chip

Hi Peter,

Both the EF 17-35 2.8L and EF 16-35 2.8L have a ring USM AF motor and both can be used FTM. Both AF at about the same speed but at these short focal lengths it makes no real difference. Both lenses are built about the same though the EF 16-35 2.8L is built somewhat more sturdy.

Both are "L" class lenses though the later EF 16-35 2.8L has significantly improved levels of image sharpness and contrast on film and digitally. The EF 17-35 2.8L was Canon's first f/2.8 17mm ultra-wide zoom. While the EF 17-35 2.8L is okay overall for use with a film body I have personally seen a pretty wide sample variation in image quality between different samples. The EF 16-35 2.8L was much improved in terms of overall image quality and for a fast 16mm ultra-wide angle zoom lens is very sharp overall even out to the corners on film!

On a digital body the EF 16-35 2.8L is even better due to an improved lens design which considers the differences between film and a digital sensor into it's design for improved image quality. I've used several (borrowed two different lenses and also owned one for several years), EF 17-35 2.8L zooms and currently own an EF 16-35 2.8L, the newer EF 16-35 2.8L zoom lens is much sharper overall than any of the EF 17-35 2.8L's I'd ever used.

There is a difference in image quality and it's not impossibly small or hard to see but the price difference is also not small. Only you can decide if it's worth the price premium.

HTH

Sorry Michael,

There's no free lunch and Epson inks and papers are consistently consistant and longest lasting.

HTH

Hi Greg,

At the moment (well for the last 7 or 8 years anyway), Hoya's Super Hoya Multi-Coated filter line has had the highest light transmission rate of any commercial filter made. They far surpass B+W MRC filters in light transmission, this shows up as less lens flair caused by the front filter.

Hoya's S-HMC filters are coated with five layers of AR coatings and one protective, easy to clean coating on both the front and rear surfaces of the filter for a total of 12 layers of coatings all together. Hoya also uses the same water clear quality glass as the much more expensive B+W line and each Hoya filter is cut, ground and polished flat before coating the same as all high quality filters are. I was a B+W user for a long time but have found the Hoya S-HMC filters to be much better optically and cost less to replace.

Whatever you do don't buy cheap plain glass filters and use them on your good lenses. Uncoated or single coated filters cause flair and reduce contrast and anyone with even minor experience that cares about image quality as a photographer can confirm this fact. If you can't or won't pay the money for decent multicoated filters don't use a filter at all, you'll be better off without them.

HTH

Hi PB, JP,

It seems that Sigma lenses are easy to find used, read what you will into this. It also seems that Sigma lens owners have an elevated idea of what THEY think their used Sigma lenses are worth but the market is generally not willing to agree with them. So they remain easy to find available but hard to buy largely because you can generally find a similar Canon lens used for not much more than the used Sigma lens.

How long Sigma will support an old Sigma lens with a new Canon body is up to Sigma. Sigma has shown that about 5 years or so (give or take a year), is about as long as they are willing to go before telling you that you need to buy a new one. There are some lucky Sigma lens owners that have managed to get upgraded but for the most part it all depends on Sigma being willing to invest continuing support for old products that have been replaced with newer lenses. Historically Sigma fells that you got what you paid for 5 years ago and now it's time for you to buy a new one.

I've been wondering if the Sigma 12-24 4.5-5.6 was any good myself. By many accounts it's ok or even good but this is a very difficult zoom range to do well I think. I wish Canon would make one but I'd like it faster, at least one maybe two stops and constant aperture. Still, I don't see one coming from Canon anytime soon so have been considering the Sigma.

Cheers/Chip

Hi Eric,

The RAW workflow around here has developed a bit of a wacky streak. I do as much as I can in C1 Pro DSLR, open the image in PS-CS and use PreSharpen3D to get an even balance of apparent sharpness across all colors, then I use PKS presharpen using the normal PKS guidelines. Next I do the usual, set white and black lume points, do anyother corrections with levels or curves (this sort of depends on the phase of the moon or what's working for me), next I use Noise Ninja to assinate noise, then do any creative sharpening/softening as needed with PKS, flaten the image saving it in the camera's native res. as my base image file to use for printing.

