ozone42

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

I'd wager their "interaction with the full-size sensor" would be very similar to their interaction with film, which they've been doing since they were released--and they were originally designed for.

I disagree with most of these responses strongly. While it is too long for most INDOOR use, it's a fabulous lens to use outdoors.

 

The length and large apeture gives you the ability to seperate your subjects from their backgrounds nicely, the bokeh is smooth and appealing. The 85mm would be good indoors, if still a little long. I haven't used the 50mm f2.5 but the f1.4 and f1.8 are not very good at focusing, the 100mm f2.8 blows them both away.

 

This is the first time I've seen someone commenting negatively on compression. Compression is often a GOOD thing in portraiture, most fashion/model shoots I see outside people are using a 300mm f2.8, sometimes even longer using walky talkies to talk to prompt the model. You can do a lot of interesting composition using natural backgrounds with the compression longer lenses give you.

 

The only negative thing I have to say about this lens--and it's not really negative--is it's sometimes TOO sharp. It will reveal every flaw on your subject.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Sticking with Canon does two things. It gives you better resale value, and it ensures future compatibility. If you have an EF lens, it's going to work on any EF body. You don't have the same assurance with a third party lens. Many of them have great optical quality and are excellent tools, but are often not supported as long or consistantly as their Canon counterparts.

 

Primes are generally always going to be able to outperform zooms. If they don't outperform optically, they'll outperform financially and weight wise. I'll always recomend primes. They'll force you to think more about your positioning for your shots, and force you to learn to "see" a certain focal length.

<div></div>

I've only been into photography for a few years, and I got my first dSLR this year. Here's the way I see it: There is no substitute for another stop of light.

 

I can understand Canon's marketing, and it's success with the f4L lenses. It makes sense. They're cheaper, they're lighter, they're good! In some ways a few are even equal or superior to their faster cousins. They're a different animal, though. To me they just seem like "pro-sumer" lenses. There's nothing wrong with them at all, they're all excellent lenses.

 

Given the choice? I'd go f2.8 every single time. The reasons have already been listed: Better viewfinder visibility, better low light performance, they're superior at f2.8 :)

 

The flexibility of low noise, easy iso switching does make the f4 lenses much more viable, but it doesn't solve the inherent problems. Even with IS fixing camera shake you have to deal with motion blur of subjects with low shutter speed. Even with less noisy high ISO helping you get the right exposure there's still noise to be dealt with. My camera can see much better than I can, it can take pictures darker than I can focus them so every stop of light to help ME is welcomed.

Before you start drooling, please remember that IS handholding advantage is only and advantage if your subjects aren't moving any!

 

If your subjects are moving, you're going to have to set the shutter speed to them--not the available light.

Lovely story, thanks for sharing it with us.

Yep I misread someone else's post and skimmed to much. I agree, if you don't move, it's exactly the same.

 

The crop factor could best be explained on the positive side as bonus enlarging potential.

Also to clarify. The lens does not change at all.

 

But I'm also saying that a 200mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor does NOT equal a 320mm lens on a full frame camera.

I think we're missing something here. Here's a good explanation of the effect I was going for.

<br><br>

<a href="http://www.hash.com/users/jsherwood/tutes/focal/focal.html">Focal length 'compression'</a>

<br><br>

Granted, those aren't real photographs, but it explains the point very thoroughly. I can frame my subject with any focal length almost identically, but the rest of the image could be substantially different depending on focal length. This is not depth of field. This is ZOOM/Magnification/Compression. I can't take a crop from these images and have identical results.

<br><br>

Forgive me again for not knowing the proper terms.

You are correct in your logic. Terminology... I'm honestly not sure myself how to describe what you're getting at. I've heard it termed 'Compression' on telephoto lenses. The idea is exactly right though.

 

An 85mm lens will always be an 85mm lens. The inherent magnification will remain the same.

 

I think the example is better for long lenses. Some fashion photographers favour very long lenses for the aspect of compression. They stand far enough away from the model so that they may have to use a bullhorn or radio to give them cues, but the effect is longer noses are compressed, the background seems bigger/closer. This effect will remain the same regardless of the crop. Say you're shooting a model and behind her is a lighthouse in the distance. Using a 100mm lens the lighthouse may seem small/insignifigant in the background, but framing her properly with a 300mm lens will "bring the lighthouse closer."

 

Again I don't know the correct terms for this, just the effect. Perspective is as good a description as any.

If you're shooting indoors you need as much light as you can get. I'd say wait for the f2.8. However, the resale value of the lens is pretty decent. If you don't mind a bit of a loss you could probably buy the f4, use it a few months, and then sell it and buy the f2.8 once you've saved enough.

 

There's also the 200mm f2.8L which is a fantastic lens, but it's pretty horrible at 70-199mm.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

I sincerely doubt *ANY* existing file formats will be around 40 years from now. Maybe not even 20. I wouldn't worry about formats, just keep in touch with what software is available and convert as new formats are brought into play, or keep a copy of something you know handles the format.

 

I'd worry a lot more about archiving the data than what format it's in. A good quality DVD kept in a cool dry and dark place will probably last 20-40 years but if it's not stored carefully you'd be lucky with 10. A lot of people are buying spare hard drives to store data to and then stow away, or resorting to high quality tape backup.

I think that's an interesting question. It probably depends somewhat on the resolution of HD as well. 720p will naturally be sharper than 480p, and an LCD or DLP tv will naturally be crisper than a tube.

 

I wonder if anyone has put together some general sharpening guidelines for different forms of media. PC monitor, projection/tv, print sizes/distances.