david_jones18

I own a 24 f1.4 and it is a very sharp lens and gives a good contrast and colour rendition. I would wholly recommmend it unless you are planning on architectural shots (where tilt-shift comes in handy).

 

Also I should note that I am on my 3rd copy of this lens - I noticed that this lens has a tendency to accumulate condensation droplets (dew) within the lens (which my non-L and some L lens are not prone to) - Not used in extreme conditions or misuse. These take a while to develop (months) and worrying start to join up ("where there is water there is life" - at least according to NASA). I think Canon has a QC issue with this lens are worse a design issue with an overly hydroscopic lens element (internal). Personally, knowing what I know now I would stay clear of this lens.

 

At this price tag I expected a superior lens not a can of worms.

 

Best Regards

I am concerned about putting all my eggs in one basket...

 

I am tempted to use two 250 GB drives (one as master and one as a

backup) in which to archive my digital images.

 

I am concerned though as the media is magnetic which is prone to

changes over time. The time scale before errors become noticeable is

10 years. Is this a true and a valid concern?

 

As an alternative I could archive to DVD-R in addition, which seems to

be the way to go according to other posts.

 

The external hard drive is one the one hand very accessible and I'd

imagine that USB will be around for some time and if not then an

adaptor would be.

 

DVD-R might not be in the future.

 

Yours thoughts on this are appreciated,

 

Thanks

I use a 400 F2.8 (about 6kg).

 

Thanks for the input.

I am looking to buy a new tripod.

 

Any ideas what this tripod is from the site's picture on Luminous

Landscape?

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/500vs600.shtml

 

See 3rd image down page under 'Testing on location'

 

Many thanks

OK, Thanks all for your replies

 

I will use Astia slide film for portraits or something like Fuji NPS (low contrast) print film and probably go for Velvia RVP-100 (100 without the F) for those sunsets where high colour saturation is needed.

 

Does anyone know whether 100F or RVP-100 is any good for STAR TRAIL PHOTOGRAPHY? Does a magenta filter (colour correcting 20M) still required to correct colour shifts for long exposures and if so how long into exposure (20 mins or longer, 1+ hours, etc.)

 

Many Thanks.

I do not use slide film all that often but that will change when I

purchase a neg/slide scanner. I have just noticed that another

Fujichrome film has been introduced (Velvia 100 without the F). The

literature on this mentions better magenta and other colours.

 

What do users of Velvia 100F (2003 introduced) and 100 (new film)

recommend amongst these two. I tried 100F and Velvia 50 and liked them

both. How does 100 compare with 100F and ISO 50 Velvia?

 

While on the topic what film is recommended for colour portraits

amongst slide films?

 

Many thanks

eos 3 and 1 have both equally noisy shutters. My EOS 5 is very quiet in comparison. Do not know about digital SLRs. The Rob Galbraith site had some audio file option to listen to shutter sounds of the DSLRs like the 20D.

 

You will get used to it (shutter noise). You also want something with spot metering ideally.

Custom Function - 4-3 (if same as EOS1v) will change focus from main shutter release button to the rear top right of camera on back (marked with * symbol (exposure lock button?).

 

If same as EOS3 and 1v then it is not possible to autofocus with CF 4-0 which allows for main shutter release/focus button to take shot.

 

If there is a way round this I'd love to hear it.

 

Good luck

I'd go for 70-300 DO or buy a bigger camera bag for your current 100-400 lens for going about town.

 

You already have a 100-400 lens that is sharper than either of your two suggested lens. Although the 75-300 and 70-300 are both light, I think if you have been used to the USM of the L zoom you have you might be disappointed with the 75-300 zoom which seems to hunt and take its time alot when AF.

 

If grap shots are what you want then the 70-300 is the one to go with, plus it is more compact when at 70mm setting (for storage), maybe half the length of the 75-300 at 75mm.

 

Otherwise stick with what you have or invest in a mid-range prime lens (135 F/2 L to go with a 35mm fixed lens?).

This is going back a few months ago - and having had a bad experience with a 80-200 F2.8 L(A/F broke) I decided not to buy S/H, but since the store had one in s/h I thought I might take a look at this lens, which is actually smaller than I imagined.

This particular lens in the condition it was in was something I would not touch in the state I have described, regardless of price, unless they were giving it away, which they were not...

