rob_ewart

Whatever you do, don't buy from Adorama. In my experience, they are nothing but bad news. I ordered a $1500 Leica lens, paid duties on it, and upon opening the box found a useless Olympus camera body worth (in theory) $100.

 

Further, the lens that they claimed to be sending me on the invoice wasn't even the lens I had ordered (as it turned out, they did not even have the lens that they claimed to be selling me).

 

This story could go on, but suffice it to say that they are bad news. I advise you to steer clear.

 

 

For my part, I have a hasselblad 50CF fle and love it. I just got a 180CF and so far have been very impressed.

As the previous poster noted, changing the aperture does affect the optical output of the lens. The shutter speed has no impact whatsoever on the optical quality of the lens. If you have a perfectly stabilised lens, and are always allowing the right amount of light for proper exposure (through your selection of aperture and shutter speed), the shutter speed will not be a variable in the quality of your picture (though subject matter may have to change).

 

Remember that with longer shutter speeds you need to take into account reciprocity failure - this might be the source of your confusion on this matter.

 

As initially stated, your question does not make sense, and it would seem you are barking up the wrong tree. I second the note that you should likely get a book on photography and/or optics and read it.

 

Regards,

 

RE

I opted for the 300 f4 IS for the IS, and the fact that it becomes essentially a 420 f 5.6 *with IS* when coupled with the teleconverter. I have found the autofocus in that configuration to be ample for any animal and sports photography I have done (I too photograph mostly architecture and landscape.)

 

I also enjoy using the 300 for pseudo-macro work. I have the 100 for when I am really serious, but the 300 gives a much more comfortable working distance.

 

Re the "more is better" comment re. focal length and animal photography - I have always thought that the difference between a 300 and a 400 on 1.4 is not more significant than I was willing to crop - granted, cropping is not the best solution, but when taken into account with the above other respective points, well, it is obvious how it all weighed in for me.

 

RE

For about the same price at the Hoya super you can get a B+W (at least they are the same price in Canada). The B+W has the benefit of coming with its own cap. On the super C-Pols, they are very slim (to avoid vignetting on ultra-wide lenses), and you will not be able to use your canon lens cap with it on the front. The lens cap requires the depth of the thread to 'grab' on to.

 

The B+W is also a little better from what I have read, tho' my experience with Hoya supers has been nothing short of terrific.

Do you mean <b>1Ds MarkII</b>? Or did you indeed mean the older <b>1Ds</b> (which you can still get new from Canon)?

 

I would say that the MarkII cameras are worth getting over the earlier generation if for no other reason than the really low noise at higher ISOs. 8 Megapixels will be unnoticeable at 8x10, although if you need to do cropping you'll have less leeway. Were you printing much larger, or needed the extra resolution, the older 1Ds will grant you these options for around the same price as the 1DMkII.

The one red pixel is what is called a hot pixel. I have no idea what Canon's policy is on how many pixels it takes to warrant a replacement card/camera, and whether one hot pixel would do it.

 

As for the speck, a picture would help, but the easiest thing to guess is that it is dust. I find that sometimes the content of the image will make dust more apparent in some shots and almost invisible in others.

 

As for your only having got the camera a month ago, it took me about a month and a half before I got some dust on my sensor. I cleaned it, and now it has been four months with nothing.

 

R

What about the EF-S 60mm macro, which, with crop factor, acts as a 100mm...quite a bit cheaper than the 100. Only catch is that it would only fit to the 20D.

 

I concede however that a greater working distance would be nicer. I find the 100 a little close most of the time. If you can, the 180 is marvellous, but much more expensive.

Hi,

 

In this instance, I would disagree with Yakim's comment about only getting the digital body. I think for indoor work, digital has really surpassed film in many ways, but for outdoor stuff, film's colour is still much nicer (tho' I suppose this depends on how much post processing you are interested in doing).

 

As for the 1V vs 3. When I switched from Nikon, I went to the 3. I was thrilled with it. And I do not regret for a day getting rid of it for the 1V (also HS). It is a bit hard to justify the switch. The changes are subtle, and perhaps hard to justify cost-wise.

