ed_okie

<p>It has been my experience with a half dozen lenses used in measuring focusing accuracy that the alleged 'required" or "proper" test-distance isn't significant; possibly is in theory, but not in practical terms. In but one instance: Canon's stellar 100mm macro lens... allegedly requires 5 meters or roughly 16' camera-to-test-target measuring distance. In tightly controlled studio test-conditions I found little difference in corrections required, be it 16' or at 3'. Same scenario with measuring the 500mm f/4 lens - "required" target distance wasn't a direct factor. Same with other lenses. And in my case with a specific body... it was the body itself that was slightly off (lens-mount to focal plane, not the lens per se. But the bottom line: user-error and focusing technique is far more likely as the underlying cause of focusing problems. Of course it's far easier to blame "the camera" or "the lens" - the user is always faultless</p>

<p>Park, an apology for possibly coming across too sharp in initial comments. It was unintended, but it is simply that of seasoned advice and experience. Glance through the list of endless forum queries and all too often the underlying question centers around the mind-think "what is the best XYZ to buy for a (fill in the blank, portrait lens, sports, or whatever)?" ...that will make me look professional. a.k.a. quick & easy.<br>

More ironic: 98% of the information already exists in this worthy website... if you search for it.</p>

<p>'Nuff said.</p>

<p>Since you're tech-oriented, start with (if you don't already have) a stellar tripod and head (quick release, Arca-type). The combination will likely cost more than many camera bodies but there is no substitute for a solid foundation. Buy quality, tripod and head, and it'll last you for decades; in the long run be less expensive than a series of mediocre almost-pretty-good tripods.<br>

Quality: you won't go wrong with RRS products, Really Right Stuff in Calif. Arguably the best in the business. Mongoose tripod heads fit in that Gold-standard category, too, but are more wildlife or motion-oriented, gimbal heads.<br>

Macro work, a piece of very inexpensive software will blow your doors off. Helicon Focus. A bit quirky to use but, oh my, the results possible. Stellar. I think it's only $30, maybe $50, made in the Ukraine.<br>

Danylo Kozub is the prime mover and shaker behind the scenes - go through their website:<br>

http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html<br>

Monitor, color calibration - quality starts there. Expect to spend as much as you did, if not more, than you did for that stellar tripod and head. LR3.3 or PhotoShop CS5 are the best in the business; I recommend LR, almost a stand-alone product. CS5 becomes the icing on the cake. Add onOne's Fractals Sharpener, mix in Noel Carboni's Digital Photo Pro sharpening software and it's off to the races - quality in spades, incredible results. Requires PS+GFractals+Noel's Sharpener. Unmatched results. Period.<br>

http://www.prodigitalsoftware.com/dSLR_Fractal_Sharpen.html<br>

Notice I haven't mentioned lenses, nor camera bodies. It's the behind-the-scenes attributes that define excellence, not "the camera," nor "the lens" per se. Skill at using them is your mission. Or failure. The most exotic of lenses fall flat in comparison when it comes to macro work. Vibration is an image killer. Post-processing is mandatory. Exposure and composition is everything; expression likewise, when it comes to people or animal pictures, horses included. Ears up? If not your horse shot is dead. Nothing to do with the lens nor camera body.</p>

<p>"...obsessed about quality", Canon, Zeiss, etc.<br>

Quality = technique, user skills, experience. Buying hardware is not the answer, though it is a common thought; whatever is your specific area of interest and local subject availability determines eventual hardware needs. Macro work is very specialized; you grow into it, not buy into it. With repetitive experience the hardware answers become obvious.</p>

<p>Surprisingly with all the discussion about color perception, Standard vs Neutral, etc..., one key element remains unmentioned: first and foremost is the monitor itself. Has it been accurately color balanced and calibrated?<br>

Unless it has, all thoughts about PhotoStyle X,Y or Z are irrelevant. Same applies to more or less Saturation, etc. Even vaunted "Raw" images won't save your day, despite Raw providing an unlimited - potential - choice of correctness in post-processing - if the monitor isn't color calibrated. To judge and/or adjust - any - image requires an established baseline as the starting point.</p>

<p>With all the hokus-pokus discussion centered on the mythical "best" lens (or best whatever), the proper technique for taking pictures clearly overlooked in capturing the performance of someone on stage ...is to go the dress rehearsal and do your work... NOT attempt the same during the actual performance (and probably annoy many people). At a dress rehearsal you can pretty much move about wherever you want, sometimes even be on stage with the performers (at least if you're a genuine pro-photographer and have properly introduced yourself).<br>