I find that I tend to use noise reduction just before any creative sharpening because it needs less sharpening to ge the same impact. Next I print the image using Qimage with noise reduction off but with some sharpness EQ (usually at a much lower level than if I didn't use PS3d), and some global USM depending on output size.

I've also output to file from Qimage with sharpness EQ on but no GUSM or N/R and processed the image using PKS using the PKS guidelines for output settings but have not drawn any conclusions yet as to being worth all the trouble or not. It's not obvious which way prints a better image expecially at the moderate output sizes my 1280 and 2200 can print to.

HTH

Hi Mark,

I'm a UNIX geek working out of my house and have several computers in my work space and several more scattered around the house. I have a couple of PC's with two monitors run off of them, I use one of them pretty much just for post capture RAW conversion, correction and photo editing and another one for "real" work though I also do RAW conversions and corrections on this other system too sometimes.

The problem with having two CRT monitors right next to each other is that the magnetic fields controling the electron guns and CRT display geometry may interact with each other making distorted images, color fringes, focus problems etc. That said I have had no problems using a 19" EB IV CRT and 19" ViewSonic PF790 side by side angled towards each other with a 3-4 inch gap between the monitors. On the other system I use a lot I also have another 19" ViewSonic PF790 and an 18" Sharp LCD whith no problems either.

HTH

Hi Phil,

Shoot RAW and correct it in conversion of your RAW image files. Lights change all the time and if you shoot JPEG you will be stuck with whatever the body says is best even though your opinion differs. Go RAW you won't be sorry, just be carefull of your exposures when shooting in the dark.

HTH

Hi Bob A,

I went to the Olympus E1 event in L.A. actually in Culver City at SmashBox Studios last week. The Olympus E1 DSLR series is no joke, a LONG way from perfect but IMO Olympus has hit the ground running. Here is a company that has historically produced very nice lenses and high quality compact SLR bodies.

They had several setups with props and and models and close up table top sets for testing purposes. The lenses deliver exactly what they say they do, edge to edge sharpness that has to be seen to be believed. I tried all of the available lenses and they are ALL incredibly sharp edge to edge. They also had a couple of G5's setup with the studio software for RAW conversion of the test images. The RAW conversion software is okay but not well designed for the way a person who needs pto produce volume will want it to work. The conversion software is also not too fast but the image quality is quite high from the converted RAW images once you figure out the way the converter works.

The E1 seems to be a bit noise prone but this was no problem as most of the sets had 8,000-12,000 watts avaialable. I liked the E1 images up to about ISO 400 and then it goes down hill fast. This is a nice working DSLR body for a first pass but this is obviously a first pass. The E1 has buttons all over the place and personally I think the body is very cluttered and that the interface is excessively busy. I don't need or want all that crap, it they feel the need to have all of these "features" they should bury them in a menu someplace where I don't have to see them, not add a dedicated button to do it! Granted a lot of the buttons are assignable and programable but I'd rather not have the damed buttons all over the place. The emphisis during the presentations was always that this is a pro body and that it was designed by and for pros. But the E1 body feels like it was designed by an amateur bent on having a button for every feature he thought a professional photogrpaher should have at his disposal. Personally I like fewer buttons and knobs that are well placed and generously sized for easy access in the heat of shooting. Hopefully they listened to what I and others at the presentation said and will incorporate them in the next E1 body.

