jorge_ituarte3

I have no problem with sharpness even wide open with the 24mm f/2.8 however I think it's just "OK" as far as contrast and saturation. Not bad just not fantastic. I was hoping the 24mm f/1.4L would be better from f/2.8 up in this area.

Probably cant train him to help with the dishes, but sure the hell wish he could be house trained. I swear these Egrets and Herons shit plaster of Paris. The worst part of that is they also love hanging out on my boats. Pressure hose and scrub brush every f..king day!

I think one of the most humorous anecdotes about these birds occurred once while having a discussion about America Egrets in mating plumage on a forum. The forum members where discussing their trip to the Florida Everglades and trekking down the Inhinga Trail for miles to capture the quintessential image of an American Egret in mating plumage. One of our Egrets we call "Buddy Bird". Buddy walks in the house and loves to watch one wash dishes. He will stand on the kitchen counter and be in absolute awe of the whole process. My spouse took a snapshot of "Buddy Bird" in all his glory with me washing dishes. He was in full mating plumage complete with the iridescent turquoise color change around the beak. I posted the picture on the forum. They hated my guts on that forum. I will look for that image. It's really just a snapshot. I'll scan it and post it for you.

Two of the lens I currently own are the 24mm f/2.8 and 200mm f/2.8L I

have been thinking about 24mm f/1.4L and 135mm f/2.0L and possibly

compartmentalizing things with 300 f/2.8 or new Sigma 120-300mm

f/2.8. In other words separating my kit a bit depending on what I am

doing that day. I would appreciate some feedback on 24mm f/1.4L and

135mm f/2.0L from users with hands on. Most of the work I sell is

covered in the 24-135mm range so the additional cost is justifiable.

But, I would like to dabble in wildlife a bit. I live in the Fl,

Keys. My back yard is the Florida Everglades and in my front yard

are the reef and the Caribbean. Please understand that a great deal

of our birds are 4 and 5 feet tall. So 300mm f/2.8 and TCs are

probably more than adequate. They are not to shy if you leave your

door open they will walk into your house.

"Do you really think your imaging system can resolve more than 30 lp/mm"

 

Of course it can. It all depends on your shutter speed. Quality of your optics. Big glass? That's another story. But then I don't do much work over 200mm. What are you talking about?

 

Do I use a tri-pod. A lot but only when conditions deem it necessary.

"Mark didn't say the diaphragm travels forward when you zoom to a longer focal length"

 

Yea, I realized that after I answered his reply. But, wouldn't the diameter of the front elements come into play as well. You can magnify to a point and then it would stop at the edges of the front element. In other words you would have to increase the diameter of the front element relative to the focal length to increase the apparent aperture given a diaphragm of the same size. The logical (seems to me) approach would be to do a little of both increase the size of the diaphragm some as well as the diameter of the front element.

So Mark, in other words what you are saying is that the minimum aperture is a factor of both the physical size of the diaphram as well as the diameter and magnification of the front elements? Would'nt the diaphram have to travel to the rear to have greater magnification from the front.

Sorry for the typo Yakim!

I second Yakin's choices. I think you may be a bit disappointed with the 17-40mm wide open after shooting with the 70-200mm as well.

I read a post on photo.net dealing with TCs and depth of field. The

basic reasoning was that with a 1.4x for example a 200mm 2.8

effectively becomes a 280mm 4.0. The ratio between the new focal

length and the existing aperture changes the geometry to a 4.0.

Therefore the depth of field is like a 280mm lens with 4.0 aperture

not 2.8. Makes total sense. But then I began to think about

constant aperture zooms like 70-200mm 2.8. I'm stumped. How can

this be geometrically possible?

Autofocus can be extremely accurate with no loss of resolution under 90% circumstances. I think that most people think that autofocus is a free ride and it's not. You need to understand how it works and how to use it. Most people think that using the center cross sensor will give the most accurate results. It has been my experience the cross sensor gets confused a lot especially with fast lenses. Look in the viewfinder for high contrast vertical or horizontal lines and place the non-cross sensors (left, right, top bottom sensors) perpendicular to these lines. You will find the that autofocus is dead on. If it's a confusing pattern like foliage with small leaves manually focus. I was also very disillusioned with autofocus for many years manually focusing 100% of the time until I began proactively assessing the scene. Also don't expect great result from autofocus with wide angle lenses and medium distance. I love autofocus it a great tool. Sometimes I can use it and sometimes I can't.

Why would anyone want to lug around an SLR system for 4X6 prints. This has never, ever made any sense to me.

I second the vote for the 24 2.8. Great lens!. Tiny, fast, sharp at all apertures, inexpensive. First class.

I agree with Matthew. Make some large prints and take a look. You may be pleasantly surprised at how sharp they are compared to your monitor

I came into the Canon EOS system from Pentax. A lot of younger photographers don't realize that Pentax was the big player back in the 70s. At this point if you shoot to make a living it only makes practical sense to use Canon's top of the line gear. When I switched over the problem was that Pentax decided to concentrate on there consumer line.

