gertle

<p>Is it one of those with the old Petax M42 screw mount? If so, a google search will yield several folks willing to sell you an adapter.</p>

<p>I'm going to side with those that suggest that some changes in technique could help. The reason I say this is that the eyes didn't really seem to be focused as sharp as they could have been. A key feature to certain types of portraiture.</p>

<p>If you zoom in and follow the material of the childs jumper from the beginning of the childs left shoulder and follow in towards the chin you can get a relative idea of the depth of field that was actually available considering your camera/exposure settings at the time of the snap, 105mm lens @f5 from the exif data. The center focus point was selected but indicates the cheek/left side of the childs mouth was the focus point, unless you did a focus and recompose, this could put the eyes outside the area of acceptable focus.</p>

<p>Follow that one step further and you can see that the child teeth were clearly in focus but focus tails off as you recede into the eye socket. A wider aperture would have allowed more of the mask of the face to be in focus. The alternative would be to lock focus on the eyes, the nearest one if they are not in the same plane of focus, and then recompose the image before shooting.</p>

 

<p>For aluminum manfrotto the 055 would be the one for you. I'm just a bit shorter than you and sometimes wish my 190 was a bit taller. I'm using a Markins Q3 ball head and RRS arca swiss style plates and it doesn't have a problem with a 40D and 70-200/2.8 (non-IS).</p>

<p>Also consider Tamron's 17-50/f2.8 offerings. One of which now comes with vibration reduction. Bob Atkins wrote a review of the non-VR model <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_17-50_review.html">here</a> and used a 20D for a lot of the images in the review. It's almost half the cost of Canon's 17-40/f4, which I would recommend otherwise. I use a Tamron 17-50 on a 40d and like the results.</p>

<p>I'm in the same camp with Vladimir. Others may be better but I used the extra money elsewhere. I use mine on a 40D, it takes great photos of my grandkids as well as the occasional landscape.</p>

<p>As another owner of a 40D who's asked himself the same question, get what you need. People can, and will, argue over which camera/lens is better but these are only tools. You only need newer/better tools when you cannot create the results you desire with the tools you have at your disposal. The hard part is recognizing that you may need more improvement than do your tools. This is one of the reasons why I still have a 40D. For me the answer to 'What to get?', is to 'Get better!'.</p>

<p>Although best is subjective you probably wouldn't go wrong with an EOS-3 body and an EF 50mm/f1.8 lens for starters. Combined, would set you back about $300.</p>

<p>If you can LOL at a time like that, you're off to a good start. Congratulations and best wishes to all.</p>

<p>On the 40D, I find the 85/f1.8 to be a very nice compliment to Tamron's 17-50/f2.8 and I would recommend it to almost anyone. What to get after that is dependant on shooting requirements and budget allowances. I didn't need to get a wider angle so I went for a 70-200 zoom next, f2.8 non-IS version. You might find that the f4 version of this lens will fit your needs, also IS or non-IS is up to you as well.</p>

<p>Here's my thoughts, and they go much in line with the other who agree that you do what you can. Since both fathers and a brother are willing to help in that regard, let them. If your father-in-law-to-be has some knowlege of posing and lighting, sounds like he's the one for the formals. With the three of them shooting there should be plenty of opportunity for them to get pix of the others.</p>

<p>You should concentrate on being the groom. My experience, four weddings where I was taking photos and in the wedding party as well. It was an interesting experience and most of them came out ok, but much like Neil's experience, I would have like to have spent more time being father-of-the-bride or father-of the-groom.</p>

<p>Two words: Auto focus.<br>

And built in diopter aduster.</p>

<p>What is the effect of using EF lenses on 40D? They work great. I have a 40D and of the few lenses that I have only one of them is specifically designed for the crop-sensor. If nothing else these should be less susceptable to vignetting and other edge effects that might show up with EFS lenses.</p>