The AF speed is not very fast, the frame rate is s-l-o-w and the buffer write speed is even slower if possible. When I complained about the frame rate and buffer write speed I was told that these issues are being addressed. They also said that this is a camera aimed at studio and wedding photographers and that other markets would be addressed at some point in the future. Based on the feel of the body design, glacial pace the E1 is capable of shooting at the small finder image I'd have to say that the E1 was built to a price point designed to appeal to the high-end consummer market to get the E1 system off the ground. I suppose this is not a bad idea but I'm sure not going to be jumping ship anytime soon based my day shooting and processing the images I shot. If they DO manage to produce a high speed body with lower noise, faster frame rates, much faster buffer write speed, MUCH faster AF speed and tracking performace and a batterypack/vertical grip that feels like it's a part of the body and batteries that last more than a couple hundred shots I guess I could always use my C1 Pro DSLR to fix the RAW workflow problems their upgraded "Studio" software has.

Of course I'm biased towards responsive DSLRs with big glass, I shoot motor sports, sports and people with the best, the EOS 1D. But they could not address my requirements at the moment but may at some point in the future.

HTH

Hi Aaron,

Any of the pro DSLR bodies from Canon or Nikon will work with studio lights and allow easy white balance. I have to ask you what is the destination of these images, are they going to be used for catalogs run offset press or for www use? How detailed do these images have to be? Will the camera also be used for large parts or whole cars?

Are you shooting on white to make cutout selections easier in PS? If so you should probably use a different color to maximize contrast to make masking easier to do.

Cheers/Chip

Hi Michael,

Is this your first DSLR? It sounds like it. Do you know how to use the software to show you the AF point in use for the image you are viewing? Is the sharpest point in the image near the indicated selected AF point? If so then there is nothing worng with any of the cameras you "tested."

You probably have sharpness turned off or set to low if you are saving to JPEG format files. If you are saving to RAW format and converting to TIFF you need to do some post conversion Photoshop work to get the image to look sharp.

Try this with your next DSLR test body. Use a Canon brand lens, the EF 70-200 2.8L will do fine, mount the EF 70-200 2.8L to a heavy tripod (you do own one don't you?), along with your test body. Turn the ISO down to ISO 100. Go outside and find a nice building across the street to shoot, or something with lots of detail and sharp parts to look at later to evaluate.

Buildings are good because they won't move or run away while you are testing. If you so use a building shoot it at an angle, not straight on or flat so you can see if any part of the building is in focus or not later. Shoot it using the histogram for exposure, make the histogram show the data points distributed mostly to the right, BUT not touching the right side of the chart. Use the camera's center AF point throughout the test. Pick a nice contrasty point to AF on and shoot a few frames. Next, don't move the tripod, camera or lens and turn off AF completly and manually focus using the same camera and lens position and the same point in the scene.

Go back to your computer and compare the images. If any part near the indicated AF point is in better focus than in front of or behind the indicated AF point the body did it's job and it's okay. If the indicated AF point is not the part that is in best focus there is something wrong or focus was not achived before releasing the shutter. Now look at your manually focused images. Are they any better? If no part of the image is in focus but the point you used to focus on is sharper then the rest of the image then there is likely nothing wrong with your camera, you just need to learn how to use sharpening in PS or turn it on in the body to a point high enough that you think the image is sharp and can stand the digital noise.

HTH

Vassil,

Ha, Ha, Ha that's a funny one! Where can you buy a new Sigma 70-200 2.8HSM for $500? If you have a source for Sigma EX 70-200 2.8HSM lenses at $500 each with optics, mechanicals, electonics and FIRMWARE compatability as good as Canon's EF 70-200 2.8L IS I'll take 100 of them for my first order! If this were true I'd own two or three of them just because they're so cheap! ROTFLMAO!

If what you said was true Canon couldn't sell the EF 70-200 2.8L IS in anywhere the quantity that they do and certainly couldn't demand and get the price they do! Don't you know anything about the marketplace or economics?

LOL!

Joel,

The Sigma converter is working correctly, if you mount the Sigma 1.4x with an f/2.8 lens you should see a min aperture of f/4. The ProMaster you speak of is designed incorrectly and lacks or passes throught the lens data incorrectly. The loss is in lens speed not shutter speed, think about the way a converter works and you will get it.

