nick roberts

<p>You're part right, David - of course it doesn't change the focal length, but narrowing the angle of view IS increasing the reach by definition.</p>

<p>I used a 7D with a 5D II, and was considering getting rid of both and getting a 5D III. In the end I decided to go down the two bodies route with the 7D and 6D for the following reasons: first and foremost, because the 6D is smaller and lighter, which suits me better, and also the WiFi and GPS are really useful to me; but also because the higher frame rate of the 7D is usual for me, and the extra reach of the crop sensor.</p>

<p>I've upgraded from the 5D II to the 6D, and I think it's a very real upgrade - as a travel camera, I think it's unbeatable. Outstanding low light AF on the centre point, better AF all round than the Mk II, better image quality, especially at hight ISOs, smaller and lighter - what's not to like? The 7D is great, but for sport and wildlife. It's a decent enough all-rounder, but this is the area it's least strong in. The 5D III is a terrific camera, but a fair bit heavier, no WiFi or GPS, aspects of use to me when travelling, and it's dearer. For me, this is what the 6D is for!</p>

<p>I got a cheap Leica M to EF-M adaptor off Ebay - it's actually very well made, and does the job perfectly. Looks identical to the Forodiox one without the branding.</p>

<p>Sorry, I didn't mean "just OK", but that I'm happy with it.</p>

<p>As to what Robert Brody says, bokeh isn't the degree of background blur, but the quality of it, which is influenced by the lens construction and location of aperture blades - which has little to do with the maximum aperture, unlike the degree of blur, which does.</p>

<p>Natalya, it's sharp wide open. Any difference in bokeh? Can't say I've really noticed any real difference. It's OK for portraiture if the working distance is right.</p>

I either own or have owned a great many lenses in this range - 28mm f2.8 and f1.8 (I was put off the f1.8 for years by the reviews, but it's a much better all-round lens, and the f2.8 has gone), 35mm f2 (got used a fair bit until I got the 28 f1.8), 50mm f1.8 (gone), f2.5 and f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 macros in both non-L (sold) and L versions, 135mm f2.8 SF and 200mm f2.8 L Mk I. Oh, and the 70-200 f4 L IS. There's not really a weak lens among them, whatever some people say - but the best in pure IQ terms is the 200. It's a grossly underrated lens and would compliment your existing lenses nicely - and it takes extenders - I use both the 1.4x II and 2x Mk I with it, although quality suffers with the second option. Most versatile, and not that far behind in IQ, is the 70-200, which is a pretty light lens to carry and use and also works well with the 1.4x extender - and I find that at the long end, that's useful for isolating elements of landscapes, too. I do like the 135 SF, but I've always found the focal length a bit awkward - neither short nor long enough for me much of the time, and this lens doesn't take (Canon) extenders for sure.

 

I do feel that the lens that would suit you best is probably the 70-200 f4 L IS - any chance of putting off the purchase for a while to afford it? And what about hiring one for now to check out if it's right for you? For me, the only downsides with it are that it's a stop or two slower than the primes in the same reason, and that it doesn't reach 300mm

<p>Well the old Canon 100mm USM Macro is better than the AI-S 105mm Nikkor in my experience, and the L lens is better still - and that's just talking IQ. When it comes to ease of use handheld, nothing, but nothing comes close to the L lens IMHO.</p>

<p>For most purposes, I would go for the 24-105 - for this use, the extra stop might well be of more use.</p>

<p>I've got all four of the lenses you mention - well, if the 70-200 f4 is the IS version, anyway. The 70-300 IS is actually a very decent lens for the money, not very far short of L class except at the long end, and the 18-135 is decent enough for what it is. If all you're ever going to do is print small and use pictures for onscreen viewing, then these lenses are more than good enough. If you want to print large or crop heavily, you will see an advantage with the L lenses.</p>

<p>Your camera will tolerate a trigger voltage up to 250V, not 6V - however, some 285s can still be higher than that.</p>

