evan_gatehouse1

<p>I have had a 17-55 since 2007. According to Lightroom, over 10,000 exposures with it. I've been using it in Mexico for the past 10 months. Mexico is a dusty place. Maybe not as dusty as India, but sometimes pretty bad. I do use a UV or Polarizing filter on it but it's not babied. It rides in a backpack, gets banged in buses, etc.<br>

There's a very little bit of dust inside it, but the same staggering image quality has not changed since I got it. I think you will be pleased with it.</p>

<p>What about a kayaker type dry bag? Quite cheap (about 20-40$) and can be stowed inside your regular camera bag after you get ashore. The Dryzone is nice, but heavy and hard to get into. <br>

I figure the most likely chance of getting your camera wet is getting into/out of a small boat. If you are taking pictures from the boat, splashes can happen but a waterproof bag isn't going to help you then!</p>

Dpreviews "Recommended" rating should be taken with a grain of salt. I've read camera reviews where the reviewer says basically the camera sucks, and they still get a "Recommended". Read the text; ignore the "Recommended"

Can't you just fill out a form saying "lost in combat (or training exercises)" :)

I shot our daughter on film. B&W 3200 ISO with a 50 1.8. We had a hospital birth, but not in a "operating room" style delivery room. Very low light levels.

 

Flash probably won't be appreciated by your wife, and certainly not the baby. Shoot F2.8, ISO 1600 or 3200. The IS will save your butt. Use RAW. Don't use full auto. The actual delivery shots in B&W were a good idea - reduces the appearance of blood etc. and was much appreciated. Colour worked well once the baby was a bit more awake and nursing.

 

You'll be shaking a bit if you were anything like me!

There are a few older L lenses that parts are no longer available:

 

500 F/4.5

 

80-200 F/2.8

 

Any others?

I'm a little confused by your budget: "ideally no more than 600 for the main zoom" but then you're considering a 24-105 + 10-22?

 

My wife is a writer and I shoot a lot of travel pictures to accompany her stories that are typically published in magazines. We borrowed a 17-85 from a friend and got comments back from the photo editor that it was unacceptably soft in the corners at wide angles. The slow maximum aperture hurt too. I agreed with the editor by the way.

 

So we got a 17-55/2.8 IS. We love it. It's sharp wide open and I never stop down for sharpness reasons, only DOF. It is the ideal mid range zoom on a 1.6x crop camera I think.

 

Sometimes I feel the need to go wider (equivalent to 24mm on full frame), but for now the 27mm equivalent is o.k. I would have loved this lens to be a 15-55 but you can't have everything. Since 80-90% of our photos are taken in this focal range, this is where to spend the money IMO.

 

For wider shots I would like a Canon 10-22, but it would be seldom used lens I know, and the bag is heavy enough with the other lens and a flash.

 

For long shots we accept the weight penalty of a 70-200/4 and 1.4x extender. This is mostly used for wildlife, portraits, and landscapes. I like the suggestion for the 100/2 to get a bit more reach in your case, or also consider the 200/2.8 or 70-300 IS. The white lens does attract a bit of attention when shooting. (This can be good or bad)

It's a scam. I googled the text of the message (when somebody keeps saying "Item" instead of 5D or camera, it reeks of cut and paste doesn't it)

 

http://chrisbeggs.wordpress.com/2007/08/08/almost-scammed-cont/

This is sort of a related question to the announcement about PhotoShelter.

 

My wife is a travel writer and we both take photos for her stories. We plan to

set out sailing on an extended offshore sailing trip next year. When in out of

the way places with little or no internet access, email communication will be

via ham radio and VERY SLOW email modem. Think maximum 1200 baud folks! So

sending editors pictures that way isn't possible. Sometimes editors come back

to her at the last minute and say "we need a picture of XXXXX".

 

We would like the ability to upload pictures to a website when we're in places

that do have fast connections (Wi-Fi in a marina or internet cafes). Her

current business website host only has plans to host up to 1 GB/$100 year or so.

That's not enough. And frankly we'd have to figure out how to password protect

galleries and create thumbnails for every image etc. So this isn't a good solution.