 

In general my recommendation to non pros that what quality optics is to take a look at Pentax. The SMC coating on their optics is the best in the industry. You never have flare or gosting with Pentax consumer gear. Pentax consumer optics are slow (like everyone else's) but give publishable results. Their auto focus systems are slow and loud but unlike Canon's they are sure footed and dead on! You can shoot macro stuff with it and not think twice. You can get a complete Pentax System for under $600.00 with absolutely no compromise optically. And the build quality makes Canon and Nikons consumer line up look like Barbie and Ken's camera rig. Canon and Nikon are counting on consumers saying to themselves. "Pros shoot Canon and Nikon".

Bob are you suggesting that the people on this forum are less qualified than you are in offering an opinion about photo gear. With all due respect you don't really know what experience these people have or don't have. Your actually insulting the forum members in general. Regardless of there experience they all seem to be offering there kind advice. This is what an open forum is all about. Maybe everyone should submit there resume, and we should check their sources before offering advice. Let's begin with you.

My nephews wife has one. Junk. Bob have you ever used a Leica C-1 35mm Point & Shoot. It has AF and an 38-105 f.4 zoom. Tack sharp wide open at all focal lengths. $339.00 at B&H. Fits in your pocket.

Bob, I have never understood the logic of buying "not so bad" optics for an SLR. If those are the standards you are going by why would you want to lug around an SLR. Get a good point shoot. Most of the better ones are better optically than most consumer zooms and lot easier to carry around.

I'd get rid of the 75-300mm and the 28-135mm, keep the 50 1.8 and the 20-35mm USM. Buy a 70-200 f.4 L with a 1.4x TC.

The 70-200 f.4 is almost exactly the same size and weight. Both are 3" diameter, 6.8" long and 1.5 lbs. The 100-300 L is sharper a 300 than the 70-200mm f.4 L with 1.4x TC at 280. The 70-200mm f.4 plus TC will run you about $850.00 the 100-300mm L in "like new" condition about $275.00 at KEH. Don't get me wrong the 70-200 f.4 is a fabulous lens. I just want the original poster to realize that all he is compromising with the 100-300 L is USM, smooth manual focus, 1 stop of light in the 100-200 range, and a two touch zoom. I must tell you those things are very nice but as far a image quality is concerned you cant go wrong with the 100-300 5.6 L. The most important thing is that you will still have money left over for a couple of good primes like a 24mm and a 50mm. If you make some money selling your work then you can justify the luxury of upgrading to something more comfortable to use.

You must have had a bad sample. Mine is tack sharp wide open at all focal length. But very light weight (1.5lbs) and portable. Shares 58mm filter size with Canon primes like the 50mm 1.4, 24mm 2.8. L class optics in every respect! Ergonomically a dog. I consider it a top best buy. Optically if you want better get a 200mm 2.8 but not by much. I have them both. Get it you won't regret it. I'll always keep mine. Nothing comparable for weight, size, reach and optical quality.

Primoz, I understand your point but I think we are getting a little off the track as far as the original posters issue. We all buy what ever we want and suits us best. I would like to see if any one else has this AF issue at the wide end with the 10d.

Well I can't say I've tested every sigma lens but I have used a number of Canon L and Primes and the comparative Sigma equivalent and 90% of the time the Canon lens was better. So, the Sigma 14mm EX was really quite a surprise to me. I can say as a "general rule" as far as my experience goes high end Canon glass is better than high end Sigma glass. Hey, I like saving money as much as the next guy but not at the expense of image quality. However, I will keep an open mind.

I was not trying to start a Canon/Sigma thingie. I just found a common issue with the original poster. I would be interested in seeing if others have similar experiences with AF on the 10d with Canon glass at the wide end.

 

I think that it is important that I clarify my comments about my purchase of a Sigma 14mm 2.8. The only other third party lens that in the last 10 years that I thought was optically superb was a Tamron 90 2.8 macro I won in some contest a long time ago. However it was the flimsiest looking thing I ever held in my hands and ended up selling it and (at that time) purchasing the Pentax version. So, 99% percent of the time I have had better performance with the manufacturers high end glass. The Sigma 14mm 2.8 is one of those rare exemptions. It really is optically better and mechanically (seems) equal the Canon 14mm L. The Sigma is also $1300.00 less. I may change my tune if I tried this lens on full 35mm frame.

This is very interesting. I also have a 10D and I seem to be having same trouble with my Canon 24mm 2.8. I can only use it accurately in manual focus. I recently bought a Canon 14mm 2.8 L and had to send it back to B&H. I bought the Sigma 14mm 2.8 and it seems to focus dead on. All my other Canon glass from 50mm up is dead on with AF. This is very interesting to me because I have had nothing but disappointing results from third party glass in the past. I only bought the Sigma 14mm to try it out and I'm keeping it.