charles_tuthill

I've never used an SL2 but I bought an SL a few years ago for the same reason, and found it to be very satisfying.

 

I would look for one with a metal lens release tab, and a clear viewfinder. Supposedly, with the SL at least, the newer style metering cell with the panels (as opposed to an X) is more desirable but I don't know why exactly (its visible with the back open and the mirror in the up position).

 

I would also get a CLA asap - when mine locked up during routine shooting three years after I purchased it I quickly discovered that even in major cities no one will touch one with a ten foot pole. Those few who work on them are very expensive - which of course led me to kick myself for buying such a complex and potentially expensive camera. And then there is the headache of expensive lenses, though I really love the way they render images.

 

Its still my favorite camera but the expense of lenses and repairs means its not my most used one.

<p>Great choices!</p>

<p>Sounds like you've identified two focal lengths that fit your needs. I currently own a 50mm 1.4 and I used to own the 1.8 (the old one with the metal mount). I mistakenly thought that I would see a huge jump in quality with the 50mm 1.4; don't get me wrong, I really like the 1.4 but I didn't really see any noticeable difference in image quality. If I had to do it all over again, I would get the 1.8 and save the money.<br>

As for a wide angle, the 10-22mm is probably my favorite lens because I use it for landscapes so often.Stopped down it is extremely sharp.<br>

My most used focal lengths are 14mm and 22mm (roughly 35mm and 24mm on film). The 10-18mm appears to have image quality that is similar of better than the 10-22mm; I doubt you would notice a difference between the two. If it were me I would get the 10-22 because it offers 22mm while my next focal length is 35mm. Since you have an 18-135mm, you may not need the the 10-22mm, and a 10-18mm would probably be fine, unless you need wide apertures. If so, then a tokina 11-16mm might be what you are looking for, though it is more expensive.</p>

<p>I think this guy had the same issue. Here is the url of the video of the fix, it looks fairly simple.<br>

Hope this helps</p>

Thanks for the response, I appreciate it. It matches what I

have been able to find out about the lense as well. And

thanks for the info about the vivitar, sounds like it might

be worth checking out.

<p>I recently came across an ebay sale for a Rokkor 28mm 2.5 SI, that claimed that it was the second version, which did not use any rare earth elements, and therefore is not susceptible to yellowing. I was under the impression that all of the rokkor 28mm 2.5 versions used some sort of radioactive components, so I was a little confused. Since it is a lens I am contemplating buying, I was wondering if anyone could set the record straight. <br>

So, is there really a Rokkor 28mm 2.5 that does not use rare earth elements?<br>

Thanks for your help. </p>

<p>Tamron 17-50 sounds like it would be a good match. It's tough to categorize all tamron lenses but they are generally very good. I had a 17-35mm (discontinued) which I loved. Found that I did not use it much after getting a Tamron 10-24. Ended up selling both as I was not always happy with the corners at the wide end of the 10-24; used the proceeds to buy a canon 10-22. After getting the Canon, I discovered that the Tamron was just as good for most situations (at least 90%) except at the wide end - the tammy's corners were problematic under 14mm. I still miss the 17-35, it was a lens I could always count on, but I like the canon 10-22 quite a bit. So, all of this is to say that yes, there are some excellent Tamron lenses but you have to do research on each one. The 28-75 has a great reputation as does the 17-50 that others have suggested. The 10-24mm that I purchased has a decent reputation, but it also had some well known flaws. Make sure to take a close look at the reviews but my instinct tells me that you would not be disappointed with either a 28-75mm or a 17-50mm.</p>

<p>Were you using it as a bounce flash? And if so, what color were the walls? A color like yellow for example can create a warmer cast in your images.</p>

<p>So... 14 to 18mm, APS-C body. So, you're not really looking for a 14mm perspective on on a 35mm body but more like a 20mm perspective.<br />In that case, the canon 10-22mm does an excellent job as does the Tokina 11-16 (though I only know about the canon from experience). The tamron 10-24 lens that I used for a few months also looks very nice at 14mm (stopped down). I'm sure others will suggest more options that I have neglected. But then again, none of these are made for 35mm.</p>

