rintintin
-
Posts
39 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by rintintin
-
-
There's a really big difference between 17mm and 28mm for landscapes, especially on a digital body with a 1.6x crop. I'd suggest you try out a 28mm lens on that body and see if it's wide enough for the type of landscapes you take. The 17-40 is very sharp, especially at the apertures you're likely to be using for landscapes (f/11 etc.).
-
Congrats on moving to the digital world, Yakim. You've been a holdout for so long that it'll be really interesting to see what you think.
<p/>
Although I'm a prime fan, and use them indoors, I really like my 17-40L, and I've had very little problem with flare, even shooting in bright conditions up in the mountains. Some advice, though:
<ul>
<li> always use the lens hood (good advice for any WA lens)
<li> consider replacing the very ungainly lens hood that comes with
the lens with a EW-83DII. I have not tested it systematically, but it seems the replacement hood provides more flare protection. It certainly is easier to get in my camera bag.
</ul>
-
I tried one for a while as my "normal" lens, for just the reason you cite. And I loved the shots I took with it--the color, contrast, and sharpness all seemed great. But in the end, I sold it. One of the main reasons I like a prime instead of a zoom is for low light shots indoors, and f/2.5 just didn't cut it.
-
One other reason to shoot RAW is that many of the converters (I use ACR in Photoshop CS2, but others offer this, too) offer "highlight recovery". They can pull information out of other channels to recover blown highlights in individual channels. This has saved me enough times on grab shots where I didn't have time to get the exposure right that I've switched to shooting mostly RAW. I just bought more CF cards. :-)
-
You'll likely need the circular polarizer (as opposed to a linear polarizer) so as not to inhibit autofocus. See <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/polarizers.shtml">this article at Luminous Landscape</a> for an introduction.
-
I often use my Canon 20D above 1500 meters and I strongly second the recommendation for a circular polarizer. Make sure you learn how to use it, though--if it isn't rotated correctly, you won't get the effect you're looking for. I'd also recommend you consider shooting RAW. White balance problems and blown highlights are more common in alpine conditions, and RAW converters allow you to correct many of these problems after the fact. Oh--and if you're shooting with a wide angle lens, don't forget your lens hood.
-
I don't have the Canon extension tubes, but I've used my 85/1.8 successfully with my Pro Optic (Adorama house brand) extension tubes. I didn't notice a reduction in focus speed, but then I wasn't paying attention to that, since it's not usually an issue for macros. Check those tubes out, by the way--they're even less expensive than the Kenkos, and since there are no optics involved, there's not much to go wrong.
-
Call me a cynic, but I wonder how much of the high pricing for this lens was driven by the good reception this lens got on internet forums when it was announced in February. Although I was quite interested in it, I'm definitely *not* interested in it for $450US. I'm hoping that if others stay away in droves, Sigma will drop the price. I'd like a lens like that, but that price seems way too high.
-
I bought Adorama's house brand of extension tubes:
http://www.adorama.com/MCAETEOS.html
They're $40 cheaper than the Kenkos, they seem about as well made as the set of Kenkos I checked out, and after all, since there are no optics, they're probably just as good as the Kenkos. Although I don't have any EF-S lenses, I've read they work with EF-S. I've used them successully with several of my lenses, including the 85 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8.
-
Ah. At two feet, the depth of field of a 50mm lens w/ a 35mm body is a little over an inch (0.1 feet):
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
You can close it down quite a bit when you're that close. Since you're so close, even closing it down to f/8 gives you only about a quarter foot of sharpness.
-
Wow, maybe I just had my speakers turned up too high, but that lens sounds really sick inside. I've only borrowed a 28-135IS, but I used the IS a bunch and it never sounded like that.
-
I recently started using my old 630 again after a long hiatus with a D30 and now a 20D. Sheesh, I had forgotten how lovely the big viewfinder is.
One other source for a remote camera release like that might be your local used camera stores, if you have any decent ones. I found my 60T3 there. There are a fair number of 6-series Canon bodies out there, so the accessories are there too.
-
This is too obvious an answer, but consider the Canon 35 f/2. I often used mine with my D30 exactly as you describe: zone focusing, etc. The lens worked really well for that sort of thing. See here for a review:
http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/da_Canon_35_mm_2/a_Canon_35_mm_f2.html
While I could manual focus just fine in low light with the 35 f/2 on my film body, I found manual focus in low light too difficult on the D30, with it's less than optimal viewfinder. Autofocus in low light, lousy as it is with the D30, still worked better. That in itself is a a decent argument for the autofocus lens.
