jim_simon6

Stephanie,

Vignetting occurs when something blocks the light coming into the field of view of the lens, typically in the corners. It can occur uniformly in all 4 corners, but just as often it may be darker in one or two corners than the others. It can be caused by an external source, such as a poorly designed or poorly fitted lens hood, or by too-thick or stacked screw-on filters. It can also be caused by internal elements blocking some of the lighting or not distributing the light uniformly; in this type of situation, the vignetting (technically, light fall-off) usually happens only when shooting at wide-open apertures and will disappear if the lens is stopped down 2-3 stops below maximum.

Hope this helps.

Jim

Actually, the closer you can move the light to the subject, the softer it will be. As the light is moved farther away, its apparent size (related to the subject) will be smaller. As you move it closer its apparent size is larger (again, in relation to the subject). A larger source is softer than a smaller one. You can also use a store-bought or home-made diffuser to increase the size of the light source. If you're shooting with only 1 light, a reflector of some sort may also be useful for fill light.

Jim

As mentioned here previously, your existing Nikkor lenses can be used with a 5d or other Canon bodies (1Ds series would be the only full-frame weather and dust sealed bodies from Canon). All it takes are some simple, inexpensive adapters which are fairly easy to find on ebay. You will of course be using manual focus (no change there from what you're doing now) and stop down metering (not a big deal really IMO). You mention that you don't like the size of the D3; canon 1D series will be similar in size. 5D, esp. without grip, is much smaller and lighter. Although not sealed, it should hold up with reasonable care. One other thing to consider is power for recharging batteries and some sort of digital file storage. I'm assuming that there is at least a generator available, but thought I'd mention it anyway;-) And yes, all EOS 1 series film cameras and the EOS 3 are weather sealed as well.

Jim

Nicole,

Others have already figured out the problem with your sync-speed and the black bar problem - it seems like you have that under control. As far as shooting wider than f11, I'm guessing that you're probably shooting at full-power with your mono-lights. Are you aware that most studio lights allow you to adjust the power level? If you're shooting f11 at full-power, then you can shoot f8@1/2 power, f5.6@1/4 power, f4@1/6 power, etc. Also, as others pointed out, you're a little hotter on the guys side than the girls' side. This is especially a problem with the white suits, you can remedy this easily by moving the light on that side back a little more. This will decrease the light on the hot side slightly and lets you fine-tune things a bit.

Jim

Just remember that you have to take into account the extra staff that they are requesting in order to cut down on lines. You may think "Well, an 8x10 costs me $1.50 to produce (ink & paper) and I'm selling it for $8 so I make $6.50 profit for each 8x10". But you have to take into account payroll for yourself, the additional staff to cover the event (per their request), depreciation on equipment, etc, etc.

You may already realize all this, but some people think well I already own the camera, lenses, printer, so everything I sell is pure profit. Even if this is your business model, you need to make the event organizer believe that your profit margin is much less. I.E., you're making 50 cents per 8x10 and they're getting 15% of that. That way you keep as much as possible in your pocket and you're still holding up your part of the deal. Just make sure you can justify what you're claiming. Above all, don't short-change yourself.

Jim

There are probably hundreds of thousands of 5d's out there being used on a daily basis and I'm sure this is the only time I've heard of this problem. You know with the way problems are blown out of proportion on the internet, if this was a real problem with this model, you'd have heard a lot more stories than this 1. Sounds like a freak incident, probably never happen again.

Jim

Never owned the 1.4 so I can't attest to the build quality vs. the CM 2.5, but I'm willing to take the others' word for it. I do know that it has some of the sharpest optics I've seen in any lens I've used. It's at least as sharp as the 300/4 L that I own, but that's a whole different animal of course. AF is a little slow as noted; biggest problem is if you're shooting something at normal distances and it misses the 1st time around, it will run down to MFD and back again which takes some time. Best if you're shooting portraits or similar is to make sure it starts out close to focusing distance and use center point AF, then it focuses pretty quickly. Very good lens for the money.

Jim

Kimberley,

Just so you know - Canon also still makes a professional 35mm film body. It's the EOS 1V.

Jim

Would also recommend the 50/2.5 macro. I have one on my 20d and it makes an excellent portrait lens. The in-focus areas are wickedly sharp and the out-of-focus areas just melt away. With the macro capabilities you can get in close and take pictures of tiny little toes, ears, fingers, etc.

Only downside is that it's an older design and doesn't AF extremely quickly, but fast enough for most situations.

Jim

Helen,

Your 1.4 extender will not work with either 85, it will work with the 135/2. Perhaps you could do some test shots with your existing lenses to see which focal lengths work best for you.

The 135 is supposed to be a gem of a lens - wonderful resolution, great contrast, fast AF - even at f2.

The 85/1.8 is definitely one of the best buys in a Canon prime - fast AF, sharp, and cheap - not quite as spectacular as the 135, but damn good!

The 85/1.2, while capable of delivering beautiful portraits with wonderful creamy backgrounds, simply doesn't AF that fast - there's a lot of glass to move! Well suited for studio portraits or weddings, but most seem to feel that it's AF is too slow for sports.

Of the 3, I only own the 85/1.8, and can definitely recommend it, but you need to determine if ti's the right lens for your situation.

Good luck!

Jim

Just a side note - on a couple of images that William pointed out (77&98) - it looks like low contrast due to stray light hitting the front of the lens. Lens hoods would help in this situation, but depending on the angle of the sun coming into the lens, it's not always effective. Usually, this type of sun-flare should be noticeable in the viewfinder, in which case you need to either change the angle at which you're shooting or use something (a hand, hat) to shade the front of the lens.