<p>Perhaps, but the Tamron 10-24 that you have, as well as the example someone posted from the sigma 10-20, are not ef-s mount lenses. They use an ef mount (full frame) but are designed for crop frame cameras; that is why they will mount on a full frame body, while canon ef-s mount lenses will not. <br>

Unfortunately I do not know if your lens would hit the mirror of a 5d or similar camera - but I am sure it is easy to find with a little research on google. Good luck.</p>

<p>In regards to the Tamron 10-24, it will start to cover full frame by about 14mm and up. Since the lens produces images with soft corners on a crop frame camera (decent when stopped down), I can only imagine that the corners are most likely worse on full frame - though I don't know from direct experience. Hope this helps. </p>

<p>From the original post, it appears that you would like to be able to print 16x20 inch photographs regularly. In addition, you would like to shoot both landscapes and "animals."<br>

Something tells me that a 16x20 image from either camera, if it were placed on a tripod, would be almost indistinguishable. So, for landscape, I am not sure that sensor size really matters all that much. Hell, I have 16x20s from my 10d, albeit using mlu when the camera is on a tripod, which look fantastic. <br>

However, as one person has already noted, for shooting landscapes, high quality wide angle lenses are critical. If i were you, I would take a close look at what high quality lenses would fit each camera. As one poster mentioned, what might be a disadvantage of the 1 series is the inability to use efs lenses. Lets face it, there are some killer crop lenses. The Canon 10-22mm lens (especially when used on a tripod) or the Tokina 11-16 come to mind.<br>

For "animals" well, I think a little more information might help participants in this forum offer you advice. What "animals" would you like to shoot. If the animals of which you speak are relatively small birds, that have a habit of hopping around just as you press the shutter (I hope I don't sound bitter on this point...) than perhaps a more advanced autofocus system might be worthwhile. In that case, a one series sounds like it would be the better choice. <br>

Unless of course, you are so far away from your subject where the slightly smaller sensor would add reach to your uncropped image (by the way, I know nothing about these cameras so I could not tell you whether a cropped image from a 1 series is equal to full image from another or vice versa). That being said, generally speaking, better auto focus is usually a godsend when shooting birds, and that may in fact trump any small advantages that a few more pixels on a smaller sensor could provide.<br>

So, as far as I can see the main things you have to think about are:<br>

1) Lens selection for landscape<br>

2) Auto focus for "animals"<br>

3) Crop factor for telephoto<br>

As far as advice, i really can't offer you any, nor can I offer insights as to what camera to use. I neither use nor own either one. However, a guy I know prints to 16x20 with his 1ds mark ii and his prints look fantastic (from technical point of view anyhow...) but something tells me that prints from well processed T2i files would probably look just as good. As a broke grad student using what is considered to be ancient technology (a 10d which, by the way, is more than sufficient for my needs) I am not sure i can help, but hopefully I have highlighted what could be some of the crucial questions.</p>

<p>I also have the 17-35 2.8-4 from Tamron. Not sure it is still being manufactured, but it is a truly excellent lens on cropped digital sensor (use it alongside a canon 50 f/1.4 and 100 f/2). I've read that corners get a little soft on full frame but have no experience.<br>

Also, if you are willing to buy used a 17-40 L might be in your price range. </p>

<p>"<em>A macro is used for specific work for image projection onto the film plane(film cameras)or the image sensor(digital) close to the same size as the subject. If I saw someone using a macro lens on people, I would clearly doubt the person knows what he or she is doing</em> ."<br>

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean quality work can't be done with a macro lens when shooting people.<br>

Salgado used one for much of his career. I read that he used to carry 3 Leica R-6 cameras with 28, 35 and 60mm lenses attached, which he used almost exclusively for some projects (workers, that book about the Sahel, etc.). <br>

