fly_guy

AArrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!!! One last try.

http://www.amateurphotographer.com/news/Posh_weilds_Leica_shoots_and_misses_news_69092.html

Hmmm...the link didn't paste properly....let's try again.

http://www.amateurphotographer.com/news/Posh_weilds_Leica_shoots_and_ misses_news_69092.html

This is too good, folks. I do wish the flash were tilted up, though.

http://www.amateurphotographer.com/news/Posh_weilds_Leica_shoots_and_

misses_news_69092.html<div></div>

Huh?

I just used 5D and shot RAW (can't remember when I ever shot JPG), and the new Camera RAW 3.2 that I downloaded from Adobe's website worked without any problems.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=15251071

Regards.

David,

Thanks for the clarification on the Zeiss line-up. I obviously know nothing about Zeiss/Contax cameras and lenses, but have read about some people successfully using the 21mm with an adaptor on Canon EOS bodies, so I assumed the zoom ought to work that way as well.

Is the Zeiss 21mm really THAT good? My curiosity is peaked.

Regards.

Jim,

As I mentioned, the 5D arrives tomorrow, and my 10-22 EF-S that works great on 20D, will do me no good on 5D.

You're right, 17-40L seems to be the logical choice for me. But something about this Zeiss brand intrigues me, and wonder if anyone is using that lens on a full framer.

Thanks.

A while back I started a thread to canvass opinions on Canon 17-40L

vs 16-35L as an ideal choice for FF 5D.

Well, the time has come to make a decision. My 5D arrives tomorrow,

and I am still on the fence about a wide angle zoom to complete my

three zoom lens set up with 24-70L and 70-200L IS (I also own and

enjoy the Canon 100mm Macro).

Somewhere I read about a Zeiss 17-35mm Vario-Sonnar T* lens that is

supposed to be a knockout. Has anyone here tried this lens with FF

1Ds or 1DsMkII? Please share your opinions.

I need to make a decision fast, in about a week. Currently, I am

leaning toward 17-40L (because I hardly need f/2.8 for wide angles,

and I already have 24-70L), but would like a final opinion check.

Thanks.

The dust issue concerns me the most. The shorter battery life than 20D is also an issue to a certain extent.

My hope is Canon would fix these problems in the production version.

Altogether, a good preliminary report.

Thanks for all the responses.

I should have pointed out in my original query that I currently use the 20D with 10-22 EF-S, 24-70L, 70-200L IS (with 1.4x), and 100/2.8 Macro.

The dilemma about the wide zoom has come up because I am going to get the new 5D. Fortunately the 10-22 EF-S is the only EF-S lens I have in my arsenal, so I won't have to go through a lot of reassessment of my current inventory, except finding a good quality replacement for 10-22 equivalent.

The opinions appear to be somewhat divided on 17-40L and 16-35L. Clearly, the slow speed is not an issue for me, but image quality is. After sharpness, flare control seems to be the biggest issue with wide angles. And it seems that the 17-40L delivers successfully in that department. That is the way I will most likely go.

I leave on a vacation in mid October and don't have a whole lot of time to wait for reviews of how the 17-40L performs on 5D, but I will hold off through the last week of September and see if anyone has a serious reservation on the combo.

Thanks again to everyone for your time and effort to respond.

In anticipation of the upcoming 5D, I have begun searching for an

ideal wide angle zoom.

Of the two usual suspects - 16-35L and 17-40L - there appears to be

a general consensus that the 16-35L is more prone to flare and has

advantage at the longer end over 17-40L, whereas the latter is less

prone to flare. How "general" is this consensus? Is it almost

universally true?

If the above is true, I am leaning toward 17-40L. The f/2.8 speed

is not of such high importance to me in wide angles.

How likely is one to get a bad copy of 17-40L?

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

One thing I wanted to mention is I detest the fact that Canon sells such an expensive EF-S lens without a hood. After getting the lens, I checked at so many online stores, only to find that the hood was out of stock everywhere. I have to check into it again.

Anyway, here's another image.

I have the 10-22 and love it as a complement to 24-70 on my 20D.

Here's a sample.<div></div>

I plan on getting this new 24-105mm as a general purpose walkaround lens with the new 5D. Regardless of how unwieldy the 24-70L may be, it would be hard to part company with it, unless the new lens completely trounces it in performance, in which case I may get rid of 24-70L and go for a dedicated portrait lens such as 85/1.8 or 135/2L - most likely the latter.

I hate giving up faster lenses, but the 35mm extra reach of 24-105mm would be more useful and IS would add to the allure of acquiring it and keeping it. I am really looking forward to the new L lens.

I am considering buying this lens along with 5D to either add to or replace my 24-70L provided, of course, it delivers equal or better image quality. The IS is really an attractive feature for me.

One question I have is, how does the DOF of this lens at f/4 compare on a FF 5D vis a vis the DOF of 24-70L at f/2.8 at the longest respective focal length for each? i.e. Is 105mm @ f/4 on FF good enough to get a good background blur for portraits that 70mm (112mm eq.) provides on 20D at f/2.8?

Kenny,

As I mentioned, if I didn't notice what I believe is a clear difference between the two lenses, I would not be considering selling the Tamron. Yes, it is smaller than the Canon 24-70L to the point of being considered compact, but after seeing the results, I am willing to carry it and put up with its size and the big hood. It's THAT good.

I shoot with Leica Digilux 2 and prefer a certain look to the colors, contrasts, and saturation in my images. I have this look from my 70-200 IS, and now from 24-70L. The Tamron, while almost equally sharp to Canon 24-70L, does not produce that out-of-the-box "wow" factor that I am now pleased to have.

Before purchasing this lens, I started this thread:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CmGr

I fully agree with Peter above regarding "bad copy" BS being spewed by people who most likely don't know how to use Auto-focus. I also use only the central AF point and compensate from there, and thanks to full time MF option on Canon USM, this is easy.

Your mileage, as they say, may vary.

I bought the Tamron 28-75 based on positive recommendations from many forums. The image quality of Tamron, while excellent in its own right - especially for the price, just lacked that "wow" factor I consistently got from my 70-200L IS USM. About a month ago, I finally bought the 24-70L, and I am glad I did.

I am far from a professional photographer, a complete novice in fact - and neither a pixel peeper, nor a lens tester. But as soon as I find some spare time, I will be selling the Tamron.

Once you get the L, you'll never look back, and sleep peacefully knowing that you have the best there is. What price is peace of mind for you? That's a question you'll have to answer for yourself.

I upgraded from X's Drive Pro to PD7X about seven months ago, and have been generally quite pleased with the faster performance. I have two issues with PD7X:

1. The battery compartment is quite flimsy and mine is ready to come apart any day, forcing me to carry rubber bands as backup, just in case. What a shame, on an otherwise quite useful and practical device.

2. Copying my Ultra II 2GB CF card is okay, but without the power cord plugged in, I cannot get it to copy my Extreme III 4GB CF card, even with the new firmware. This is a disappoinement to me.

How does the new upgrade PD70X handle 4GB CF cards without power cord plugged in?

I have placed an order for 24-70L today from Amazon.com, and expect to receive it next week some time.

Thanks again for all the responses.