HTH

Matt,

Get a CF card reader and quit whinning about the lack of support for your MAC already.

Hi B.J.P.,

You just need to make minor adjustments to you ACR conversion settings. ACR does not have a custom profile for your camera so you need to make some changes in the calibrations tab and save them as your default setting for this camera. This way ACR will know what you expect and will use the same settings as the starting point for your conversions.

Stick with it, ACR is MUCH better than FVU once you learn hwo to setup and use ACR. Also be sure to get the updated ACR v2.1 download for PS-CS, it is MUCH improved over the as shipped ACR 2.0 in PS-CS.

HTH

Hi Steve,

What do you mean? Do you mean on the screen?

Richard,

The truth of the matter is that even the Canon EF 1.4X and EF 1.4XII give up a very small amount of image quality and that the EF 2X and EF 2XII give up a LOT of image quality.

I've owned an EF 2X and lately an EF 2XII for the last 7 or 8 years along side an EF 1.4X, (same old one, I tested and saw absolutly no reason to change this one out). I've used them on just about every fast Super Tele Canon has made along with various entry level L class teles and my workhorse EF 70-200 2.8L and IS zooms.

I have never seen results that I would call "very" sharp on film when using the EF 2X/II converters (even though I used to shoot chromes exclusively before moving to digital), though I have had images used that were taken with the EF 2XII in use. I would say that this is a usefull tool if mildly damaging to image quality. I have never thought twice about using the EF 1.4X but I am generaly reluctant to use the EF 2XII.

This is not to say that it's not usefull, I have managed to find a use for it fairly often and for this reason have always kept one on my bag. But I generally will only use it if I have no other way to get the shot I want. Sometimes even after lugging an EF 400 2.8L all over the track with an EF 1.4X mounted is just not enough, then I'm willing to mount the EF 2XII and give her a go.

HTH

Hi Joel,

If you have taken this image carefully and checked the focus then this is a bad lens. I owned the non-IS version for many years before moving up to the EF 70-200 2.8L IS, this lens is sharp wide open (like all of the fast L lenses I've owned and used), and improves to about f/5.6 where it flatens out until about f/8-f/11 and then goes downhill from there. Take it back and get another one bit don't accept a Sigma in its place. ANY lens will beat the lens in your hand but the Sigma 70-200 2.8HSM is no match for a Canon EF 70-200 2.8L IS in proper condition.

HTH

Anish,

First it seems your technique is going to give you poor results no matter what lens you use if you insist on using them this way. Almost all lenses designed for 35mm film used at f/11-f/22 or beyond are going to be well past their sharpest settings. Your EF 24-85 3.5-4.5 will be giving its all by f/5.6-f/8, or 2 to 2.5 stops down from wide open for a prticular focal length and start to degrade from there on.

I also have to believe that at these shutter speeds you are using a good tripod. Manfroto or better at least, practically anything less is a cruel joke on the buyer and his images. I sincerely doubt the problem has anything to do with the camera or the lens, both can produce very good images with good basic technique, good film and lab work.

The other part of your problem could be your choice of film and film or print lab. What film are you using? This is easy to test, take a roll of or partial roll of well exposed landscapes from a good tripod stopped down about 2 stops from whatever the max. aperture is on your zoom at that particular focal length setting. I guess you are using some automated exposure mode on your camera but you need to bracket the shots 1 stop up and 1 stop down if you are using print film. I don't know how to do this on a Rebel 2000 or even if it's possible but you must figure it out for this test to work. Once this shooting test is complete simply have a look at the images when they come back. If they're good and you can see the difference in your bracketed exposures on paper it likely is not the lab either. Also note which exposure you prefered, correct, over exposed or under exposed, this may lead you to find that your camera meter or lab is off. Then you must dig deep and work on the parts of your system that are not holding up their part of the deal.

