anthony_thornborough1

<p>It's the passage of time that endows my 1980s photos with a another quality all of their own.<br>

I suspect that doing the same now, with any reasonable lens that was not intrusive, would do it for future years.<br>

What Jon K is saying is that a 28 /1.8 or 24 f/2.8 would be better for lack of "at you" size</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I love my 4-5 yr-old 24-70L but it can be chunky and obtrusive, and that's without the lens hood!<br>

When accomplishing street photography in the early 1980s I only had 35mm and 70mm options only, and the results have become more astonishing with time.<br>

I think I might get a 35 f/1.4 L to go with the 85 LII and use just those at times, on the basis that the shots will be better in 2035, for my grandchildren's sake anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>using 120 roll film is cool, charismatic but nothing on digital, unless you have you have the support facilities.<br>

using digital is cooler, and my MF gear is really a display piece, like my wife's glassware.</p>

 

<p>repeat, apologies!</p>

<p>wow! stream of consciousness!<br>

I have mamiya 645<br>

I have EOS 3 film camera<br>

I use Canon EOS D40 + 5D MkII<br>

What I use says it all<br>

Tony T</p>

<p>I took the 5DII on hols for a week with a 24-70 f/2.8 L earlier this month and it performed flawlessly in bright day and hand-held relatively low light conditions (restaurant interiors, and street lighting ). I actually found it much easier to use than than the 40D and the exposure system yielded consistently better results, but it's just possible that the AF was slightly more demanding to get just right - though if such was true I'd be inclined to put that down to using the 24-70, rather than the 17-40 f/4 L which was my normal 40D optic and which behaves like a 28-65 point-and-shoot with the 40D's APS-C sensor. <br>

Mmm, interesting. I'll have to check out the 5DII with wider and longer optics soon.</p>

<p>I use the 5DII and 85LII and the combination is great, albeit heavy.<br>

The slow focus is more than compensated for by the accuracy of focus, no doubt aided by the wide aperture.<br>

I now realise I need a 35 f/1.4, but am hoping for a mark II with SWC coating etc etc<br>

Cheers </p>

<p>I use the 5DII and 85LII and the combination is great, albeit heavy.<br>

The slow focus is more than compensated for by the accuracy of focus, no doubt aided by the wide aperture.<br>

I now realise I need a 35 f/1.4, but am hoping for a mark II with SWC coating etc etc<br>

Cheers </p>

<p>I own a 40D and 3 and want a 5DII - cash - but don't know where the prices are moving !</p>

<p>This is the age-old dilemna of APS-C sensors. As soon as you go FF you are back into what was the 35mm film focal range, and if you didn't come from there you are having to choose between a better body and better lenses.<br>

You need to say what lenses you use, and devise a deliberate strategy of APS-C or FF DSLR.<br>

If I was moving up I would get a 17-40L and 85 f.1.8 (28-65 and 135 equivalent) & 430 or 580 EX: ie quality lenses + a respectable Speedlite.<br>

If I was making enough as a photographer then I would bite the rein and get a FF DSLR.<br>

Quickly enough, I would add a 24-70 f/2.8 L.<br>

Add an EF12 ET extension tube to make the 85 a close-up lens for shoelaces, cake details etc. (That works better than a macro for normal close-ups, believe me)<br>

I would then, all continuing well, add either an 85 f/1.2LII for its magic, or a 70-200 f/4 IS L for its versatility.<br>

Another DSLR would then become necessary.<br>

An accountant who could ammortise the costs against tax would my next step.<br>

Then I would wonder why I gave up the day job!</p>

 

<p>I was momentarily wobbling towards the Nikon D700 and nano-coated Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, but as I have the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L and bunch of other L-series glass I guess the 5DII is better for me.<br>

There will be a 5DIII or something similar and more SWC-coated L-series optics from Canon before long and then I'd be kicking myself in the rear for changing to Nikon, had such a change been made.<br>

My only qualm about the 5DII is whether prices will go down given the messed-up international monetary system, as I usually can wait for the latest toys for a year or more and only buy a body on a 4-5 yerar interval.</p>

<p>This lens was my favourite until I got an EOS 40D and wound up using a 17-40L most of the time.<br>

I am looking forward to using the 24-70L again when I get an EOS 5DII (soon) but am waiting for a MkII with SWC coating otherwise may just start shifting towards Nikon and a D700 + 24-70 f/2.8.<br>

The Canon's prettier to use and hold - but it's a close thing!</p>

<p>Tom,<br>

Buy an 85 F/1.2 LII instead and explore its wonders.<br>

Tony T</p>

If she keeps it up she's in for Mamiya 645 Pro TL, with 45 f/2.8, 50 f/4 Shift, 80 f/1.9 and 150 f/3.5, though that's more of a dad's collector item now! I wish I used it more often, but never do...!