The 60mm lens was a macro elmarit-r.</p>

 

<p>I like the subtlety of tones that I get from the leica-r lenses that I occasionally use on my canon digital camera. In particular, I notice that the leica 50mm f/2 that I have outperforms my canon 50mm 1.4 - albeit by a small margin, both in sharpness and in terms of contrast, color, and etc. I guess you could say it has a 3-d look. Then again, the leica is a pain in the ... to use when stopped down and since i also like the canon quite a bit I use that lens much more often. <br>

I also like the 180 elmar-r when used on a canon, but I find that the 100mm canon f/2 to be a slightly better performer, especially when stopped down on a tripod. Both are top notch stopped down a little, which is almost always how I use lenses of this focal length.<br>

I do not think that Leica lenses are any sort of magic bullet but I do like the ones I have, and since there are a few that are not too expensive why not try one for yourself. For example, I paid about $200 for a leica 50mm summicron-r about four years ago. That being said, as you are sure to know, many other leica lenses are priced out of this world. But the used market tends to be cheaper for leica-r gear than you, and perhaps others reading this posting may expect. While you are at it, why not pick up a leicaflex SL to use r lenses as they were intended...</p>

<p>Don't forget the Leica-R 50mm 1.4, third optical version (the one that takes 60mm filters, looks just like version 2 which takes 55mm filters). I'm sure it would cost an arm and a leg, and it would most likely need surgery of some kind to fit on a canon without it hitting the mirror (unlike the previous version) but it is reputed to be one of the nicest 50 1.4's around.</p>

<p>The camera division of the Leitz company was called Leica. The company was bought by a Swiss conglomerate that sold off its various divisions, separately, during the 1970s (I think). The camera division lost the right to use both Leitz (the family no longer owned the company) and Leica; the latter was transferred to another Leitz division (scientific instuments?) which then became a separate company when it was sold (it is still called leica). The old Leitz camera division, ironically, pays a licensing fee to use their original name - they do not own it. I could be wrong on some of the history, but that is what I have read. I know vary little about the various changes to the M6 and M6ttl, so I cannot be of help there.</p>

<p>When I use the 430ez off camera I normally do not use a flash meter. Determining proper exposure, therefore is a process of trial and error, albeit one which is fairly simple because subject to flash distance does not change all that much. To make sure I am getting an exposure that I am happy with I check the camera's histogram every few shots, to make sure everything is in order. If I need to make an adjustment I make an educated guess, trying out variations of aperture, flash to subject distance, iso or etc. and then rechecking the histogram (this is generally called "chimping"). This works well for stationary subjects where you can take multiple shots and adjust; it doesn't work nearly as well with the flash on the camera in fluid situations - its possible, but I always blow too many shots. Hope this helps. Also, someone recommended the strobist website, which is a great resource. After reading the website all of this will sound very simple, if it does not already. Enjoy your new flash!</p>

<p>I can also recommend "Understaning Exposure." Peterson wrote another book focusing mostly on composition which I also found to be very useful (it contains much of the same information). A Kodak guide to understanding 35mm photography was invaluable for me, but that was a few years ago and it did not touch upon digital (though there might be a new addition that does). Shooting a lot and then reading and rereading all the relevant information is probably the best advice.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have a similar flash, the 430ez, which I used quite a bit on my old elan II before using digital slr's. With dslr's it works fairly well as an off camera flash in manual mode (apart from shutting off every few minutes). Use the histogram, and "chimp" as necessary. However, I do not like using it on camera - it is a real pain to consistently judge (well, guess) what settings should be used when subject to camera distances change frequently. I've used it on a 10d a few times like this, and though many shots certainly work, there are always too many that do not. I would think that one of the vivitar manual flashes would be easier, as at least there is a calculator dial, but I have no experience with them. Needless to say, I am in the market for a canon 430ex flash. That being said, you probably won't know for sure if it fits your needs until using it on camera a few times, if this is how you intend to use it.</p>