HTH

Hi TJ,

Okay, I got it now, sorry for the little blast of noise I made. Here is the payoff for listening to me. I have not listed any links but these guys are easy to find.

There are many good, extensive and even interesting articles about sharpening images using Photoshop but using these techniques generally involve a very complex process that depends tremendously on having an experienced user just to figure out a way to approach using these sharpening techniques on a particular image file. A more practical approach hence more useful to the average Joe editing person is one that employs a well developed, structured workflow and simpler adjustments at each stage to reach the goal of achieving output with outstanding final image quality for the target output.

There has been a lot of deep thinking and interesting work (not by me, I�m just feeding off the scraps I�ve found on the floor), done in the last year or two regarding sharpening digital images for output. I've been chasing a lot of it down and trying out different techniques and blending ideas and testing them out myself using these tools on my own images. In the process I've used up a lot of materials, bought a lot of programs and editing tools trying to find something that can be used systematically and can be applied without too much sweating of details and still come up with outstanding printed results. I won�t even go into the time I�ve burned researching and learning these programs and tools.

What I found after researching and reading articles on many different websites was that no one tool can do it all. But I also found that a workflow from RAW file to finished print could be developed that allows the RAW file printmaker to use only the parts the he needs to reach his target output goals. This meant that I had to combine different workflows and editing tools to get results that were reliable and still maintain a reasonably simple workflow.

My first find was that Bruce Fraser (yes, THAT Bruce Fraser), has written and published some really good stuff on the web that was exactly what I was looking for. I�ve read several of Bruce�s books (he�s about as good as it gets for PS and color management), and was always amazed at the amount of stuff he has floating around in his head. Anyway Bruce had figured out and developed an idealized sharpening workflow model and wrote a couple of good articles that talked about sharpening and how he evolved his sharpening model. Bruce also wrote some good tools to take advantage of this model, the program is called PhotoKit Sharpener. It is not just a set of tools, he explains his reasoning for a sharpening workflow and if you read and think carefully there is little to argue with.

My next key player is a guy named Mike Chaney. Mike found the key to recovering almost all of the lost image sharpness during digital capture on a Bayer filtered sensor and Kevin Dobson wrote the filter to restore this lost piece of the sharpness puzzle.

Using Bruce's sharpness workflow model I developed a workflow model around his sharpening model. I encompassed the best ideas I found from many other people�s experience when processing RAW image files. After testing and re-arranging my workflow more than a few times, I�ve developed a RAW workflow that can make my print images snap just like looking at a slide on my light table under a loupe.

Because I think that we all come to the workflow we use over time based on our camera and lens traits and our own tastes I�m focusing on sharpness and workflow in this post.

IMO the current best thinking regarding sharpness seems to be evolving very quickly of late and there has been a raft load of articles published regarding this subject. The workflow that seems to have the most promise IMO is a combination of Mike Chaney's work using a special software filtering technique that equalizes the imbalance of apparent sharpness in cameras that use Bayer filtered sensors and the suggested sharpening workflow of Bruce Fraser. Unfortunately you cannot yet implement this ideal sharpening workflow using a single product or even a collection of products very smoothly or quickly yet. You can use off the shelf products out there to get close to the same results as my imaginary sharpening workflow product.

Anyway this somewhat idealized workflow I�ve developed, it seems to have reliable potential for excellent image quality and apparent sharpness. In testing with different types of images on inkjet prints it has improved my image quality by increasing sharpness without adding any new noise.

