50d-boy

Sorry the images were too large,...

 

try this

 

 

Regards

John<div></div>

Thank you for your response

 

I guess it depends on what you define as statistics, but far be for me to play semantics with you. If you'd like to call my thoughts "impressionistic opinions" that's fine by me. The picture,...,I agree not as sharp as it could be,... my fault for a poor choice. Have you used either lens and can you offer any impressionistic opinions of your own?

 

 

 

Regards

John<div></div>

Seasons Greetings everyone.

 

I recently rented and did a couple of jobs with this lens and offer the

following stats.(I'm not a pro, but I shot a wedding and a some portraiture, and

will do more in the future)

 

I've read the topics on photo.net that I could find on similar topics but, this

inquiry is a bit more specific.

 

Of the 350 shots I made with the lens (granted indoors and with a flash and

monopod more for support than necessity), I averaged a shutter speed of 1/40th

and an aperture of f4. (not surprising given the nature of the indoor

sessions). Of these shots 58% were relatvely wide open at 2.8-3.2, 21% were

4-4.5, and 21% were 5.6 to 8. No shots were taken above f8. The IQ was

stunning, great bokeh, sharp, I never misfocused and so it's really hard to

fault this lens for anything other weight and price. I think am stuck on the use

of the f2.8 for the type of photography I like to do.

 

I've ruled out an 85 f1.8 and a 200 f2.8L based on lens change (in)convenience

and not missing a shot during a ceremony. So the question now is which flavour

of the lens. IS or no IS given an average shutter speed 1/40th and an ISO of 400?

 

PS Given that I used a monopod I don't believe I can draw an appropriate

conclusion of the IS vs no IS to make an appropriate decision. Does anyone have

any thoughts based on your use of either lens?

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks in advance to photo.net and all the contributers. You have helped me

immsurable over the years

 

Cheers

 

John<div></div>

Amanda you beat me to this question,....I too have rented this lens several times for weddings and other portraiture shots. I'm leaning towards buying it as well. It's not discreet, and as others have mentioned it's heavy,... but for weddings it really helped me nail a higher percentage of shots. The bokeh is brilliant. 8 blades and f2.8 is great. Even with the IS I used a monopod to bear the weight over the day. With the above issues, I still prefered it over having to switch lenses. The only way to equal or surpass the quality at these focal lengths IMHO is to purchase the 85 f1.8 AND the 200 2.8L. Cheaper yes, but less convenient, and no IS. The only thing that has me waffling is how conspicuous the lens is. Maybe A lens jacket would help. Again I'm only an amature and these are my two cents. Other lenses to consider is of course the 50 f1.8,...the 70-200 IS f4 would be a good compromise if the bokeh is ok.

 

Some shots with the 70-200 f2.8

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5271977

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5271971

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5271985

 

 

Cheers

John

In Calgary, it's hit and miss. They are either on par or worse. It depends on the lenses and any promotional specials.

 

I shop at www.thecamerastore.com locally. They seem to adjust pricing to be more competitive with the Adorama's and B+H's and sometimes the go on sale as a stop gap measure to the strong Canadian dollar.

 

My 20D body would have been the same price after shipping so I bought it in Canada. But my 17-40 f4 was at least 70 dollars less via B+H

 

Still you have to compare on an individual basis, inclusive of shipping fees,....

 

Cheers

John

From my personal experience, going from an EF-S 18-55 to a 17-40 L, and based on the same parameter settings for in-camera processing, I've found that I do "less" post processing as it relates to colour saturation and unsharp mask.. (It doesn't eliminate it) Please keep in mind that I shoot JPEG predominantly. I find the amount of post processesig with RAW files to be less as well, but I have a tendancy to over-tweak these files because I can,.... I have used the 17-85 IS as well, and although the sharpness is adequate and the IS is quite nice, I can't get over the considerable distortion at the wide end of this lens.

 

In short the 17-40 is a great lens,...., the pictures would be stunning if I had a clue how to expose, focus and compose properly. ;-)

 

 

Cheers

They don't specifically identify how they are going to fix the issue, but they mention that they identified the problem and will FIX it free of charge. This is based on Mark U's link in the orig. post. Hope this helps

J

Apparently it's a resolution issue:

 

Attached is an excerpt from the Canon USA website"

 

"To Customers Who Use the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens:

 

Thank you very much for your patronage of our products.

 

We recently informed you of a phenomenon in which some images captured by the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens appear in insufficient resolution. This phenomenon may be seen at the edge of the frame at the 300mm setting when the camera is held vertically.

 

We are very sorry for the inconvenience that this phenomenon represents for customers who use this lens and appreciate your understanding and cooperation."

yakim

lol!

In Canada the 30D costs $1650 CDN (body only) (825 quid/ 1160 EUR) The 5D $ 3800.00 CDN (body).....(1900 quid/2675 EUR)

Sorry, a correct comparison is that a 5D is 2.5 times more expensive as a 30D

 

The point is that some consumers who are not aware of the light fall-off or how to work with it, and spend 2.5 times more for a 5D, get dissapointed, depending on their specific use of the camera.

