the 20D/28 sitting on the floor where I am kneeling and am shooting mostly with a 200 1.8 on a monopod and an 85 1.8. When the gymnasts get in close to the corner, I just pick up the 20D/28 one hand, point, focus and fire. Gymnasts are moving through fast, so you have to be able to shoot fast.

I have attached a grab shot from this weekend. The 28 1.8 and 20D are a great combination.<div></div>

The 20D is a great camera. However, new 20D supplies are drying up. An announcement of the successor to the 20D (30D) is expected in February. If so, prices on remaining stocks of 20D's should drop as the new model is announced.

Mr. Petteri's experience in his review is from using a 1.6x 10D. So he wouldn't have noticed light fall off and soft corners at wide apertures as much as someone will with a full frame sensor or an EOS-3 that Patrick plans to shoot with.

In contrast to the experience cited in the preceeding comments on the 35/2, based on my experience with the 35/f2 lens, it benefits as much from being stopped down to f/2.8 as the 28/1.8 does. The 35/2 has very soft corner imaging shot at f/2. See the information posted in the two reviews I cited.

My experiences/evaluations are posted here:

28/1.8

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28mm/index.htm

 

35/1.4L

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/35mm/index.htm

 

The 35/1.4L image quality is incomparable shot at f/2. The 28/1.8 is a good lens if you can stop it down to f/2.8. Shooting it at f/2 is ok if you don't need to worry a lot about corner sharpness.

This topic gets a lot of coverage.

FWIW,Recent tests on the 1.4 and the 1.8 lens on a 1Ds mk2 that I ran are here:

 

http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/index.htm

Here is a link to a good summary of color IR photography with a 10D and a list of "good and bad" lenses for success with an 10D with stock AA filter still installed:

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=9042077

 

I hope this helps.

Hutech will modify canon/ nikon dslr's for infrared / astrophotography.

See: http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/irphoto/ir.htm

 

I had a 20D modified and they did a good job.

 

Also, some canon lenses are reported to work better for dslr infrared photography than others . Their were several long threads about it on www.dpreview.com if you do a search there.

I tested the EF 28mm f/1.8 lens with full frame cameras (primarily for astrophotography) and found it to be a good performer, but not up to the level of the 24-70L. The 28 f/1.8 performs OK if you can stop it down to f/2.8 or f/4. It focuses reasonably fast. I found it considerably better in quality than the 28 f/2.8 version.

Details of my full frame testing are here:

 

http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28mm/index.htm

 

Because of vignetting at f/2 and f/2.8 and so-so corner performance, I have started using it with my 20D for a light-weight prime with standard lens perspective on a 3rd-body at gymnastics meets. It's very light weight with reasonably good central image circle performance at f/2.8 and f/4 for one-hand shooting.

I thank past and present owners of the EF 50mm f/1.0L who responded to my questions about the lens. I posted the question on three internet forums. The answers came back from several owners that their f/1.0L outperformed their f/1.4 lens at f/1.4. There were several previous owners of the lens who had disappointing experiences with the lens similar to mine and who sold their lens because of poor performance compared to the f/1.4 lens. Finally, the point was raised by an individual who owned several 1.0L lenses who indicated that the 50 1.0 L needed precise focus calibration and optical axis centering from Canon to achieve optimal performance. It seems reasonable to speculate that the lens I tested was neither optimally focus calibrated nor axis centered based on its poor autofocus performance and soft images at f/1.4 in my tests with it.

Yes, Scott,

I have been reading the rumors about the 50 1.2L I guess we'll know around 2006 PMA time in February whether Canon will validate the rumor.

 

In the meantime, a contributor to FM forum cited a dpreview posting that provides convincing evidence that a good 1.0L will outperform the 1.4 lens at f/1.4:

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=13340775

Thanks for your suggestions to broaden the search for knowledgeable users of this lens. FYI here is the data from my tests on the one lens I had in my hands:

 

http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/index.htm

I would appreciate advice from photographers who have had experience

using the EF 50mm f/1.0L. Would you rank its performance (image

sharpness and contrast) as: 1) better than; 2) equal to; or 3)

worse than the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens at f/1.4?