Select the RAW file and apply the sharpness equalization filter to the RAW file before converting to whatever your target color space is. This does not yet exist though is seems that it could be implemented in Capture One Pro DSLR (my RAW converter of choice), on the front end of the program but at the moment you can't do it this way. But you can do your RAW conversion using whatever RAW converter you use (C1 Pro, PS-CS�s ARC 2.1 etc.), and use the largest gamut color space your RAW converter supports when saving the file. Then apply the PreSharpen3D filter tool (this is an implementation of the sharpness equalization filter based on Mike Chaney's research), written by Kevin Dobson and available from Digital Outback Photo's website. Next apply a VERY low level of intelligent edge sharpening using PhotoKit Sharpener's (Bruce Fraser's workflow tool for sharpening), Capture Sharpening tool, this is only meant to correct capture sharpness losses, NOT to provide a fully sharp image file. At this point I will usually flatten the capture layer or the whole image to reduce the side of the image file which is getting large by now. There�s a good structure and logic to Bruce's workflow, you have to read some of what he's written to understand how he got there.

The next four paragraphs are background info.

Bruce found as did most of us shooting and saving in RAW format that there was a loss in sharpness brought about by the capture process. He sensed that by using a very small amount of controlled sharpening very early in the process he could recover some of this loss and that it would stick with the image throughout the editing workflow. It takes less sharpening later if you use a very small amount very early on. This is like Chaos theory; a very small nudge in the very first steps has a long lasting impact that can determine the final outcome of the process.

But Bruce was trying to make up for a basic problem in the cameras we use today. The REAL problem, most of us using P&S or DSLR cameras for the most part are using Bayer filtered sensors and this is where the sharpness imbalance problem is created. Bayer filtered sensors are a little complex in the way they work and how the missing red and blue pixel information is recovered, read up on them it's interesting stuff.

The Foveon sensor equipped DSLRs from Sigma capture very evenly sharp looking images when compared to a conventional Bayer filtered flat sensor array. A large part of the reason for this is that the Foveon sensor does not have the very restricted blue and red color resolution a single layer sensor has when using Bayer method of filtering and the interpolation needed to recover the missing red and blue pixel data. Anyway Bruce knew there was something amiss and was using what he knew how to use best to improve the problem but he didn't fully resolve it or if he did he didn�t write and publish it so that I could find it. Mike noticed the same sharpness loss problem during capture, he did some research and testing to find out why. Once he figured out the problem he proved it in testing and wrote a filter routine to equalize the sharpness gap between the red and blue pixels and the favored green pixels. Then he added it to his (for lack of a better name), print management program called Qimage. This is a large part of why Qimage prints made with version 2004.119 and later look so incredibly good, this guy must never sleep!

But the problem with using the sharpness equalization filtering in virtually the last stage of image file processing is that you can't get the best result out of the sharpness equalization filter because the image is so far removed from the original RAW image file. Think about it, the closer you get to the RAW file the less you have to push to get similar results later in the workflow. But even when used at this late stage of image processing the sharpness equalization filter produces impressive looking output that has that 3D look to it. Okay, that�s the end of this background stuff.

Next up we do whatever photo editing we would normally do, white balance (color temp), black and white luminance points, contrast, color correction etc., we�re almost done.

Now we do specific localized sharpening, softening and blending using the Creative Sharpening tools in Bruce�s PhotoKit Sharpener. This step is for those areas that need a bit more sharpness applied or to soften them. Using PhotoKit�s tools it�s much easier to apply controlled sharpening or softening and to get these layers balanced using the layer opacity slider. A lot of the Photo Kit Sharpener tools could be reproduced by hand but doing it this way is a no brainer. The last step is to apply any noise filtering you like to use if needed. I like Noise Ninja, it�s one of the best if not THE best noise remove tool available and use it gently if there is no obvious noise in the image.

At this point we have a finished image file. This is your finished native res. image file so you should back it up or put it in a folder where it will get backed up. What you do next depends on if you rely on Qimage or your photo editor to print the nearly finished image.

You need to determine how the image is going to be used. Offset press, world wide web publishing, inkjet print, LightJet etc. and what the finished output size is going to be so you can produce a resampled output file with the appropriate pixel dimensions. The last step is to do the final output sharpening for the specific size and output type.