 

Other travel writers have suggested remote hosting of their images. Then, you

point the editor to the appropriate galleries, send them a password, and they

can browse thumbnails to their hearts content. Website automates the process

enough that all we have to do is upload images and perhaps keyword tagging. I'm

thinking say 50 GB as a starting point for images so we can upload a lot of

stock stuff we already have, as well as room for growth in the next few years.

 

Any recommendation from working photographers that use this sort of service?

 

Thanks,

 

Evan Gatehouse

How about a digital SLR with a large capacity microdrive? Take the shots in JPEG format, low enough resolution to be sufficient for your needs. Maybe you would need a small dedicated battery to power the camera and shutter release timing mechanism. I'm no digital camera guy, so others may be able to advise how many shots you could fit on a microdrive. Is this to be an unattended operation by the way?

While travelling in Mexico, my Tamron 24-70/3.3-5.6 zoom lens died. I bought a 35-80/4.5-5.6 in desperation to replace it (it was also quite cheap). A nasty piece of glass it was. I traded it in on a new Tamron zoom when I returned to Vancouver.

 

I now have a 24-85 and find it a fair bit better than the Tamron (especially in focus speed) and overall sharpness. It will be a lot better than your 35-80 lens.

You asked what a 70-200/4 L gives you on 8"x10"'s that your 100-300 doesn't?

 

It's killer sharp, and very good wide open. From the very first cheap 4x6 proof prints I shot with it, I could see a difference. The contrast is very good and really provides that "3d" look.

 

Having used a 75-300 zoom previously, that was plenty soft by 300mm, I don't miss the reach too much. I was only at 300mm for animal shots, and I think I'll pick up a 1.4X TC if I want a bit more reach down the road.

For focusing, make sure that little green light is steady in the viewfinder and you're not too close to the subject.

 

Wait for the camera to take the picture - it's hard sometimes to tell when the camera actually takes the shot.

 

Hold it steady if using it indoor without flash. I've braced myself against furniture and walls and doorframes with good success.

I tried my A2E with a 70-200 F4L lens at B&H on the following tripods:

 

Bogen 3001

Velbon EFL-4 (4 legs)

Velbon EL-3A (the adjustable leg, higher model with center column down; there is some confusion on B&H's website as which is which is EFL-3A and which is EL-3A)

 

Didn't try it on the Maxi 343 - it was very wobbly compared to the other 3 tripods, even before you added a camera.

 

The Bogen was certainly the sturdiest. It was also ~1 lb heavier and lower with center column down.

 

The EL-3A was nearly as sturdy. The EL-4A was not.

 

I picked the EL-3A because it was the lighter than the 3001 and tallest with center column down (I'm 6'2"). If weight is not a concern I would only pick the 3001.

Yes, it's out of warranty, about 2 years old.

 

No, I wouldn't sell it to anybody, just wouldn't want to screw somebody else with. It still makes a decent loupe :)

 

The moral of the story - test all your lenses when you get them! I didn't because my wife was quite pregnant, then the baby came etc. etc. and I just didn't take the time to do it.

 

Thanks all for your thoughts.

I've had my suspicions about my 50mm 1.8 MkII lens for some time.

 

I got back a roll of Christmas pictures and almost all were out of

focus. Generally the focus point was in the foreground, about 1-2'

away from people 10' away. Foreground objects that were clearly in

focus were at the edge of the frame, NOT near the autofocus points.

 

Other shots were just plain fuzzy. Virtually all were shot with pop

up flash, F4 1/60 sec. Camera is an A2E. No other lenses that I own

have this type of problem so I don't think it's camera related.

 

I decided to shoot a roll of slide film as a first test of the lens.

Taped newspaper to a wall, camera on decent tripod, mirror pre-fire,

etc. Results:

 

1.8 - pretty soft

2.8 - still soft, slight improvement

4 - improvement is noted, but still not acceptable

5.6 - almost o.k.