 

Logic suggests that a Canon 1.0L lens stopped down to f/1.4 should

give better optical performance than the EF 50mm f/1.4 shot wide

open at f/1.4. However, the one used 1.0L lens I have evaluated

shot at about equal image sharpness to the 1.4 lens at f/1.4 (i.e.,

soft). The used 1.0L lens I evaluated front-focused under ambient

lighting conditions, so I had to send it back to the seller.

 

Before I purchase another lens, I would appreciate past and present

owners of this lens telling me if it is possible to find an EF 50mm

1.0L that is reasonably sharp at f/1.4.

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

After spending considerable time evaluating these two lenses:

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm

 

....I have to reinforce that there is little need to purchase the 1.2L unless you need to shoot at f/1.4 or f/1.2 to create background blur or to have an exceedingly narrow plane of focus. Bokeh differences from f/1.8 to f/5.6 won't differ noticeably in prints between the two lenses.

You will find the 85mm f/1.8 lens to be brutally sharp for portraits at f/2 and f/2.8. As others have pointed out in preceding remarks, there is little need to shoot wider than f/2 in the studio for head shots. Outdoor portraits where you want to blur foliage and/or unattractive background items is where the 1.2L shines and can create stunning portrait images.

I ran tests with the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM when I was testing the EF 70-300 DO IS. You can look at the performance graphs or the taxidermy specimens in the tests here:

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_300/index.htm

 

Overall, the EF 75-300mm performed reasonably well against some expensive glass.

I can't speak to the issue with Adorama. I have bought two Canon refurbished lenses from B&H over several years...EF 50mm 2.5 macro and EF 85mm 1.2L. Both had substantially lower prices than new. I tested both lenses when I received them. The macro was perfect. The 1.2L was defective and wouldn't produce sharp images until f/8. I sent the defective lens back and got a refund...no questions asked. I wouldn't hesitate to buy refurbished items from B&H in the future because THEY stand behind the product.....so long as I have time to test the equipment. Just because Canon or a Canon designate says it has been returned to "new" functionality, doesn't mean it has. Quality control on "refurbished" appears to differ substantially from quality control on new.

....if you are printing 8x10's and have a good eye and good technique, the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM or even EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM will produce much better 8x10's than someone will with limited perspective and poor technique.

Consumer zooms are a great way to start until you feel you need better quality.

But then..... you already knew this. Right?

The 24-85 will be a disappointment when you switch to digital SLR. If you go with the smaller chips in the 20D/digital rebel, you will probably find the EF-S 17-85mm IS a more useful lens with comparable performance to the 28-135 IS on your Elan 7.

<P>The 100-400mm will substantially outperform the 70-300mm IS DO <A HREF="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_300/index.htm" TARGET="_blank">(reviewed here</A>). An EF 300mm f/4L with a EF 1.4x extender will outperform the 100-400mm L in the 400mm range (<A HREF="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/300mm/index.htm" TARGET="_blank">reviewed here</A>). However, if your experience disappointing telephoto performance with the 70-300, the 100-400 will only provide slightly better performance. If you like photographing birds, you'll probably experience at lease moderate frustration with anything less than a 500mm or 600mm L-prime.</P>

<P>This is the correction of the link to the 20mm full frame perspective</P>

<P><B>Tests run: </B></P>

<UL><LI> 20D / EF-S 10-22mm against EOS-1Ds / EF 17-40mm f/4 and primes at:<UL><LI

> <A HREF="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/17-40/union.htm" TARGET="_blank">20mm full frame perspective</A></LI></UL></LI></UL>

<P>I still have both the EF-S 10-22mm and the EF 17-40mm f/4 L. The EF-S 10-22mm lens is such a handy, light-weigh lens for travel....I can't bear to part with it.</P>