<p>Thanks Gabriel, I was hoping someone else would pick up on that. The "look" appears to be about more than simply blurring the background - to me it looks like lighting played a big role in making the photos "snap."<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4813693"><br /> </a></p>

<p>To me, it looks like lighting probably played a big role in making the people stand out from the background. In a couple of shots it looks like the people have been lit with an off camera flash (perhaps through an umbrella or softbox), while ambient has been slightly underexposed to make them stand out (i.e. the "popping" effect). I don't think not sure that the effect is due to aperture and bokeh alone, but I could be wrong.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm going back to school and cash is very tight, and so when my old 300d developed a problem in December, I ran into a similar choice. Looking to spend the minimum amount of cash, at until I finish my masters and start working, I opted for the 10d. I bought one ebay about 4 months ago for $145, which included shipping. Canon 300d's were at least as expensive.<br>

I much prefer the 10d to the original rebel. Its a more substantial camera, with better handling. Neither are really up to par with today's cameras of course, but if I had to choose, it would be a 10d. That being said, I do not own any ef-s lenses, which cannot be used with this camera (keep in mind that the 10d can use aps-c lenses from other manufacturers - ex. tamron 17-50mm 2.8). <br>

Both cameras are old, but I tend to worry about reliability a little more with the rebel line of cameras. I don't have any data to back this up, but they do seem to be built as economically as possible. Not that you won't run into problems with an old 10d... try to get one that has been used sparingly (of course there is no way of accurately verifying a shutter count).<br>

Not knowing your budget for lenses, I am not sure I can give you any useful advice. I have no experience with the lenses you listed, though I suspect that the 28-300 is probably sub par as far as image quality goes. A standard zoom (starting at around 17) with good image quality is probably what you want to start out with. I use an older Tamron 17-35 2.8-4, which I like, but there are probably better choices out there (it costs about $300 new). The new canon kit lens (the one with IS) is supposedly fairly good, and can be had for relatively cheap, but of course you would need a camera that can use ef-s lenses. Your instincts are correct in regards to the 50mm 1.8; I used before upgrading to the 50 1.4, and as you probably know it's excellent lens.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

 

<p>I have experience with some of the lenses you listed, so here are my thoughts:<br>

1. I bought the Tamron 17-35 just as the newer Tamron 17-50 2.8 was coming out. I regret not getting the latter because of the constant 2.8 aperture, and greater reach. That being said, I like the 17-35 quite a bit, and have been pleasantly surprised on the whole. IQ has been very good, though there is a small amount of softness in the corners. It is rare that I miss 2.8 at all focal lengths but I do have a 28mm 2.8, 50 1.4, and 100 f/2 for the times when I need a faster lens. I would change lenses a little less often, however, with the 2.8.<br>

2. After buying the 17-35 I kicked myself because I started to see used versions of the canon 17-40 going for $450, not too much more than I paid for the Tamron at the time. I think they can still be found in good condition at this price if this lens turns out to fit your needs. <br>

3. I have no experience with a full frame camera, but I have read that the 17-35's performance is not exactly stellar in this format. Most people appear to like the performance of the 17-40 in full frame, on the other hand. Take this with a grain of salt of course, as I do not use a full frame camera, and do not have a 17-40. However, it is worth mentioning as you said something about contemplating full frame in the future. In addition, the Tamron 17-50 I mentioned earlier cannot be used on a full frame camera.<br>

4. At one point I owned a 50 1.8 (v.1), and I like most everyone else, I can vouch for the fact that it is a very sharp lens. Had I not been given a 50 1.4 as a gift, I would never have sold it.<br>

5. I have no experience with this lens, but the suggestion to buy the canon 17-55 has some merit. You won't miss the 55-70 range and its fast, convenient and has IS.<br>

Hope this helps and good luck with your decesion.</p>

<p>And also, I just noticed Doug Herr's posting was on 3-11-09, which doesn't make sense. It looks like it was shot at photokina (which is held in the fall?). That being said, based on the video, it does look like the r-system is still alive.</p>