<p>I use the 28mm f1.8 quite a bit on my 5D II. Yes, it's a bit soft wide open, but it's a lovely little package so I forgive it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The old EOS 3 film camera, on the other hand, sounded like a train wreck!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh well done, Scott, I've been trying to describe it for years!<br>

As to the D700, well, no. I don't like the handling of Nikons, including lens mounting direction and focusing direction, and although it's a great camera, it's simply not as good - for me and my uses - as the 5D II. Oh, and I've so much Canon glass it would be madness.</p>

<p>You seem to be rather confused on this subject. Firstly, of course the focal length of the lens itself doesn't change - it's a fundamental property of the lens that actually can't be changed - but an extender gives the effect of multiplying it. But perspective has absolutely nothing to do with focal length in the first place, it's simply a function of relative magnification of subject elements, which is a product of focus distance, nothing else. Any lens from the same position will give the same perspective, and although clearly the overall magnification of the subjects will change, their magnification relative to each other will not. So it's obvious that your point 2 simply can't be true.</p>

 

<p>I've used that very ring for some time on my 300mm f4L with a monopod, so yes, it works fine. I tend to use a head for extra flexibility, but you don't have to.</p>

<p>In the UK, Canon do promotional events at some dealers - bring some exotica, offer a few discounts, that sort of thing - and they often do sensor cleaning at the same time. But it's not exactly a set programme.</p>

<p>Hmmm - 7Ds are dearer now in the UK (by £100) than they were back in May when I bought mine - and that wasn't at the lowest price they've been, quite. And although I could be wrong, I don't expect to see any new FF camera from Canon this year.</p>

<p>With recorded music, I listen mostly to CDs and only listen to MP3s when convenience is important, or musical quality doesn't matter too much - when there's lots of background noise, in the car or when flying or going by train.<br>

Much the same applies for what I want a mirrorless camera for - when I don't want to carry my DSLRs. It's not either/or for me, but both.</p>

<p>However, at the bottom end of the market, they'll pass the "acceptable quality" threshold.</p>

<p>I've used many of the lenses mentioned over the years. Even the 28-200 (non USM in my case) which I have used with the 5D II - it's, well, a lens. It takes pictures. That's about as positive as I'll get about it...<br>

I used the 28-105 on film, and it was, as has been said, a decent consumer zoom. The 24-85 is similar but maybe a touch better - it is very compact, though. The 28-135 IS was my main lens in my last film days, and I was very happy with it on film. When digital arrived, I used it a bit with the 10D, and then started to use it with the 5D. I was disappointed, though - it seemed out of its depth. So I bought the 24-105L, and have been extremely happy with it on both the 5D and 5D II - it seems to work really well with the II.</p>

<p>Oh, I think it's certain to happen at some point fairly son, but who knows what or when?</p>

<p>I love the English in this discussion post there:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> Get hold of the fuselage with my wife on the line with the original lens on</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Classic. ;)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've read that the source is a reliable one</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Canon Rumours site (which IS pretty reliable) says that the source for this one is notoriously UNreliable - "a known bad rumour felon".</p>

<p>At the end of the day, do you have a camera to take pictures, or take pictures to have a camera? It's just a tool (albeit a nice one!), and if you use it as such, from time to time there will be mishaps. Far better to have the odd disaster but take some brilliant pics than to cosset your camera and never take any. It's what insurance is for, though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> the inside of the cracked body looks white</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Magnesium. Now if only it were made of plastic, it might very well not have cracked.</p>

<p>I had my 30D converted with the 830nm filter 18 months ago - but LV would make it a lot easier, and I'm not sure I made the right filter choice. Any underexposure, and I get the world's worst banding.</p>

<p>To be honest, if I were you with chronic neck pain I would ditch ALL the kit, and replace it with a 5D II, 24-105 L and 70-200 f4 L IS. IMVHO, the 24-105 performs better on the 5D II than the 24-70, and the 70-200 f4 is every bit as good as the 2.8 lens. So the package is at least as good in terms of image quality in every area, but much, much lighter.</p>