 

As far as ruggedness and weather proofing, the 3 was ample. I have used it in snowstorms and in rain, and it does not flinch. The 1V is reputed to have even better weather-sealing, but I saw nothing wrong with 3's.

 

The big thing for me was mirror blackout time, which on the 1V is phenomenally short (noticeably shorter than on 3). My 1DmkII is comparable, though perhaps even a little shorter (not certain how it compares to 1Ds mk II).

 

The Eye Focus Control on the 3 was a waste of time in my mind. I had had some success with EFC on an Elan 7E, but on the 3 I never got it to work reliably, and never actually used it in the field.

 

Lastly, my most trivial thing, I find the buttons on the 1V much nicer and easier to use than on the 3. I have farely large fingers, and a few of the buttons on the 3 are recessed, whereas all of the 1V's buttons are the rounded ones that stick up a titch. I find them easer to reach for and push. They are exactly the same as the 1D-series. The 1V also has the handy feature of being able to jump back to a predetermined focus point, generally set to be the centre. This means that when you have some random focus point(s) selected, you can in a hurry jump back to being set to the middle focus point.

 

It was for all of these reasons that I have much preferred my 1V.

 

Welcome to Canon. Enjoy!

 

Regards,

 

R

 

P.S. "HS" just means that the camera comes with the PB-E2, and does not include the smaller horizontal grip. You can effectively make an EOS 3 "HS" by just throwing a PB-E2 on it. I have never shot with either camera without the PB-E2, mostly because I do not find the added weight cumbersome at all, and find the familiar feel of all my camera bodies comforting when switching on the fly.

Though I've not tried either, for my part I am leaning toward 24/1.4 or 35 1/4.

 

I have done some weddings with your two lenses and a 50/1.4. I found the gap between 40 and 70 to be an often desired focal length. despite being bridged with 50mm, it is quite cumbersome switching (especially with digital, where you want to turn off the camera so as not to get dust on the sensor). I have since switched to doing weddings with 24-70 and 70-200, and am contemplating the 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 for the group shots.

 

Hope this is of some use.

 

Regards.

 

R

Focal length has nothing to do with the distance at which the lens is focused. 80mm and 105mm refers (obviously) to focal length. The distance information that your lens does not transmit is that the lens is focused at, say, 1 metre, or 5 metres etc.

If he's not adverse to Canon, why not try seeking out a 1D (I doubt you'd find it new). That way you get an older (and therefore cheaper) body, but not at the expense of resolution (as with getting the D1H) or frame rate.

 

R

I only quickly read this series of posts, and thought I would add a couple more differences between L and non-L.

 

At the wider end, L means an upgrade to USM, and always means full-time manual focus capability. L generally means that the lens contains a UD glass element (low dispersion glass - very expensive to make), although this does not hold true for the 35 1.4 or the 85 1.2. In the case of these two, there is an aspherical lens element where the non-L lenses contain none.

 

Again, how worthwhile the above is to you, only you can judge.

 

Regards,

R

I have both the 70-200 and the 100 Macro. The 100 is especially slow at focusing if you do not restrict the focus to >=4.8m. When trudging through the closer focusing region it does move very slowly. (AF is certainly not intended for use in macro work with this lens.) Once you have constrained the focusing range, I find it is quite fast.

 

Overall, I am very pleased with both lenses' optical quality. I got the 70-200 first, and I think that it has been the most rewarding lens in my arsenal (perhaps, in part, because all I had at the time was a 28-80, not the most exciting focal range in my opinion). The 100 macro was acquired after for its macro ability, and also to have a nice prime, portrait lens, and to those ends it has served me terrifically.

 

I have never tried the 85/1.8.

 

Regards,

R

Yeah tried it out today...it really doesn;t work well at all. Sorry for the original misinformation.

I would assume that it would be ok at higher zoomed-in ranges (never tried). If I am able to, I will try it out today.

 

My only experience was just in playing with the 12-20 on an F80, but I did not actually have any film in the camera. Everything went through the motions alright though.

