john_nastelin1

On the short end, the difference between f/3.5 and f/2.8 is pretty small, especially with the advantage of IS. You will obviously see a bigger difference on the long end, but that's also where the IS really begins to shine. Bottom line: Unless you are regularly shooting fast-moving sports, I doubt that you will see much of an improvement in speed and will lose a lot of room on the long end with a 24-70mm lens.

 

If you really want to improve things from a speed standpoint, would you consider using primes instead? The Canon 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 are all excellent. Sigma and Tamron also have some good fast primes in the wider end. Plus, some of these lenses are so inexpensive that you won't need to sell your 28-135 to get them!

You must be very careful when evaluating MTF curves because there's no generally accepted standard for creating them. The Canon site or "EF Lens Work" book will give you curves created by Canon, but which can really only be compared to each other.

You might need to act fast - I just heard that the non-IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8L was discontinued by Canon.

Not entirely sure about the 1D but I believe that 2GB is the max for that camera. 4GB is fine for the 1DMkII, but I advise getting the fastest CF you can to take advantage of the speed of that camera. I saw a Lexar 80x 4GB the other day; that sounds like just the ticket. See it at:

 

http://www.adorama.com/ILXCF804G.html?searchinfo=lexar%204gb&item_no=1

Fly Guy, you are at far more risk of these lenses being discontinued than of Canon releasing updates. With the exception of the 400mm DO lens, Canon hasn't introduced any new primes since 1999, when they released their ultra-telephoto IS series. Before that, I think that the 35/1.4 is the most recent. For a good reference site of Canon lenses, check out:

 

http://www.gallery1.co.uk/canon.html

 

I'll repeat a few points here that I posted recently in another thread that may help you decide: (1) By virtue of being able to hand-hold at slower shutter speeds, the 24mm is "faster" than the 35mm; (2) The 1.6x crop factor of your camera does NOT alter the wide-angle distortion effect of either lens, so neither is good for head/shoulders portraits; (3) The 35/1.4 is generally regarded in forums such as this to be one of Canon's most outstanding prime lenses, along with the 135/f2. But the 24/1.4 has a very devoted following too.

My advice: Stick with M and manual focus, but go digital instead.

 

Rationale: After playing around with 126 and 110 cartridge cameras as a kid, I finally got interested in photography when my dad let me use his old rangefinder 35mm camera. The nice thing about that camera is how easy it was to set the aperture and shutter from the lightmeter. (Tv meant setting the shutter first; Av meant setting the aperture first!) Next I would estimate the subject distance and look at the DOF scale on the lens to set the focus. Lacking zoom, autofocus, or autoexposure I really gained a solid understanding of the basics.

 

But... my biggest frustrations were always the lack of immediate feedback and as the cost of film and processing, realized every time I pressed the shutter. (To a twelve-year-old kid, that's a big cost!) Today, digital fixes both of these limitations so I just can't justify teaching photography on a film camera. Unfortunately, I've never found a digital camera that's anywhere near so easy to use in manual mode as that old rangefinder 35mm. Given the inherent oxymoron in the notion of a manual digital camera, maybe something like a dual-dial 300D or 10D is the closest we will get. At least they're better than single-dial film cameras for manual use.

Some unrelated thoughts: First, the 35 1.4L has a very high reputation for quality on this and other discussion boards; not so for the 24 1.4L (although the 24 has its ardent defenders). Second, remember that a 1.6x DSLR only crops the center of the frame, so you will get the same wide-angle distortion regardless of whether you're shooting FF or 1.6x. Third, the wider angle of the 24mm means that it's a half-stop "faster" than the 35mm because you can shoot at slower shutter speeds.

Jim, thanks - I checked and I don't see any part like what you describe from Quantum. If it's not asking too much, I'd appreciate if you could check on the part number that you've used. Perhaps it was a custom cable, but I haven't seen anybody offering the Canon EOS flash power connectors.

I've been searching for a Y-cable that would allow a single

transistor pack E to power more than one Speedlite flash. This

would be extremely handy for a multi-flash situation without forcing

me to purchase additional TP's. Does anybody know of one? Thanks!

Yakim, I forgot to mention in my post that I used the camera's autofocus for that shot. It took a few tries to determine the shortest distance at which it was able to lock in focus - about 1.5 feet I recall (forgot to measure, sorry). I shot at f/2.8 to demonstrate the capability of the lens/TC combo wide open, but underestimated how incredibly shallow the DOF is at that aperture.

Just for kicks, I put a 135 f/2L on a 10D with a 1.4 extender and Kenko 36mm tube. I put the contraption on a tripod, set mirror lockup, attached a cable release, and shot an exposure of a wristwatch (f/2.8 at 1/60 sec.) I measured the inner diameter of the watch circle at 30mm, which implies a magnification of .8 - not bad for a non-macro lens. (Of course, had this been a full-frame camera the magnification would have been less.)<div></div>

There is absolutely no reason to introduce a 22 mpix DSLR because no Canon lens has that kind of resolving power. Not even close. However, someone much wiser than I once offered that some "extra" pixels could be potentially added to an image sensor for error-detection/correction to lower the image noise.

