robert_turner

<p>Don, may I suggest that once one is in a hole, it is time to stop digging? Sarah is one of the most helpful and generous posters in the EOS group, and has thoughtfully participated in years of discussions. Childish and insulting commentary such as "As far as dubious practices, maybe Shaw's standards aren't as high as yours, LOL. Somehow it hasn't kept National Geographic and all kinds of other publications from running his pictures for decades." has no place here, and completely disqualifies you from opining on other's styles. "Intellectually dishonest troll..." Now that is just hilarious, doubly-so, if irony is your goal. ;-)</p>

<p>Chillax,<br>

rt<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>Hi Natalya:<br>

I think Mark's point is that it is GENERALLY appropriate to dial in overexposure when shooting at high ISOs with FF Canon bodies. In fact, that may be extrapolated to all low light shooting, at least it seems so in my experience, but more seasoned shooters may feel differently. It will be easy enough to figure out on you own. Shoot some interior, low light, ambient photos at 0 then at +1/3 to +2/3 and if necessary, pull back a bit PP. I really think you'll be amazed what your 5dmk2 is capable of.</p>

<p>I wouldn't worry about the 50mm f/1.2L. I suspect you'll really like it, unless fast focus is your bag. Most complaints I've read are indicative of folks who amazingly fail to grasp how narrow DOF is at f/1.2 to f/1.4 and feel it is the lens rather than technique. I've never owned the lens, I admit, but I borrowed one and thought it was terrific.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

rt</p>

<p> </p>

<p>With all due respect, and no offense intended, Marcus, your statement "I have owned 3 EF 50/1.4s (on the 3rd now) - 2 died early deaths due to seized AF that I couldn't operate manually, or w/ AF, and the 3rd has had it's AF seize up twice (though it miraculously restarted after being dismounted both times (?)). For such remarkable consistency to occur over the span of a decade plus strongly implies there is a<em> fundamental design weakness in the AF system</em>." doesn't mean what you think it does.<br>

Your experience, while regrettable, is anecdotal, and can not be extrapolated over a population as a whole without real statistics.<br>

I beat my EF501.4 to death and it never misbehaved, but that doesn't give me the right to decree that it is the worlds' most burly lens!<br>

rt</p>

<p>+1 to what Mark said.<br>

I took delivery of a MkIII last week, and this camera seems like a bigger difference from a MkII than the II was to the I. It is an entirely different, and entirely superior camera.<br>

And the matchup with the 35L is heavenly. </p>

<p>I've had both. The 17-35 on a EOS-1, the Tamron on a 7d. It is exceedingly difficult if not impossible to compare these lenses.<br>

So I won't.<br>

But I will say the 17-35 was the least inspiring/emotive piece of L glass I ever owned. And as you note, Canon is already two versions beyond this lens if that says anything. I would never, NEVER buy the 17-35 for an APS-C body, as my tiny brain wouldn't comprehend a viewing angle it perceives to be 28-56mm in FF lingo. The EFS 10-22, on the other hand, is a GREAT match for any Canon crop body. <br>

The Tamron was GREAT on my 7d. I sold a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 (very nice lens if rather large and seeming pricey) and never looked back. Too short a FL to really miss the IS, and IQ was just as good to my eye. WAY more portable, and doesn't sport the ridiculous lens hood Canon charges extra for.<br>

My two gripes about the Tamron:<br>

-Zoom ring operates in reverse orientation compared to Canons.<br>

-AF is NOISY/BUZZY sort of like (but different) a EF 50 f/1.8<br>

You seem to feel that IQ is crucial. I can't imagine you won't be pleased with the Tamron's. And if you don't like it, you can sell in a second (I found this out 3 weeks ago when parting out my EF-S lenses in anticipation of a 5d/III. I'd suggest not getting caught up in "L glass". That is a variable, not a constant. ;-)<br>

Robert</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yakim- I presume you were wearing earplugs? ;-)<br>

Robert</p>

<p>@David Stephens-<br>

Great post! Spot on and humorous to boot!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The biggest disappointment for me is the lack of a decent 50mm lens from Canon. The f1.8 is badly made rubbish, the f1.4 is sloppy and unreliable while the f1.2 is too big and expensive. I’m hoping they will produce an IS f1.4 using the barrel recently introduced on the new 24mm and 28mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe your wish will come to, and the new lens won't be "rubbish"! Just don't complain about the price of the 50 you request. It is pretty easy to extrapolate a reasonable price range based on the last new fixed focal length 2.8 lenses Canon just announced.</p>