As to "blurred" images and the big fear of using "the wrong - ISO, shutter speed, etc" ... partial blurs can often - enhance - the subject being illustrated, the movement of an athlete. Freezing a ballet dancer in NOT the best means of depicting the subject.<br>

Bottom line: place far, far more emphasis on the subject at hand and what you're trying to illustrate. Lenses, ISO's and the mechanics... unclutter your mind and you'll end up taking better pictures, more vivid pictures, images with far greater intimacy.</p>

<p>It's an outstanding lens, "incredible" in context of the (relatively) low price compared to the 500mm f/4 IS which is "the best" lens ($1600 vs $6,600). Lightness an ease of carrying, built-in lens hood, very small size, included tripod mount bracket. But any lens, $600 or $6000 is only as good as the user... AND the related equipment, i.e., every lens needs a rock-solid tripod AND head. Quick-release brackets are a god-send. Add a 36mm extension tube and the 400mm makes an excellent "closeup" lens. Learn to use it with a tripod and Live View it's a stunning combination.<br>

So if you think buying the 400mm f/5.6 is "the answer" to newfound success? Dream on. In reality it's the total-package of equipment that is far, far more important. An equal reality: all the other equipment will cost far more than the lens itself. Buying the lens - by itself - is a misguided direction. One without the other is like a new car... without wheels.<br>

As to the lens "requiring" fast shutter speeds... is utter nonsense. Even at sunrise or the other end of day when lighting is by far the best. I've shot thousands of top-notch wildlife images sometimes at less than 1/100th and ISO 400 or so. sometimes down to 1/25. A tripod, related equipment and worthy user-techniques will deliver razor-sharp images. Most decent cameras today will easily shoot at ISO 1000 or 1200, 1600 isn't the end of the world. Good post-processing takes care of most issues.<br>

Back to the core question: is the 400mm an excellent lens? Absolutely. Finding a used one may well be a superb bargain... if you can find anyone willing to give up their lens. They're also a very durable lens.</p>

<p>oh navi - the information you provided gives little lead nor provides any ability to issue an opinion, suggestions that might improve. etc. (DPP I do not use.)<br>

Suggestion: on a one-time basis if you'll forward your original Raw file to me I'll do the raw-conversion and run it through multiple post-processing software to bring it up to professional standards. (LR3, CS5 plus a very specialized custom sharpening tool called dSLR Fractals Sharpening ( http://www.prodigitalsoftware.com/dSLR_Fractal_Sharpen.html ). The latter is by far the best program in its field for sharpening. Though it is very inexpensive it unfortunately also requires PhotoShop + onOne Software's General Fractals plug-in for dSLR to function.<br>

Keep in mind that if you attempt to forward a Raw file that exceeds 10K in file-size most service providers will not accept it; you may have to use a (free) service such as YouSendIt.com for file-delivery. I'll return to you a professionally-processed Jpeg file suitable for printing at 12 x 18<br>

Last step - remember: even the "perfect" image file can be screwed up by the printing service... and this may be the source of your problems. You (your file) and the printing service have to be 100% compatible, color profiles, etc. Likewise, you monitor properly adjusted (color balanced, etc.)<br>

The variables are many; any one can mess up the end result. But the starting point is always the high-quality image submitted... either it is, or it isn't.</p>

<p>I'd suggest you forget about filters and instead go out and shoot pictures, actually use your camera and lens. Filters, today, are close to unnecessary.</p>

<p>Whatever software you're using, or misusing... is the source of the problem, nothing to do with the file per se. As Puppy Face illustrates, print size today approaches a non-issue. 20 x 30's from an old Canon 10D produced superb results in the past; today's better Raw-converters hold capability to produce even better. Raw processing is not simple, the multitude of controls available. Work on learning to use your Raw software, ideally find someone locally who can guide you if you're in over your head... and your questions suggest you are. Raw processing is not a "magic bullet," and the interaction of the many controls available demand practice to develop the necessary skills. Possibly find someone who uses your same software and upload to them one of your files, see what results occur, and why they came back without sharpening issues et al.</p>

<p>Dan, both are excellent points.<br>

"As new" is not a mark of excellence, likely the opposite... an object little used. Wear marks are signs of appreciation.</p>

 