 

So perhaps this is a case of 22 mpix "total" but with more like 11-16 mpix "effective" resolution, and much lower noise than anything else on the market.

 

Okay, I'm out on a limb, but if I'm right, remember that you heard it here first.

Camilla, if a 20D is in your future, why not consider the 17-85 f4-5.6 IS EF-S instead of the 17-40? It's far more flexible than the 17-40, although a bit slower, and costs about the same (cheaper if you buy it as a kit with the 20D!)

I'm asking because I'd like some assurance that I'm getting the latest version. The dates shown on the B&H and Adorama web sites are both 2003. Maybe a camera store is best for this.

Does anybody know where we can purchase this book?

Hold on, stupid question coming... the camera focuses before the lens is stopped down. So why the DOF and diffraction concerns?

Shaun, if you have access to machine shops, perhaps you could sell the modification to others - "send me your lens and for $100 I will modify it for a 10D." Your "R&D expense" could also be a tax writeoff. Sounds like a win-win? There are probably enough fanatics out there desperate for the extra 2 mm and Canon brand.

Anders,

 

I think that Canon has strongly signalled their intent to retain the 1.6x multiplier on consumer-grade DSLR's for the forseeable future with their inclusion of the EF-S mount on the 20D and simultaneous introduction of two new high quality EF-S lenses. My expectation is that EF-S will definitely be the way to go for the budget-constrained or value-oriented photographers. Once the new lenses become available, I'm looking forward to independent tests to confirm their quality.

 

So to answer your question, consider the EF-S 17-85mm IS as your "normal" lens, the EF-S 10-22 mm lens for wide angle use, and your choice of EF lens for telephoto since there's no benefit to the EF-S mount for telephoto. You should also have the 50mm f/1.8 (or f/1.4) because it's cheap and fast.

 

As for telephoto, you have lots of great options. You could go straight to the 100-400mm zoom to get IS and tremendous reach in one package. A cheaper alternative is the 70-300mm IS zoom, at some loss of image quality. You'd also be happy with any lens in the 70-200mm family along with 1.4x/2x TC's for extra reach. But beware the loss of IS at those focal lengths (and loss of AF using the 2x converter with 70-200 f/4 lens.)

 

Professionals using "L" glass will probably stick with the 1.3x/1.0x cameras and so will not need (or even be able to use) the EF-S lenses.

So when's the last time Canon has introduced a new fast (f/2 or faster) prime lens? Not very recently. Today, the market wants zooms and we can't fault Canon for obliging. So, as much as I'd love to see a 200mm/f1.8 IS or 50mm/f1.2 IS lens, I'm not holding my breath. I'm just trying to save my pennies and grab what's still available.

I've happily been using the Canon UV/Haze filters for some time now. B&H sells them in the $10-30 range. After learning that these Canon filters are not very popular on bulletin boards like this one, I recently ran a test to check for any loss of sharpness or contrast with the filter attached and found that the images with and without the filter were completely identical. The image was taken on a cloudy day with lens hood attached so flare wasn't a factor.

 

As for flare, I rarely get any and have not ever run a test to see if it's exacerbated by the filter. I normally use a lens hood and rarely have a problem with it. If others have noticed a flare problem with the Canon filters I'd be interested to know about it.

If you're shooting birds, I'd go with the 400mm reach, even on the 10D.

 

If you're an intrepid soul you could also consider the Sigma 300-800 f/5.6. That gives you plenty of reach without a TC and you keep your AF all the way. I've also heard that it's optically very good. But it's horribly expensive and no IS.

Remember, unless you have a "pro" body you will be using manual focus and the viewfinder will be very dim. Getting a sharp focus will probably be your biggest challenge when enlarging to 11x14.

Great thread, entertaining too. I have been using Canon-branded "UV Haze L-39 sharp cut" filters for protection but seldom see them discussed. Does anybody know where these filters come from, and their relative quality? Thanks.

Your current 50mm f/1.8 is perfect for candid portraits. I've heard that the 100mm-400mm is the ultimate zoo lens. Grab that one and you will have enough left for the 50mm f/2.5 macro.

 

Only concern is that then you would have two 50mm lenses so you might want to grab the 85mm f/1.8 for portraits and sell the 50mm f/1.8 but now you're a little over budget.

 

The 70-200mm won't give you enough reach for wildlife. I think you need at least 400mm on the long end. I don't know much about Bigma but it could be a substitute for the 100-400.

David, why are you thinking of a zoom lens for shooting portraits? You can get slightly sharper images with a top-quality prime lens. I normally wouldn't care about the difference but at 16x20 it might be noticeable. You can pick up the 50mm f/1.4 lens for portraits and have plenty of cash left to buy an excellent zoom for weddings.