rayn

Canon 200/2.8 is one of the best bargains in the Canon line. Probably THE best in the 'L'

line.

If you think the price of a used 200/1.8 is too much money, then you shouldn't buy one.

Get a 200/2.8 and be happy.

Optical performance is alomst identical to the 85/1.8, except at 1.2 and 1.4 of course.

Here is a review:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm

There is a picture at the bottom comparing both wide open for portrait.

There are some for the D70 <a href="http://www.lifepixel.com/IR.htm">here.</a>

<p>If you know of any for the 20D, I'd sure like to see them. I might just have to make a

tutorial myself for this, provided I am successful.

<p>I thought I'd just go slowly and carefully and not go beyond anything I couldn't undo.

If it

looks like it's too risky, I'll just abort and put it back together. I know the 10D cannot be

converted because the hot mirror is soldered to the sensor. It cannot simply be

unscrewed like the D70. However, the digital rebel can be converted so I'm hoping the

20D is more like that. I won't know until I open it up.

I'm thinking of taking the plunge and removing the hot mirror on a Canon 20D (wish me

luck). But I only want to do it if I can use my trusty Canon 16-35/2.8L lens with it. This is

the lens I use for landscapes with a normal (unmodified) 20D and I'd like to avoid carrying

a separate lens for IR if possible.

Now I know this lens will cause a hotspot on an unmodified 20D, but I think the hotspot

has something to do with reflections off the hot mirror. So does anyone have a digital

body modified for infrared and a 16-35/2.8 that can comment from direct experience?

"I have over 30 years collection of filters of various brands. There is no difference in

optical quality between UV filters. That's comparing the expensive B&W multicoated

superduper to the lowly Tiffen UV Protector. No difference. None. Nada. Zero. Zip."

Time to see the eye doctor.

All you need to do is hold up a B+W MRC filter and a Tiffen filter next to each other and

you will *immediately* see the difference. I don't mean a subtle difference, I mean a

pronounced difference. The B+W will seem like the glass isn't even there. Like it's just an

empty filter ring with no glass at all. The Tiffen will look like someone cut the glass out of

your bedroom window and stuck it in a filter ring. Of course, this difference mostly has to

do with the MRC in the B+W. The Tiffen is showing reflections that indicate there is glass

there. But I think it also has alot to do with the Schott glass in the B+W.

Try it. It is not a subtle difference at all.

On a side note, the B+W just oozes quality when you hold one. Kind of like holding a well

built metal lens.

It's not even close. The 1Ds only resolves about 55 lp/mm. Most of Canon's cheap zooms

can do better than that stopped down. Some of Canon's primes can get as high as 90 lp/

mm. Examples are the 85/1.8, 100/2, and 135/2 all at f/8. So current DSLR sensors have

a long way to go before they reach the resolving power of Canon's best glass.

FWIW, the 20D has greater resolution per area than the 1Ds (about 62 lp/mm for the 20D,

55 lp/mm for the 1Ds). But the bigger pixels on the 1Ds have other advantages of course.

Click on the link below for data on lp/mm for various Canon bodies and lenses. This guy

does useful camera/lens tests. Good stuff. And of course Bob's site is good too.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/index.htm

Yeah, camera sales guys like to push Hoya for some reason. B&H especially does that. I've

used lots of filters over the last 15 years and I'd say the Tiffen suck about as bad as the

Hoya. They arn't bad filters, they just suck an even amount.

If you really want the good stuff, it's German. B+W MRC is about as good as it gets.

Heliopan is good too. If you're going to leave a filter on the lens all the time, it's got to be

a B+W or Heliopan. Get the MRC variety.

There is a resolution comparison chart here of the 400/2.8 vs. the 300/4 + 1.4x

teleconverter:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/300mm/index.htm

While this is not against the 400/5.6, it does give you some idea of what adding a

teleconverter to the 300/4 will do. Image quality will be kind of like the 100-400 zoom.

Good read either way.