 

Going back to the original question though, has anyone got both/used both a 14 mm Canon and 16-35mm lens on film or digital crop (1.6) and can describe what they like best?

 

Ta

Lol!...Yes I should have asked the salesperson if they had a spare front element, particularly since the price they were asking for it was its nearly new price.

 

No really, the 14mm was 'missing a piece of glass', a dent or chip that could be seen at greater than armlength's distance, not just its len's coating.

I did not buy it - I took a photo using it while in the shop while I had the opportunity. The wide angle of coverage opens up new photographic possibilities but once I had seen the len's condition I decided against it - I could not believe it was selling for 80% of the asking price for brand new. When the saleperson said he would see his manager offering a knock-down reduction I was expecting a large reduction but no, only around 60% of its new price...I left it regardless to say.

 

I did see that there are groves (threads) in the petals hood which made me think an atypical Canon cap slots over the petal-type hood rather than clips on, now I know there is protection, thanks.

Follow on question,

 

I have used the 14mm lens in a shop wide open (S/H) and was

disappointed, although it was missing some of the glass from the

front element which seemed to cause ghosting around bright light

sources. It was however the general sharpness of the picture that

concerned me. I am aware that this lens is covering an extreme range

and therefore sacrifices have to be made. Does this lens improve

dramatically stopped down to F8, or further stopped down? I ask this

since I have seen landscape shots and forum threads indicating that

another ultrawide (17-35 F2.8 discontinued) when stopped down all

the way to F22 provided good results (Fredmiranda site).

 

I would have thought F11 would have been a better choice unless

sharpness and performance of the lens meant stopping down further

produced better results (distortion, light fall-off, etc).

 

 

Out of interest though how does this compare with the EF16-35 mm

lens (a different kettle of fish) I know but 16 mm might just be

wide enough. I will be using on a film body until I think about

digital, 1.6 crop. Also, how does the 14mm compare to the EF-S 10-22

mm lens at 10 mm (a different kettle of fish again I know). The 17-

40 mm is tempting but I like fast lenses although this lens is a

possibility and better priced also.

 

Any comments are appreciated.

Hello,

 

Does this ultrawide angle lens have a front lens cap to protect the

glass? If not what do people do to look after the glass?

 

Asking since I have been considering this lens for some time.

 

Thanks

Without filtration but taken under orange sodium streetlit lamps. I forgot to add 80A filter. Distant line is lighting storm I was trying to capture but nearby lighting has reduced its prominence.

Hull, E Yorkshire, no filter correction, taken under street lamp (not orange lighting). 24 mm at F/2.8-F4? (15 s?), some camera shake.

Happy with this colour balance.

80A filter (KB15) 30 s (F/4?) Canon 50 mm ISO 100 Superia.

Nice shot, a bit blurred but it looks like you were on a moving train. Although it is difficult to tell the floodlights in your picture are different to the streetlighting used throughout most of my area (W Yorkshire, Northern England). It is likely that these lamps require less correction than the orange sodium streetlamps I find myself taking photos around. Having said this I took some street shots in Hull (E Yorkshire) which have in some streets a white-blue tinge to them. On Fuji print film these came out white without filter correction.

 

I suspect that your digital camera has added its own 'daylight' correction to the lighting but I cannot tell for sure, unless you dialed in manual Kelvin balance or set it to an Auto mode, i.e. Night shot, etc.

 

I try and upload some shots, one or two are blurred after a trip from a nearby pub (which sometimes helps to steady the camera) braced against a lamp-post.

As there is no 35mm tungsten balanced film available I am using

daylight balanced film (Fuji Superia 100 or 400 ISO speed film).

 

I have got good results shooting with an attached B+W filter KB 15

(80A) when taking night shots lit primarily with sodium (orange)

street lighting that more approximates what the naked eye can see. I

would like to know whether I can shift the colour in the scene even

more towards the cooler side.

 

I am considering buying a further filter that is available, KB 20,

however I am not sure that this would result in an improvement in

the degree of filtration of the orange hues as the B+W catalogue

indicates that the mired shift for KB 20 makes it useful for low

wattage bulbs (15 W/candlepower) (2600 K) whereas KB 15/80A converts

100 W bulbs colour shifts to a 5500 (cooler) Kelvin from 3200 K

(warmer).

 

Would I see a difference when using the KB20 over the KB15 in the

degree of colour cast that remains (orange).