<p>I've had it happen (the red flashing warning on the LCD) when in Live View's excellent but power-sucking mode... and the camera is in (Florida's) sunshine at mid-day. Scared me the first time it happen, initially had no idea what it was.</p>

<p>The body always gets warm in Live View regardless of where it's being used, studio or outdoors. Outdoors in mid-day summer sunshine after about 10 minutes LV use, the red-flash warning will appear. No other choice than quit. (Admittedly, rarely do I work outdoors midday in Florida's summer)<br>

I find LV mode invaluable for both macro work, and wildlife (still subjects of course) - combined with the camera's 5x and 10x viewing magnification. LCD viewing outdoors requires a viewing hood (Hoodman works reasonably well).<br>

10X viewing can be very revealing with the camera mounted on a high-end carbon-fiber tripod (Gitzo) and a top-notch head (RRS 2" ball). Despite the ultra-high quality tripod+head... the amount of vibration that occurs when even lightly touching the (500mm) lens is startling; one assumes the above equipment makes the rig rock-solid, vibration proof. It doesn't, not even close. Breezes can have the same effect.</p>

<p>It is my opinion the Live View was a "last minute add-on" by Canon engineering - highly valuable, but needs far more development work. I wouldn't buy another camera if it didn't have Live View (even though I don't use it 70% of the time). For critical focus... nothing comes close. (Only applies to tripod work and a still subject)</p>

<p>from a technical point: the 100mm f/2.8 macro is the answer... the perspective created by a lens in the 80-100mm range approaches that of the human eye (also depends on the camera used, and the person asking didn't specify). Bonus with this lens is the built-in exacting corrections, CA and distortion - about as good as you will find in a lens)</p>

<p>Second aspect: flip the camera 90 degrees to its vertical format and shoot the series of images overlapping at least 25%. Ending megabit size has nothing to do with the fundamental procedure used at capture level, image size is the user's decision on how to handle it (and it is easily controlled). Vertical format generally provides a more useful scenic capture (assuming the desired image isn't a thin horizontal line of ....; if it is - shoot horizontals)</p>

<p>It is utterly amazing how much myth, and "old wives' tales" continues to surface and be rehashed regarding filters, brands, etc. Fervor to the degree of "necessity to make me a better photographer," might as well believe "tall, dark and handsome," too.<br>

The answer to the original question remains: None. No filter is needed, much less is one advised.<br>

Most recent example I've come across is a tour-travel enthusiasts of decent artistic skill levels, just back from two weeks in Italy. He had two (2) filters - permanently stacked - on his wide-to-medium "kit" lens, a Polarizer and an UV filter. All wide-angle shots had vignetted corners. The filters even induced an odd colorcast that required tricky processing to color-correct. When asked why he used the two filters... answer was: he learned about it at semi-pro photo camp the last year.</p>

<p>Derek - the "must have filter".... is none. They're almost pointless in the digital era. "UV" and "for protection" is pure sales hype, but many people swallow it hook, line and sinker.<br>

Work on your camera skills, not add-on trinkets.</p>

<p>Robin, my calibration experience with the 50D applied to three lenses, a fourth about to be undertaken... is, as you correctly point out: the lens itself can not be calibrated.<br>

With my 50D (everyone keep in mind that camera-to-camera variations are highly probable)... my 50D's body is the underlying culprit, the distance of the face of the lens mounting surface in relation to the sensor. Each lens required at similar, nearly identical adjustment.<br>

What I also found is that "distance away from the test target" made little difference, despite a Canon-based directive that it should be done at a specific distance; the formula I think was 50X the lens-mm focal length. A for instance: 100mm macro tested at 5', 10' and 16' (the "proper" distance, 3 meters) yielded the same results.<br>

One last comment: I highly suspect that a majority of focus-distance claims have greater correlation to the person holding the camera... the user himself, how they use the camera, the focus points selected, etc.</p>

<p>The more fundamental question: Why do you even need or want a filter on the front of (any) lens? It's pointless other than the use of special-purpose filters, e.g., polarizing, colored, graduated, etc. "The filter" for "protection" is basically nonsense other than in extremely nasty conditions (sand, salt water, etc.) but there again - protection for the all the rest of the equipment (and person) is even more important. "Filters" is a carry-over from the old days of film, when color-correction filters were of value. It's time to move on.</p>

