willie_ju1

<p>For the flash on a bracket, use Canon's OCSC. To control the flash on a stand, why not use the built-in wireless feature? No need for PWs. Is this outdoors?</p>

<p>Before mr goes and tattoos on his arm that "perspective ONLY depends on . . . distance," let's elaborate it further. Perspective isn't only <em>how</em> we see something, it's also <em>what</em> we see. It depends on one's <em>relative position</em>, of which distance is one component. If both you and I are exactly 10 feet in front of a subject, with me standing next to you, my image will have a slightly different pespective from yours. If I'm 10 feet behind the subject, I'll get quite a different perspective. Kelly alluded to this when he mentioned "vantage point," but its emphasis was somehow lost in this thread. So, folks, it's not just distance; think vectors. And as far as relative positions go, no two are alike.</p>

<p>Unless the ceremony was delayed by two hours or so, I think you were cutting it a little too close by not being ready for lower lighting. Besides the lower lighting, I think the problem is more fundamental: You weren't ready for a lot of things.</p>

<p>Next time you find yourself in a similar situation:</p>

<p>1. Focus the lens manually.</p>

<p>2. Have a tripod available. You can get many shots where the subjects aren't moving much.</p>

<p>3. Always have your bag beside you (though in this case I doubt a 50 f/1.8 would have helped at "night time").</p>

<p>4. Are you using cameras from two different manufacturers? Why couldn't you have used the speedlight on your backup camera? You would still have had to focus manually.</p>

<p>Oh, and are your 1000ws strobes battery-powered? If not, how would you use them in the middle of a golf course? But even if you had used your strobes, you still have had to focus manually.</p>

They are not fixed apertures. Those are the maximum aperture values for each lens. On variable maximum aperture lenses, the max aperture depends on focal length.

If you must have something in a fixed 40-45mm focal length, a 35mm on a 1D Mark II N would be equivalent to 44mm.

Steve,

 

Do you know if the AF versions of the 45, 75, and 150 are of a newer design, with improvements similar to those found in the 67 series?

"Won't that allow light in from the corners?"

 

I don't have a problem with that... ^___^

I find the blinking useful as it helps keep infants staring at the camera since I'm not behind it making ridiculous sounds.

May I suggest the 50 f/1.4? On the 20D, it's an 80mm f/1.4. Perfect for inside and outside. It's not an L but it's sharp enough.

Jean-Phillipe,

 

I know you said you used the top focusing point, but it's not clear wether or not you had to tilt the camera slightly upward to focus then recompose. Given the shallow DOF at f/2.8, if you did tilt it up to focus and then tilted down to recompose, the plane of focus will have moved rearward of the subject. How much rearward depends on the degree of tilt.

 

I'm not quite sure what you meant by parallax error. Parallax error is caused by a difference in the viewing axes of the viewfinder and of the taking lens. By nature of design, SLRs are immune to parallax error. If you used an off-center focusing point **to avoid tilting**, then never mind.

 

If you didn't tilt, then subject movement (front-aft) would be suspect. Were they standing or sitting? Are the images vertical or horizontal?

I've always gotten my rebates (1N $100 in 1995, 70-200mm f/2.8L $100 in 2002, 85mm f/1.8 $15 in 2003, and PBE2 $50 in 2004). I heard some horror stories from other people but, in general, yes you can trust them.

Oh, and you can add the teleconverter to the 135.

"Can I add that I have a 1.4X to connect to the 135mm and create an almost 200mm to fill the gap."

 

Not exactly the gap I had in mind...but anyway, I have the 135 2.0 and 200 2.8. In most cases, the difference is minor. Can't tell a thing from looking at photos, so I don't think you'll miss much between 135 and 300, unless you need to move closer but can't.

Joseph,

 

For a three-lens system, there's an awful big gap between the 135 and whatever you choose. I would say go for the 35 if you have no plans on getting something in the mid range. 35/135/300 could work...The 35 isn't very wide; it may not be wide enough for sweeping landscapes, but for group and environmental portraits, it's a good f.l.

He wasn't asking about the F5. Unlike the F5, the F6 doesn't have a built-in drive booster.

 

The two combos (1V & 24-70 or F6 & 28-70) are virtually equal. Consider the rest of the lens line-up & flash system. There are some differences but none that will hinder your day-to-day work.

What you want to search for is MTBF - mean time between failures.

I had the 100/2 for a while. I ended up replacing it with the 135/2 because it was soft and had low contrast. Is yours like that? A few years later, I bought the 85/1.8. Maybe I had a bad 100/2, but my 85 has better contrast and slightly better sharpness than the 100/2 I sold. The difference in sharpness though could be because I almost always used the 100 at f/2 but the 85 is almost always stopped down to f/2. But optical performance aside, the 85 gives me extremely pleasing head and shoulder portraits because of the slightly smaller (ideal?) working distance.

 

I also had a 20 and 28, both of which I sold. I wasn't happy with them, but I doubt the 17-40 will be any better. Your decision will come down to versatility vs. weight.

"Jim mentioned perspective as a factor of focal length."

 

Jim goes to great length relating working distance with perspective. Nowhere is he relating focal length with perspective.

 

"For product shots (where everything is at a reletively uniform distance) that is usually a factor of lens distortion."

 

Again, perspective is not a property of the lens.

Jim's talking about perspective distortion, which isn't a property of the lens. No lens can "correct" for that.

David, if you wanted to find out whether it was worth keeping it, a more proper comparison would have been to your other 200mm, the 2.8L.

The 550ex has a "macro" mode where the flash head tilts 7 degrees downward for macro shots. Depending on subject distance and coverage, there could be uneven illumination. Try a few shots again making sure the flash head is horizontal (0 degrees).

The 550ex has a "macro" mode where the flash head tilts 7 degrees downward for macro shots. Depending on subject distance and coverage, there could be uneven illumination. Try a few shots again making sure the flash head is horizontal (0 degrees).

"how so? The 1Ds wouldn't in fact really show the shortcomings of "inferior" lenses? That would be the same as using a higher resolution film with a lower resolution lens: how would that help?"

 

I wouldn't exactly say non-L primes are inferior to L zooms.

There's no 70-200 f/2.8L IS on photodo's site. That's the older non-IS version. If you're willing to consider off-brand alternatives, Canon's non-IS is only $1130 at B&H...

The 20mm becomes a 32mm on your D60. Seems like your only choice is the EF 14mm f/2.8L.