-
I have absolutely no idea how Canon goes about it, but it does seem to me that lens manufacturers base cost in ranges by focal length with differences within that range driven primarily by lens speeed (max aperture). And in your case, the 135 and 200 are both mid to standard range teles, but the 135 has a full extra stop's worth of glass in it.
-
Not to highjack the thread, but it sounds like it's possible that some early Canon optics were used in the IJN during WWII. A Canon precursor company started making cameras in 1935 and lenses by 1939:
<p/>
See http://home.europa.com/~telscope/japanbin.txt
<p/>
On the other hand, Nikon was founded during WWI to help make Japan self-sufficient in optics. I'd say they met their goal. :-)
-
I jumped from a D30 to a 20D, so although the D30 and D60 were similar in many ways, my report may not matter to you. I notice a huge difference with the 20D. The autofocus is much quicker and more accurate, especially in low light. The camera is quicker in every way--fast to turn on and fast to shoot. High ISO is much more usable.
You can read all these things in reviews, of course, but I think you'll find that coming from a D30/D60, you'll notice them much more than you would if you were coming from a 10D. The 20D is a very useful and obvious upgrade from a D30/D60, but someone less of one from a 10D, which is a fine camera.
With the exception of the joystick thingie, the controls are very much the same. I'm still driven bananas by the fact that I can't change the ISO using the center button, but I figure I'll get used to that after a year or two. :-)
-
I've never used the 16-35 f/2.8, but I have the 17-40, and I notice little difference in focusing accuracy between it and my faster primes. There surely must be some difference, because of the high-precision sensor. I just don't notice it, though.
<p/>
I chose the f/4 for two reasons:
<ol>
<li>I usually shoot wide angles at smaller apertures anyway.
<li>The price difference is huge. I'd rather put the difference towards another lens.
</ol>
<p/>
I'd say the extra stop makes much more difference with a tele than with a wide angle. Your mileage may vary...
-
To answer your specific questions, I love mine so far. Of course, I'm coming from a D30, so I was bound to be impressed. I've had exactly zero of the dreaded "error 99s", and I've seen banding only occasionally, usually with very high ISO shots that I wouldn't have gotten with film or the D30 anyway. The autofocus seems fast and accurate, although more so with fast lenses than with slow.
What are you sitting on the sidelines with? If you're currently using film or a D30/D60, the 20D is surely worth it. If you're currently using a 10D, you have a more difficult question, since the 10D is a fine camera in its own right. If you're using a DReb, you might want to wait, since the rumors are that Canon will be introducing a new one soon.
Best of luck...
-
A few bits of advice:
<p/>
<ul>
<li>Definitely buy a spare battery and rotate the two batteries, keeping the charged spare in your bag. The battery meter doesn't give you much warning when you're running low.
<li>See what the 1.6x crop factor does to your existing lenses before you go buy a bunch of new ones.
<li>If you haven't already, make sure your computer hardware is up to the task: sufficient hard disk space, quality display, memory, backup capability, etc.
<li>Likewise if you haven't already, acquire a good image editor and make sure your digital darkroom skills are sufficient.
</ul>
Good luck!
-
I use my 35 f/2 indoors with the 20D almost exactly like I used the 50 with my film body. Other than the buzziness, which I don't usually even notice any more, I like it very much, especially for the price. I don't miss the 1/3 stop difference between the 35 and 50, since I usually can bump the ISO up on the 20D to accommodate the difference.
<p/>
Here's a fine review of the 35 f/2:
<p/>
-
If you use the lens often, the replacement hood is worth the annoying amount of money Canon charges for one of their hoods. I don't know about the better shading, but:
<ul>
<li>the lens with the hood reversed fits in bags & pouches much easier
<li>the deeper cutouts allow easier access to polarizers, lens hoods, etc.
</ul>
<p/>
Read <a href="http://burren.cx/photo/ew83d.html">all about it here.</a>
-
Hi, Amy--
Please don't think I'm patronizing, because I'm truly trying to help when I give you this advice: use the search button! A search of this site as well as a google search turns up many discussions comparing the Canon 50s. One excellent one is on photo.net:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
Good luck!
-
This may well be due to a known problem with the 6xx series, where a short in the LCD display panel causes battery drain. Search in this forum for more details, including where to contact for repairs. Good luck--I'm fond of my old 630 (which doesn't eat batteries).
-
I'm quite happy with mine as a 50mm replacement. It spends a great deal of time on my camera. The noise and slower focusing speed usually only bother me after I've had the 85mm f/1.8 on the camera for a while. This is a nice review:
http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/da_Canon_35_mm_2/a_Canon_35_mm_f2.html
70-200 f/2.8L vs 70-200 f/4L: Bokeh and Hand-hold-ability
in Canon EOS Mount
Posted