 

Also if I stacked another cooling filter I have, KB3 (82C) over the

KB15 would I see a difference in providing stronger intensity of

filtration or instead only an increased exposure in a similar manner

to a ND filter, as the KB15 filter has already filtered all there is

to filter in the wavelengths that the KB3 is useful at blocking?

 

Same question if KB15 and KB20 are stacked, what effects would I see?

 

Many thanks.

Q - Are DVD's considered more reliable than CD's are is it simply the convenience of having a larger capacity disk and fewer of them to archive that is the advantage?

 

Cheers

"One final note on flashes: Because the 420EX and 550EX are older flashes, they won't provide AF assist for all 9 20D AF points. The 420EX will do the horizontal and vertical points, but not the diagonals. The 550EX will do the horizontal points only. This point is not that critical."

 

Interesting point gave rise to this question - If the 420 EX or 550 EX are used on a 20D can each of the 9 focus points in the 20D be used to provide E-TTL flash exposure when overlaying a subject where correct flash exposure is desired. Or instead does the use of the 20D limit the use of the same focusing points to those used by the AF system when used with the 420EX or 550EX but not the 580EX, as mentioned above in quoted text?

 

cheers

Amy,

 

I have both, I bought the 50mm F1.4 for its narrow depth of field, which when used wide open is soft and as mentioned above it sharpens up alot by F2-F2.8 and in a review by 'castleman' updated for the 35mm F1.4 lens I noted that it performs best (MTF resolution charts) at F4 to F5.6.

 

I got the 50 mm F2.5 macro and a good deal on a 2nd hand life-size converter to bring it to true macro (1:1). The 50 mm F2.5 is sharp (contains a floating element)at all focus (subject) distances even wide open and comes highly recommended, although I like astrophotography for which the F1.4 version is handy for (low light).

 

Also to bear in mind, the F1.4 version is USM and essentially noiseless, the F2.5 is not and is noticeably noiser although quite quick at obtaining focus.

 

The choice is yours!

Thanks for the replies, some useful info. here.

Any recommended 'making movies' books? Not the gimmicky type but those that read more like a manual with the professional/student in mind with technical details.

To follow-up on peoples responses:

 

- Firewire connection - As noted I appreciate that firewire is the connection technology to use for video transfer. I have a laptop which I suspect the firewire card would be most useful, is it typically expensive to upgrade a laptop to firewire (is there a different external port which is unlike a USB, if this is the case I suspect it would be expensive or not possible to do this unlike installing a firewire card in a desktop).

 

- Although I personally would be willing to spend 3000-4000 USD on a XL-series (XL1s) video camera I would have to justify the outlay versus the use I was going to get. As I am primarily a 35 mm amateur photographer which I find time-consuming enough, this is where I would chose to spend any money on equipment, although I suspect I could get addicted to videography in the same way as stills.

As the purchase is for my Dad who will be paying for it - I have said I will contribute if he gets a higher spec. video camera, for his needs the XL1s is out of budget, too big/heavy and conspicuous. The GL2/XM2 fits the budget and is not too heavy or too big. As an L series user the L zoom on the GL2 with its 40mm-800mm 35mm equivalent focal length and optical stabiliser is spot on.

 

Just of interest though - how many extra 'stops' of steadiness does the superrange optical stabiliser on the XL1s or XL2 offer compared to the GL2's optical stabiliser.

 

"XLR connectors provide a balanced audio signal, which are less prone to noise and interference. Minijack and RCA audio is unbalanced." - What is meant by 'unbalanced', please?

 

I suspect that a wide-angle adapter and an external mic (shotgun mounted) will be additional purchases along with the GL2.

What equivalent 35mm focal length will the wide-angle adapter give and how many stops of light will be lost and is there a noticable loss of quality? What are the advantages of the external mic. that I might not realise right now?

 

I came across HDV on the luminous-landscape site and after reading on various other web sites it is a new format that is out of my budget and I have heard that it is prone to 'stalling' or freezing which would be a problem during unrepeatable performances. Anyway this is just too much to consider and too new.

 

What is the minimal focal length necessary at its widest aperture to obtain a narrow depth of field?

 

Finally, can anyone think of any disadvantages to the GL2/XM2, for instance - low light performance (better with 3CCD?), sound quality in wind I have heard about, etc.

 

Merry XMAS and a Happy New Year

 

Thanks guys!