 

 

Rob

At the wide end of the zoom's range you will see the image circle creep into the frame. At 18 you should see the better part of the circle, with black in the corners of the frame.

That arrangement (550 + 420) will require having 550 on camera, or connected. Another option is to get another 420 and the ST-E2 speedlight transmitter. The combination would be a little bit more expensive than just a 550 but at the same time a little bit more versatile.

 

Here is some info on it: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=164264&is=REG

I would second the A80 recommendation. You get essentially the same features as the S45 (discontinued 4MP of S5). The Ixus line has no manual features (save exposure compensation), and if you (pl) are coming from SLR-land where you are used to manual input, you will find it rather prohibitive. The Ixus line is smaller however - that is its main raison d'être. For my part, I do not find it that much smaller, and when using A80, I usually last a mere three or four shots before I need to change to one of the manual modes.

 

A80 does not have a RAW format.

Re. Bob Atkins' post: The 70-200/4 is a mere .2 lbs heavier - not that significant...over the non-IS, however, the L lens is .5 lbs heavier - much more of a deal.

 

I have often thought of the 70-200/4 as the amateur's L; It is the least expensive of the L lenses, and is certainly regarded (I would agree) as one of the pinnacles of the Canon lineup. The non-amateur/more professional version would be one of the 2.8s (IS or not). The most significant difference is the added stop, *not* improved optics.

 

Aside: Response to Jim Mueller's "L". It does stand for 'Luxury', at least officially. Against your alternate theory, neither the 35/1.4L, 85/1.2L, nor the TS-E 24/3.5L contain any Low dispersion glass elements, while some non-Ls (viz the afore-mentioned DO lenses, as well as MP-E65) do.

 

Anyhow, I have nought but praise for the optics of the 70-200 and would take it over the IS any day. Having had a non-IS equivalent of that lens and comparing photographs from it, it is almost a world of difference. (I use film it should be noted, not digital - re Bob's cropping comment) While I was happy enough with it at the time, the 70-200 is that much better.

 

That being said, I have yet to own an IS lens, and am anxious to sometime soon...it does seem like quite a fun and useful tool.

 

As for usefulness of IS, it is somewhat shrunk given that with a quick scroll through the menu you can change iso (I second Shachar). That combined with fast lens makes the 70-200 that much more capable, in my opinion

 

Anyhow, good luck in making your decision. Either way, I don't doubt that you will derive much enjoyment from your lens (although I would suggest a little bit more enjoyment from the L)

 

Regards,

Rob

"so something like the EOS 3 wouldn't really cut it."

To my knowledge the EOS 3 has the same degree of weather sealing as the 1.

One site that I quite enjoy is the following:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

 

It gives very concise opinions on just about every current lens in the Canon line.

 

Here are some other sites that have a limited number of longer reviews:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

 

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

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/

 

Hope some of these were helpful.

 

Regards,

 

Rob

Re. Ed's comment: the EOS 3 does not have a built-in eyepiece shutter.

PB-E2 also has the Flash Exposure Lock button on it.

 

All in all, it makes vertical handling a lot easier for adjusting things.

For one, the E1 only has an exposure lock button and of course the shutter release button (and a lock on the shutter release). The E2 offers these same buttons plus a dial to change shutter speed or select focusing points, as well as the button to select the focusing points.

 

They take different battery packs. Beyond that, I do not think there is a difference and so far as I know the compatability is equivalent. These last two points I am not absolutely certain about however.

 

Regards

R

So far, weatherproofing on my EOS 3 has been top notch. I bravely (foolishly) took it out in a snowstorm and it performed just fine! It was snowy enough that whenever I wanted to look at the display on the top of the camera, I had to first wipe all the snow off of it (just an indication of how much snow the camera saw). I have not taken the camera out in heavy rainfall.

 

I seem to remember reading that the EOS 3 and 1V have improved weatherproofing over older models. I too was contemplating between the two bodies (I also do mostly landscape/nature photography) and decided on the 3. I forget what exactly the deciding factors ended up being, but I have never regretted the decision.

 

Regards,

Rob