<p>Charles, the first two lenses you have, 17-40 and 24-105 have no means of tripod mounting; the camera itself has to be directly mounted on the tripod (a Swiss-Arca type bracket is best). Unfortunately, the weight distribution (nose heavy) ends up not over the vertical center-line of the tripod which is better for stability. [i own all of these lenses plus the 5D and 50D]<br>

Your other two lenses require special (extra-cost) tripod mounting rings, neither is cheap, but you end up with a solid and balanced camera-lens combination. Unfortunately the mounting rings are not compatible, you have to buy two different versions. The mount ring for the 70-200 f/4 is compatible (identical) with a possible future-buy 400mm f/5.6<br>

Now back to square one: "my photography almost always involves miles of hiking..."<br>

You're carrying way too much gear, unnecessary lenses. The 24-105 and 70-200 will take care of 99% of your needs. For occasional macro work get yourself one lens extension ring, say 36mm.<br>

If you're dead-serious and determined about carrying all lenses plus two bodies... the weight issue of the tripod (or that of buying a flimsy one) is out of perspective and context to what you're trying to accomplish. Possibly you need to rethink your objectives. Likewise, one camera body is more than adequate.</p>

<p>Only other insight I can add is that Canon's tripod mount ring for the 100mm macro is functionally mediocre, but one of those "grin and bear it" situations where nothing else is available. Fitment and in-use functionality leaves much to be desired. Whereas the other Canon tripod mount ring that applies to the 70-200mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6 lenses is excellent. Ironically and unfortunately, both are overpriced.</p>

<p>Unasked question no one has posed: Why do you want or need the alleged "magical" full frame sensor? Particularly in context that a specific use is not stated.<br>

As to which is "better," full or cropped sensor (I own both)... do remember that it is the person behind the camera who determines how, and how well images are captured. The hardware per se, is fundamentally irrelevant.</p>

<p>Focus sharpness does vary body-to-body, 50D or any other camera. "Manufacturing tolerances" is the underlying issue. My 50D body required an approximate +12 adjustment; the body was at fault not the multiple high-end lenses used, i.e., all lenses "asked for" nearly the same adjustment.<br>

Beyond all of the above, user skill and technique remains first and foremost.</p>

<p>The combination works, and works as expected, a one f/stop light loss (the widest effective lens opening is now f/5.6) and it's not troublesome; auto-focus remains available. But keep in mind the realities of math: 40% more to the existing 200mm only nets an 80 mm gain... you now have an up-to 280mm lens. Not exactly mind-blowing. If it's an effort to capture images "on the other side of the lake" or far-away whatever... it really isn't going to make much difference. Whereas, if you have say, a 500mm lens and add the 1.4X converter - you've now got +200 or 700mm's of telephoto power which is an appreciable gain. To bring this math aspect into clear focus, if you could attach the 1.4x converter to a 50mm lens (can't be done)... you'd only end up with 70mm, not exactly a night-day difference from the base 50mm lens.<br>

Cost might be a suggested judgment, is the converter worth the extra $300? That's your call. The 70-200 f/4 is a superb lens, one of Canon's finest, sharper than it's wider cousin f/2.8 and a huge amount lighter, easier to carry. One thing not to overlook, though, is the - IS - function (image stabilizer) which is worth it's weight in gold. Don't buy a lens without it! That is money well spent.</p>

<p>Mixing various light sources is the kiss-of-death. It's not a camera problem. Simple Laws of Physics. Figure out something else, but make it light from one source-type.</p>

<address>Be careful about confusing the terms "extenders" (1.4x, 2x) and extension tubes. Different animals. Unfortunately, the 100mm macro is NOT extender-capable, it will not mount. </address> <address><br /> </address> <address>Tubes, of course, can be used on any lens. But remember there is no "free-lunch" - light falloff is appreciable.</address> <address><br /> </address> <address>But back to square one: what are you trying to accomplish that the 100mm macro won't do? After spending $1000+ on a lens that won't cut it - Ouch! Spend your money on rails, quality quick release mounts, get a superb tripod and head, etc. Those are the things that really make a difference in macro work.<br /> </address>

<p>Exactly as Robin says, nothing needed - pure plug-&-play with this combination. UDMA on the 50D is noticeably better (when used with a faster-capable flashcard). I happen to use a Lexar Pro 300x 8GB. Comparative is my 5D, the faster flash card makes zero difference.</p>

<p>Don't overlook download speed into your computer however you connect; various external readers are different in this respect, a clue is price of the reader... the $10 type are slow, in the $25-40 range these units are fast.</p>