8,11 - reasonable

16 - getting softer again

 

With the same roll of film, I tested a Tamron 24-70 F3.3-5.6. This

isn't a super lens, but it's given me some publishable shots when

well stopped down. At 50mm, with this lens wide open (F4.5), it was

sharper than the Canon at F4. This was not a huge surprise, given

recent results. I haven't dropped or otherwise banged the Canon. So

I'm looking for advice:

 

- attempt to get the lens checked or repaired (maybe more costly than

replacement?)

- test again, with targets at different distance from lens to see if

it's just focusing at the wrong distance?

- clean the contacts (they look fine)?

 

Thanks in advance for any advice.

I suspect that the available repair parts are the "top deck". That's the part that I had replaced when my command dial failed. It contains the command dial, flash, LCD, shutter button, main dial, etc. I think the easiest thing to do is call a local camera repair shop that deals with Canons, and describe the problem. Ask for a quote on the repair.

 

When my top deck was repaired, it was ~$250 Cdn. for parts + labor (ouch).

 

If you could find a dead Eos 5, and were really handy with fine tools and a soldering iron, you might DIY but it wouldn't be too easy.

I just tried London Drugs for a 5x7 Frontier print from a slide (just a test to see how it would do). Film was Velvia or Provia 100, can't recall which. Very nice results and much better than a typical interneg (which always seemed to have low contrast and muddy colors).

 

London Drugs sometimes have sales on where cost of prints from slides is the same as prints from negs. Then it gets down to $0.39 or $0.59 for a 4x6.

For wildlife, a 200mm long lens is generally too short, unless you're in a zoo with large mammals. I figure 300mm is really needed most of the time.

 

For portraits, the 100 & 135 will both do a fine job. They will be too short for any wildlife.

 

The 70-200/4L does a good job with portraits too, though the F4 means that if the background is too close (say 5-6'), it may be more defined than you would like. I tend to take portraits outdoors with this lens, so it's easy to find a more distant background.

 

With a 1.4X teleconverter, you can take wildlife pictures as a 280mm / F5.6. It's image quality is great and build is L series so lots of metal and feels solid. Having the ability to zoom is very nice. I really like this lens

Personally I would try out both lenses on the camera. See what the difference in field of view is between 24 and 28 (a fair bit). Now compare 85 to 105mm. Not that much differnce - so I'd pick the 24-85 for landscapes.

 

No doubt the film was Fuji Velvia. It is very super saturated and has that eye popping color. But it's slow (ISO 50), and many rate it at 40. On overcast days it might be a bit slow with those lenses. So you might want to take some other faster slide films:

 

I shoot Fuji slides and my mini review is:

 

Fuji Provia 100 = a pro film, less saturated than Velvia but still very nice and very fine grained. Will be a lot better for people pictures because Velvia tends to give people pretty weird complexions.

 

Fuji Sensia 100 = an amateur film that has a more muted palette and is the consumer version of Fuji Astia. Maybe not for you if you want those over the top colors?

 

Kodak has a 100VS (very saturated)? slide film that's like Velvia but I haven't used it.

See a very good comparison of tripods at:

 

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2gkrc/Tripod-Test.html

 

I have a Bogen 3001/Manfrotto 190 and a Velbon Chaser EF(L?)-3A. Both are pretty good inexpensive and light tripods.

 

The Bogen is about 3.8 lbs and the Velbon is 3.1 lbs. The Velbon has a split center column so you can shave a bit more weight off.

 

The Velbon is much taller at 51-1/4" with the center column down vs. 46" for the Bogen. The Bogen seems much more durable for long term use/abuse than the Velbon. I've already got a small dent in one top tube of the Velbon where it got pushed against the center column support (poor design BTW) during shipping.

 

Both seem equally steady with a Canon EOS A2E/70-200 F4L lens mounted on a Velbon PH-263 Heavy Duty Magnesium Ballhead with Quick Release (very light too at 0.72 lbs by the way).

 

The Velbon combination is < 4 lbs and is plenty tall for me (I'm 6'1").

 

If you're hiking or travelling, sort of tall, and saving weight is important then I would pick the Velbon. If you're short, and tend to abuse your stuff, then I'd go for the Bogen.

 

Evan Gatehouse