They use a little bit of everything. Depends on the photographer. I know one guy uses a

Leica M in addition to his regular SLR arsenal. That helicopter guy uses a Pentax 67. That

Robert Glenn Ketchup guy (tomato based) uses a 645 or at least he used to. And of course

there's the traditional PJ getting up close and personal with a wide angle zoom. NG

photogs are no different from other pros. They use whatever they like.

I have a B1 that is now about 10 years old. Still going strong. With the pan knob

tightened, I could not budge this in the pan direction if I grabbed it with both hands and

used all my strength.

The sample you had was defective. Arca-Swiss would fix it for free under warranty.

"And who could be so pathetic that their main interest is impressing other

photographers?"

Go to a national park in the summer, you'll meet plenty of them.

High quality is a step above medium quality but a hair below excellent quality and far far

below Leica quality.

There is a conversion tutorial for the Nikon D70 <a href="http://www.lifepixel.com/

IR.htm">here.</a>

<p>You might be able to extract some information that would apply to your Canon.

Generally,

Canon bodies are harder to convert than Nikon bodies.

<p>The hot mirror on all newer Canon digital bodies is very strong. It hardly lets any IR

through. I've done extensive tests, and using a Hoya 072 on a newer Canon digital body is

a crock. You basically are taking a picture of the visible red light, which is why sample

pictures with this combo only look slightly like true infrared. To get true infrared, you'll

need a B+W 093 and that will give you extremely long exposure times. The Hoya gives the

illusion of shorter exposure times because a large part of the image is formed by the

visible spectrum. Believe me, very little IR is getting through that hot mirror even with a

15 second exposure.

<p>You'll need to remove the hot mirror if you want to take true IR pics with a newer

Canon body and exposures under 30 seconds. Removing the hot mirror will give you

exposure times that you can easily handhold in daylight, even at f/11.

<p>The guy who runs <a href="http://dpfwiw.com/ir.htm">this forum</a> should be

able to tell you which Canon lenses have hotspots. Send him an e-mail and post back for

us.

You are not likely to see much of a difference with mirror lock-up at those speeds.

Traditionally, about 1/4 of a second to 1/30 or thereabouts are where you'll need mirror

lock up. Not to say it isn't important at other speeds, it's just that the effects are less

noticeable.

Eric, as a former grad student who spent WAY too much loan money on lenses, let me

suggest you set your sights a little lower.

Keep the 17-40 and ebay the rest of your lenses.

Buy a 85/1.8 and see how you like it. This will only be around $325. Get the hood. It will

be equal to 136/1.8 in film terms. That is a good universal length if you had to pick just

one. 136 (equivalent) is long enough for indoor sports (plus you can crop a little), and

excellent for portraits provided you can step back from your subject a little.

Zooms are great but they are a little over-rated IMO and you will get used to shooting with

the 85/1.8 after a while. It is tiny compared to the 70-200 honker and will be a joy to

use.

Use the rest of your loan money on food or just don't take it at all. It can be rough coming

out of college with a lot of debt. Just speaking from experience here. Best of luck!

Dr. Ray

"You know all those 'decisive moments' you missed because you could not set exposure

and focus fast enough on your Leica? "

Blasphemy! You'll smoke a turd in hell for that.

Ebay won't care. I was a victim of fraud on ebay a few years ago. Neither ebay nor the FBI

gives a shit about internet crime. I lost $1100. Ebay doesn't care, they make money off of

fraud (provided the buyer pays). The guy that ripped me off still happily sells on ebay.

Ebay is a polished company on the surface but underneath they are as shady as anyone.

FYI, <a href="http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise.htm">here</a> is an

extensive review that compares just about every noise reduction engine out there.

He concludes that Noise Ninja is the best.

What do you think of the new

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/dng.shtml"> Adobe

Digital Negative Converter. </a>

It is basically a program to convert raw files into a standard format, so third party writers

can easily make programs that support raw, and so raw files will be more archival.

I wonder if there is any loss of quality. I guess it's too early to tell. Sounds like a great

idea though.

It's out of focus. Photograph a printed page at an angle and see if ANY of the text is

sharp.

Use mirror lock and 2 second timer to eliminate as many variables as possible.