Using Qimage I load select the file folder where my images are and select the images I want to print. I review the images making minor adjustments in Qimage for tone and sharpness. Then I set the printer and printer driver for the right paper size I�m using, and have quick look at Qimage�s preview to be sure that I have selected the right paper and output size. Press print and go do something else if this is a large print.

Personally I use Qimage most of the because it uses a very complex re-sample routine that results in extremely smooth curves and angled lines in images with literally no aliasing or noise artifacts. Qimage also saves the time of having to resample to various different sizes for printing. Just tell Qimage the size of output you need and it produces an OPTIMIZED image for your printer and prints it. I have to warn you though, if you want to print a LARGE image using Qimage you need a computer system with plenty of processor power, lots of RAM and hard disc. I printed to file a 13x19 print and the output file was 760MB!

If printing from within Photoshop I calculate the finished image size in pixels and use Fred Miranda�s Stair-Step Interpolation action to get the image re-sampled up to where it needs to be. Then I use PhotoKit sharpener to do the final output sharpen. Set up the printer and press go.

HTH

Cheers/Chip

TJ,

Are you serious? How is it that you have a 1DS and no clue about post capture processing of the processing that goes into your image when saved in JPEG format? Did you read the manual and do some research before blowing $7,000 a camera you have no idea how to take advantage of?

Okay, I'm done with blowing steam. The reason you think your JPEGs look sharper compared to your converted RAW files (apparently without any post processing), files is because they are sharper. Unless you or somebody else changed the factory default settings on your 1DS body, your images saved in JPEG format have already had significant global sharpening and potentially other post capture processing applied to them before they were writen to the CF card a JPEG file.

Your RAW files even though they have been converted have not had the benefit of any processing except to turn them into a file format that a photo editor can read. If someone were to skillfully edit the converted RAW file and compare the JPEG format file to the fully corrected, edited and sharpened TIFF file you would see a great advantage in image quality over the JPEG file. Mostly in color accuracy, image noise, image sharpness, dynamic range (better shadow and highlight detail). There is simply no comparison in image qualty between a well converted and processed RAW file and JPEG of the same image.

HTH

Hi Wilfred,

Because you cannot get the same level of output image control with color film for any amount of money as even if limited to an inexpensive home or small office digital printing system. While it may seem like a lot of work to manipulate images digitally a skilled digital printmaker can produce many more, better quality images for much less money in the same time as a traditional wet color lab worker.

Digital image editing and printmaking at home is not directly polluting, smaller, cheaper, simpler to maintain, repeatable and much more reliable than a traditional wet color lab in your home would be. Digital imaging gives more photogrpahers the opportunity to have direct control their work and output. Even if you had a high-end wet color lab in your home (trust me, your wife would never allow it and very few amatuers can afford one), you could never produce the same level image quality that a digital darkroom can. Additionally custom color printing with lots of hand work in a wet lab is simply not repeatable. With digital imaging and printmaking once an image file is finished (converted, color corrected, edited, dodged and burned, noise removed, resized and sharpened for output), it can be printed over and over and the prints will all look exactly the same. Ansel Adams was probably the master printmaker of his time and yet no two Adams prints are the same and some were better than others. This would not happen in a digital darkroom with digital output.

HTH

Hi Daniel,

I don't have a DReble or a Tokina lens. But on all of my EOS family bodies both pro and consummer bodies, film and digital I've owned and used with almost all of the Canon lenses there is always some very small play in rotation but not in the other directions you mention. Of course this could be a normal thing for Tokina lenses. You can always confirm this by going to the place you bought it and trying a different lens and EOS body to see it this is typical or unusual.

HTH

Hi Melissa,

I love my Domke bags and before going digital I use to use my F-3X (in black ballistc nylon of course), as my small "with 3 L class zooms I can shoot anything" bag. Well 3 L class zooms can't really shoot anything but almost everything is good enough usually.

But the EOS 1D body is bigger than my old EOS 1N/PB-E1 and EOS 1nRS bodies so it was a very tight fit unless I left one of the L zoom triplets at home with her Canon "specialty" glass cousins in a Domke J-1 bag. Which is how I came to buy a Domke J-3 for the digital stuff.