 

Tony T

I gave away my old EOS 5 / VG10 combo to an art student friend of my current partner, so my daughter is getting

the EOS 3, 380EX, Canon 50 f/1/.4, Sigma 24 f/1.8 EX and Canon 85 f/1.8 - the wide and portrait following any initial

enthusiasm with the standard prime.

 

I've decided to keep the 24-70L!

 

Cheers

 

Tony T

My EOS 3 is now sadly redundant as I use a DSLR but my daughter needs a film camera because the study module is broader than just current photography per se - and she has a Canon digital compact already.

 

The EOS 3 + 50 f/1.4, which I can spare, seems like the best option to me.

 

Thanks for your answers everyone,

 

Tony T

She drops it once, and that's that.

Should I consider just giving her the 50 f/1.4 ?

But that would severely limit her range.

I'd rather she had a range of focal lenths, and a decent aperture to start with

Dilemma!

 

Tony T

My 16-17 yr old daughter is studying photojournalism and I was thinking of giving her an old EOS 3 (with/without

PBE2 booster) and 24-70 f/2.8 L.

 

She’s quite petite. Is this too much camera for her to handle?

 

Answers from Dads (and Moms) only please!

 

Tony T

Wait for inevitable MkII version with SWC nano technology, and use the f/1.4 version for now.

I also am considering the 28 f/1.8 as a grab-shot lens to complement the 85 f/1.8 and 17-40 f/4 L used on the 40D, for winter town shots.

 

Is it worth it? Or am I just better off fiddling about with some of the 1000 ISO grab shots I get on a 40D using the 17-40 f/4 L?

 

Tony T<div></div>

"40D and 50D are better constructed and built than the EOS-3"

 

Rubbish. They are comparable, but the DSLRs also fall into the slighty-fragile category. The '3 was tough.

 

Am disappointed with my 40D next to the old film 3, but that's probably more to do with finding the 17-40 L turning into a 28-65 equivalent, and losing gain on my 24-70 L.

 

I would suggest the 5DII route.

If there's a new 24-105 IS L or 24-70 L it's probably the same lens(es) but with Canon's new SWC coating on one or more internal elements to improve contrast/sharpness with DSLR cameras. Certainly a welcome move.

Regarding 35mm film, the smell of it and the contemplation of results, good or bad, which will be sorely missed and

is made a thing of the past by such wonders as the 5DII.

 

Re: DSLR, not much; except that the 40D's 1.6x somewhat retrograded my w/a photopgraphy back to 1986 and the

FF 5DII will restore the halcyon days of EOS in the 1990s - yes please!

 

Now what to do with the Mamiya 645 stuff?! On a glass shelf to remind myself daily of past but joyful youthful folly?!

 

The price/quality intersection has finally arrived at the right price-point (whatever that was ever supposed to mean

back in the days of pre-prosumer photopgraphy)

EF 24-70 f/2.8 USM L, but It's big and I wished Canon made a compact and bijoux f/4 L version.

And I don't mean a new 24-105 f/4 LIS, which is about as big.

Maybe with full frame getting a leg-up and percolating down at the same time there will, eventually, be something like

a 24-85 f/4 L which doesn't stick its nose out too far.

 

Just dreaming...!

 

I have the 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/2.8 L and 70-200 f/4 LIS and am am delighted but find that Canon always goes too big

with the mid-range zoom lenses; I'd also say they ought to do an 85 f/1.4 L, and similarly non cannonball 28 f/1.4 L.

 

It maybe that manual focus Carl-Zeiss ZE's range takes up the challenge with a MF ZE 24-70 f/4-whatever ?

Their 85 f/1.4 ZE looks particularly tempting!