Jim

Jason,

1/30th to 1/60th@2.8 &ISO640? That's plenty of light! Any of the newer Canons from 20d on up will easily handle 1600 speed no problem. Even the shutter speeds you're getting at 640 are usable though, there's usually not a lot of movement to worry about at wedding ceremonies.

Jim

By most reports, the Pentax is supposed to be a very nice camera. If you're intent on moving to Nikon, then now is probably as good a time as any, I suppose. I'm assuming you're not heavily invested in Pentax glass at this point. Don't know too much specifically about which bodies are best (I shoot Canon) but the D80 looks better than the D40x, aside from megapixels (which aren't the ultimate deciding factor, anyway).

You're probably right in moving to Nikon if you're hoping to make money from this obsession. Pentax has some nice offerings, but Nikon (and Canon, I might add) have better systems for the professional user.

As far as lenses for weddings, I would think something like the 17-55/2.8 and 85/1.8 would make a good pair and cover most of your needs for now, along with a couple speedlights. Keep the Pentax for now as backup/ 2nd camera, and when you've earned a few dollars from your weddings, sell the K10d and whatever lenses you have to finance a 2nd Nikon body and maybe something like a 70-200/2.8.

Good luck, Jim

85/1.8 or 100/2 are probably your best bets at a reasonable price - around $300-350 I think? Check B&H Photo in New York for good prices and service. Don't bother with 50/1.8. While it has good optics for the price, AF is slower and build quality isn't the same. Also, it's too short for what you're shooting. You'll still be shooting wide open at 1600 to get a decent shutter speed, go to 3200 if you need to without worry. Images will clean up nicely with post-processing and the extra shutter speed will help eliminate blur. Try to get 1/250 if possible, 1/125 at least.

Jim

Well, you said you've already shot a few concerts with your 28-135. Take a look at the shots you've done. Are most taken at a certain focal length? For example, if you're almost always shooting at the long end, then the 135/2 might be the answer. You also have available the 28/1.8 (or f2.8), 35/1.4(or f2), 50/1.2(or 1.4 or 1.8), 85/1.8, 100/2. So you see, there are alot of choices(and alot more that I didn't mention). But the fast primes are definitely the way to go for concert photography, maybe one wide and one long?

Like I said, you need to look at how you shoot and decide what works for you. Oh,BTW, IS isn't always necessary. The 135/2 is 3 stops faster than your existing lens, so if you're shooting say 1/30@f5.6, you could shoot 1/250@f2 instead with the fast prime.

Jim

Contrary to Harry's answer, th e first version didn't suck. Optically it was nearly identical to the 2nd version (only difference is the 1st had 5 aperture blades; the 2nd had 7 blades - slightly better bokeh in the 2nd), mechanically and cosmetically they were virtually identical (OK one said macro, one had a flower pic on it - big deal!) The last version with the 4.5-5.6 aperture is not nearly as nice, but it's not the same lens or even a new version. Both lenses (3.5-4.5 & 4.5-5.6) are still made and separately marketed.

Anyway, the 3.5 versions are good amateur lenses.

Jim

I have to chime in as well. Got the 50/2.5 after rebates for about the same price as the 1.8 version. I use it on my 20d and couldn't be happier with the results.

Jim

Don't shoot professionally, but for fun. Have shot a couple weddings since I got my 20D, one paid, one as a guest. I've never hesitated to shoot @3200. Now I might not be as demanding as many on this forum, but to my eye 3200 looks great. Ever shoot 1600 speed color film? 3200 was relegated to grainy B&W film just a few years ago. Anybody that complains about high ISO digi files (that can be cleaned up in software BTW) either never shot film or forgot where they came from.

Available light with an 85/1.8 and ISO 1600/3200 is incredible (possibly the best thing to ever come from the digital revolution - is that too over the top?)

Jim

Tarantulas are poisonous, yes, but unless you're a cricket or similar I wouldn't worry. Actually if they brush against you the wrong way or become agitated at close range, those hairs on its body can dislodge and get under your skin. Not dangerous but irritating, like fiberglass. This is their main defense against being eaten by foxes and the like. A nose or tongue full of spines will put most predators off.

Jim

Brian P,

Your explanation regarding perspective and framing is right on the money. So many people seem to have a hard time grasping the concept.

Jim

Off-topic a bit, but I had to respond to James' post regarding the 50 macro. While I agree it is probably least useful for bug photography compared to 100 and 65, I have to disagree regarding the 50 being unusable for macro and as horrible as he claims.

I find, and have heard from several others who own it, that this lens is an absolute jewel. The optics are razor sharp, even wide open, and it makes a beautiful portrait lens on a crop camera (and probably full-frame as well).

Again, the 100 you already own should do well for bug-sized macro and greater magnification can be obtained with diopters, extension tubes, teleconverters, or a combination of the above.

The 65 can certainly get you beyond 1x but is a very specialized lens, and at the magnifications you're talking about will require some very patient bugs.

I'd start with what you have and only look for something else when you find that your current equipment is restricting your shots.

Jim

Jim

That lens is for the XL2 video camera. So yes, it's a real lens, but don't know about the price. (Guessing it's a scam like everything else they sell).

Jim

I will 2nd, 3rd, 4th... the suggestion to get the 85/1.8. This should complement your 17-55 nicely.

Jim

OP noted that this has happened before, but only outside. Sounds like he was indoors this time, but probably in a nightclub type setting (i.e. dark walls & ceiling). Agree that you should make sure 430's sensor is facing your 580. If that was already the case, then it's probably due to lack of reflective surfaces in the venue.

Jim

35/1.4, 85/1.2, 135/2, 200/2.8 & 1.4x t-con

Jim