HTH

Hi Joseph,

I got into the keeping UV filters on the front of all my lenses many, many years ago when I noticed that my chromes looked better when I had one on. I had taken the UV filter off my lens half way through shooting a roll of Ektachromes because it was dirty and I was out of cleaning solution and I needed the solution to wet the sandy mud now covering the UV filter (a B+W UV 2B).

I have not had any image degration issues or flare problems but I admit this is a concern of mine and so I only buy and use the best available multi-coated filters. When I was much younger and always short of cash due to my photography addiction (this part has not changed much), I used to use plain uncoated UV filters, this was WAY back in the day... Anyway I used to get flare caused by these inexpensive un-coated UV filters I used even with a hood. This was when I learned the value of AR coated filters.

I've had to replace a quite a few filters over the years due to damage, they worked as expected protecting the front lens element by sacrificing the filter or filter mount. Lately (the last 10 years or so?), I've been using B+W filters, the cost of replacing a B+W UV in 77mm at the time was about $80 and this was adding up. About 7 or 8 years ago I saw the new Hoya Super Hoya Multi Coated filter line at a trade show. When I later had to replace yet another scratched B+W UV filter I tried one of the new Hoya S-HMC UV filters and I've been using them ever since.

The price of replacing a Hoya S-HMC UV filter is about half of what a B+W was costing me. The Hoya S-HMC filters are coated front and back and made of cut optical glass justlike B+W's and have more coatings than your lenses do. Hoya's 10 AR coats and 2 protective coats are more effective with a 99.7% transmissive rate than even the new B+W MRC multicoated filters. The newer MRC coated lenses seem to be easier to clean and have a more durable coating than the original multi-coated B+W filters were. I've got one of the B+W MRC UV's on an EF 300 4L IS and haven't seen any unexpected flares on this lens.

Try this, put a Hoya S-HMC filter on a lens and look into the lens you'll see almost no reflection from the filter, all you see is the front lens element. The B+W MRC UV's have a much higher level of reflection and you will see yourself in the lens, not the front element like with the S-HMC UV. Currently Hoya's S-HMC filters are the best offering much better performace at half the price of B+W's MRC filters.

HTH

Hi Suman,

The real question for you is to decide if you really need the faster lens (and creative control options the f/2.8 lenses offer), or not. None of your bodies needs the faster f2.8 lens speed to get the best out of their AF systems like all EOS 1x family bodies do. So all of these lenses will focus about the same speed on your existing camera bodies. But if you get a better body down the road you may wish you had the faster f/2.8 lenses to take advantage of the much faster more accurate AF that only an f/2.8 or faster lens can provide on these batter bodies.

Personally if money was an issue I'd find and buy a nice used EF 70-200 2.8L for the same money as buying a new Sigma 70-200 2.8HSM. Canon's lenses are sharper than the Sigma lenses in this zoom length regardless of speed or IS. But if you don't really need what an f/2.8 lens can provide (better AF speed and accuracy with Canon's pro bodies, faster shutter speeds, better subject isolation, stronger arms and back saving you gym fees), you should seriously consider the EF 70-200 4L. The EF 70-200 4L is very sharp, lighter weight (minimal stress on the mount and body structure), and will feel much more balanced on your very lightly built bodies.

Here's the thing about the mount and body structure. While the Elan's lens mount is metal, the metal mount is screwed into a plastic body structure. All Canon pro bodies have metal mounts screwed into a metal alloy body and or mirror box to keep the lens mount and mirror box film plane in proper alignment even with heavy lenses mounted. The problem is not actual wear on the mount itself but that the plastic body structure the metal lens mount is fastened to will distort over time with a heavy load placed on the lens mount. Plastic flows under stress over time, you cannot see it and this can cause an alignment problems between the mount and film plane.

HTH