<p>Just as a point of clarification - are you saying that you have the canon EF 50-200 f/4.5-5.6 USM? Not the EF 50-200 f/3.5-4.5 L or the EFS 55-250 f/4.0-5.6 IS? Yes there have been several versions and, since some of the advice that will be given is based on the perceived quality of the lenses you currently have, it would be good to be sure which one you have.</p>

<p>When I was researching zoom lenses I found references to all three of these. The first one I mentioned was not highly regarded by most of the sites I visited so if you have one of these, the softness could be in the lens. Having said that, in most instances discussed here the problem is not the lens, but since you have others that work fine I it's probably not user error.</p>

<p>What other lenses to get? Get the lens you need, not the one you want. Each lens has strengths or weaknesses, figure out what is lacking in what you have and address that issue specifically. It may mean replacing either the 50-200 or the 18-55 with one or more lenses, or replacing them both with a single lens. Lots of options and opinions.</p>

<p>Nice photo in the link, by the way.</p>

<p>What Tony said... The lens you have covers the ranges traditionally used in protraiture, and the IS feature of the 17-85 will compensate to some degree for not having an external light source. I recommend that you examine the EXIF data of portraits taken with the lens you have now to find the focal length you most often work in.<br />Then find a prime lens, with a wider aperture, that is close to what you are looking for. By wider aperture I mean something like f2, f1.8 or f1.4, as Tony suggested. The good news is that most of these lenses are not any where near as expensive as the 17-85.<br>

(edit)...A lot of answers between the time I started writing my response so let me calrify by saying that my response is biased toward the OP's question regarding protraits rather than casual photos. In that respect the 50 and 85 are valid suggestions.</p>

<p>Greetings Robert and congratulations on he 5DmkII. In your post you mentioned that you normally use ZoomBrowser but I think you'll find it doesn't play with the mkII. Two recent threads in this forum, entitled "Zoombrowser Question" and "Canon EOS 5D MK II and Zoombrowser 6.3", discuss the problem and some solutions. Look them up, it might help.</p>

<p>The flip-it has been discussed a lot over on the Wedding/Event forum. You can search there, or look at <a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00Gw7m">this</a> thread specifically. Paying attention to Nadine's post.</p>

<p>Extracted from a link I found on dpreview:</p>

<p>"The way I understand it, Canon has abandoned RIT and it will no longer be updated to handle the newer cameras. I think so few people used it that they decided to just concentrate on DPP.<br>

So newer versions of ZB still have RIT, and it still supports the 40D and earlier cameras' RAW files, but not the 50D or the 5DII. "</p>

<p>Users there suggest DDP, or some other raw converter is only way to get them.</p>

 

<p>There is now an add for the Better Beamer FX-3 showing on the right side of the page. Click through to the Adorama page and it says the FX-3 will work on the 580EX and 580EXII. Neither site suggests a version to fit the 420.</p>

<p>I'm not sure what the problem is but yikes! A quick check at the Canon site shows that zb6.2 could handle the 5DmkII and that zb6.4.1, vista updater, was released in 09/2009. Perhaps it's more a 'feature' of the Vista operating system rather than zoom browser itself.</p>

<p>Thanks for the eye test. I looked at both of the pix at 1:1 and can't see any difference. Must be time for a new prescription!</p>

<p>A cat's ear? Seconded by a coworker.</p>

<p>Sunny-16 came in handy a couple of times when I was doing moon shots on film. I still use the same technique in digital but I don't have to wait the the pix to come back to see how I did.</p>

<p>My $.02 - loose the 17-40, one of the 50's and the 18-135. You'll need the rest at one time or another. If you do get rid of the 5D consider swapping the 24-70 for a 17-55IS.</p>

<p>I have a 190XPROB that I would be willing to trade for an 055XPROB :) But I'm guessing that shipping costs might make it not such a good deal.</p>

<p>Not being educated or trained as an artist I can accept that I may not be able to create what others consider to be 'art'. But I find it hard to believe that the creation of art is somehow limited, or defined, by the tools one would use to create it.</p>