 

J

Analogies aside, I can certainly identify with that fact the 5D is 3.5 times the cost a 30D.,,,, but it is used for diferent purposes. The 5D can have light fall-off in specific situations with specific lenses. If I use the 5D 90% of the time in situations in which it is prone to light fall-off then it's probably the wrong camera to use, or I LIKE the fall-off. Assuming of course this was know PRIOR to purchaisng the camera. If however the most important criterion for me is file latitude, resolution, depth and size, then it is the right camera. This is why I love photo.net

I can't believe I read this entire thread,....

Just a quick note as to what I think this thread is about. I think (not sure) that there is a difference between vignetting and light fall-off. All lenses will exhibit light fall-off to a degree depending on aperture and focal length. There is evidence that full frame digital sensors may amplify light fall-off. The thread proves that if you can understand the limitations or peculiarities of a specifc lens / body combination, you can overcome the issue, whether it is by the initial exposure, or by post processing. Giampi is simply demonstratining this. This of course is asssuming light fall-off is something you DON'T want. (This is a big assumption) My humble 2 cents.

 

John

THE most enjoyable thread this week,..., thanks Gaimpi!

 

I haven't laughed this hard in a while,....,

here's a sample<div></div>

Just a bit of information. I measured the voltage of my Speedlite 199A and

found that it hovers at 3.99V. This is lower than the 4.99v stated on:

http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html and is also well below the 6V

maximum.

 

It's not E-TTL 1 or 2, but the manual settings along with the diffuser produce

some decent results, and the exposure is certainly adjustable. It's old school

but it works. I'll post a few pictures when I get a chance.

 

Vindication for those of us who took a bath on the switch from the T-series/FD

systems to EOS/EF.

 

Cheers

John

Try Veer

 

www.veer.com

 

They have a fresh look,.....

 

Of course, I am an amature,....

It couldn't hurt to look

I'm somewhere in between. $1100 for the Architect is ok for say 10-15 images. Royalty Free for architects is typically good deal since they don't actively seek "income" from selling the shots, but use them only for self-promotion (typically). 74 images is overkill and you should really charge more based on the number alone, if not a fixed fee for each image, Rights-Managed single use. Real Estate companies will typically publish these shots in trade mags, listings etc. As far as the resident(s) are/is concerned - make sure the Realtors don't "end-run" you and acquire the photos for free from the loft owners.

Hi Wooi Loon

 

Yes , lenses are evaluated PRIOR to manipulation in software.

 

A couple of notes:

 

It's difficult to "turn off" all "in-camera" manipulation on today's DSLR's. They all have some level of post-processing. Shooting RAW is your best bet. But even with film, each one has different caracteristics. The key is when evaluating to keep all the parameters the same.

 

Peter is correct,..... USM in photoshop is a computer algorythm (as described above) that simulates sharpness, and if used incorrectly, can cause shots to look very artificial. That said, I have gotten a lot of mileage out of this particular software, in that I have been able to use consumer lenses and the digital rebel (read low cost)to get some decent prints.

 

Your 17-40 has an entirely different set of optics than the 70-200, and faces differnet challenges in it's "make-up" to correct abberations. Ultra-wide zooms are much more difficult to engineer. You can't really compare them to each other. Try finding similar focal range zooms and compare them to these lenses instead.

 

If you are worried about your specific lenses being "odd", then try exchanging the 17-40 with another or even "test-driving" another copy at your local camera store.

 

Hope this helps

 

Cheers

John

I've experienced this as well with both Lexar and Sandisk Ultra's. It's annoying as hell, to say the least.

 

I format the cards, and thank heaven's this has only happened twice in the last 4 years.

 

Does the method of formating have anything to do with it (ie in camera formating or computer formating,....) or are they faulty cards?

Roland I agree with you that you probably are fine as is,...The G-series cameras are great,.....

Digital is not cheap unless you have the infrastructure ,(computers time e.t.c.)

However, if you truly are after higher quality pro images the DSLR will give you this,....

 

If the wide angle is truly the issue, sell the A2 body may be a couple of your EF lenses to fund a rebel or XT with a 10-22 EF-S. If you can, keep the better performing glass. This is still a sizeable investment, but it allows you to keep a complete system

whoops I missed 17-40 in your text.....

the only other option is 10-22 EF-S or any of the new flavours of 12-24 11-18's by Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, for wider. Probably not necessary.

 

By the way, nice gear.

Option B

 

Make sure to buy the Black body.

 

Are you sure you have wide enough lenses for landscape with a 1.6 crop?

8.0 MP will give you a larger acceptable print than 6.3 MP, but if you print only up to 8x10' images, then I'd suggest that buying the best lenses you possibly can would render better quality results than actually changing the body and keeping the same mediocre glass.

 

I own a 300d with a kit lens, 28-105 3.5-5.6, a 50 1.8, an 80-200mm, & a 500mm cheapo mirror lens. I can honestly say that if I purchase better glass Id get better results. But to date I haven't had an issue getting nice prints up to 8x10.

 

The battery issue is a little annoying, because if you've invested is several batteries, you can't use them in the XT.

 

I agree with the posts above that:

 

The XT is a better camera (see Bob's comments)but will it make a difference to what you shoot? ,...., only you can say.

 

The WASIA hackware is relatively benign. You can install it and if you need to service the camera and you are concerned, just re-install the factory firmware.

 

I hope this helps

LOL!