<p>The 7d's focussing system is superb, but it takes some time to understand the different modes, foci points, etc.<br>

I'd strongly recommend watching these excellent Canon tutorials:<br>

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/galleries/tutorials/eos_7d_tutorials.shtml</p>

<p>Might I wonder that, at least in comparison to your wife's shot, your image seems relatively underexposed? Underexposure is often the cause of perceived sharpness issues...<br>

rt</p>

<p>Mark- not intending to hijack this thread, I'd like to add to the positive commentary of the hummer shot. Fantastic!<br>

Would you mind sharing how that shot was lit? It wasn't actually entirely ambient lighting, was it?<br>

Robert</p>

<p>While this is not a simple answer to your question, I'd like to suggest you review this:<br>

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/<br>

which is one of the most useful treatises on Canon flash photography I've ever seen.</p>

<p>Brett: You say-<br>

"5d2 has much better noise, relatively, at high ISO. "<br>

Your graph @ ISO 3200 showed this:<br>

26.0db/5D2 24.5db/7d<br>

"Much better"?<br>

1.5db.<br>

Really?<br>

I'd say- "marginally"<br>

rt</p>

<p>Dan, I'm not smart enough to be able to interpret graphs or other data suggesting the 7d isn't much different than the Xsi at higher ISOs, but having a lot of prior experience with a Xsi and 6 months with a 7d under my belt, I'll unequivocally state the 7d is clearly cleaner above ISO800. It isn't even close in my book. I have borrowed my friend's 5d2 and believe the high ISO difference between that camera and the 7d is much closer than 7d vs Xsi.<br>

I've had satisfactory results up to ISO5000, generally by overexposing a full stop and backing down in Aperture.<br>

I would not hesitate to use ISO1600 in any circumstance.</p>

<p>I'm with you Scott. And while I'm happy with the Tamron lenses I own, I certainly can't imagine them "killing" any EF or EF/L gear, no offense Geoff.<br>

I was saddened to see the lens collar is not included with the new L zoom... Seems cheap on Canon's part to me, especially when they mark these collars to over $100.... Perhaps another step towards the masses...<br>

rt</p>

<p>"dark squares in the viewfinder"<br>

Ummm, what?</p>

<p>"i sought a confirmation from a broader communitiy to my observations and I got it."<br>

Troll math?<br>

Post offending pics with EXIF data or troll elsewhere, please.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nadine, I believe that if the OP were serious and sincere, he would have posted examples of photos he believed degraded by a dysfunctional AF system, complete with EXIF data. Instead, he quotes blogs and reviews with commentary that is hardly on point.<br /> In any case, this guy seems to want to evangelize a cause, not improve his photography.<br /> Just my $0.02.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Alan, keep in mind that anecdotal reports strongly suggest Sigma has the highest degree of sample variation of major third party lens makes, and their 50mm f1.4 is notorious for variation. But your point is probably valid that the story and any conclusions are more complicated (and likely less relevant) that whatever blog fodder has been added to this endless debate.<br>

Now, I must go wash my hands, as I feel "dirty" typing in this thread... ;-)</p>

<p>I'd like to amplify on Ken's comments- yes, the focusing concept is a component of the basic tenants of photography, but you have added to the complexity by choosing a 7d. The 7d offers the most customizable and usable focusing methods I've yet to see, but you must spend time acquainting yourself with the different modes and understand the time and place for each technique. I found the Canon tutorials on the first link here to be invaluable, a general overview is found on the second link. <br>

Stick with the 7d- once you figure it out, you'll love it. And keep in mind, DOF at 1.4 is TINY!<br>

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3167<br>

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3049&productID=329&articleTypeID=5<br>

Good luck,<br>

Robert</p>

<p>Apologies if this isn't precisely on point, but you may find this dated comparison of the 1ds (when it was originally introduced) and a Pentax 67II (and various methods of scanning) rather interesting.<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml</p>

<p>The Tamron is a great lens and a bargain. I've used both the Canon and the Tamron on my 7d and the Tamron compares well at all focal lengths and apertures, and is the one I bought. Tests at www.the-digital-picture.com and commentary at lensrentals.com back this up. Feel free to use the photo.net search function as well, and you will find many favorable reports from users here.<br>

I especially appreciate the size difference of the Tamron vs the Canon. Niggles? AF is louder than the Canon for sure. And, the "reverse" turn for zoom takes some getting used to. But the cash I saved buying the Tamron turned into a EF 50/f1.4 so I'm very satisfied. You'll find nothing "low quality" about it, and I'd bet that it is superior to the Tokina in IQ.</p>