gib robinson

<p>I use my 70-200 f/4 IS as a portrait lens all the time. I also use my 100 f/2.8 IS macro as a portrait lens. Personally, I find IS very useful in portrait work because I can usually reduce the shutter speed when I am working indoors which means lower ISO and less noise.<br>

One of the nice things about thee 5D III for portraits (I am talking generally about head/shoulders shots, not environmental portraits here) is the silent mode which for me is very useful in allowing subjects to relax and, perhaps, get distracted from the camera. </p>

 

I am expecting delivery of a Leica M9 soon and I have a printing question. <br /> <br /> I often print on A4 paper (8.5x11") using the print utility QImage. Question is, how should I deal with the extra pixels. With my M8 if I want to make smaller prints, I "downsize" the file by changing the resolution, say from 360dpi to 540 or 720. That way, I am keeping all the pixels in the file.<br /> <br />In "downsizing", I change the resolution settings using factors of 1440 or 2880dpi. <br /> <br /> Does this approach make sense?

I don't know that I can get along without a polarizer on a WA lens. Anyone tangled with that issue?

I've had my 1DIII for several months but it is not registered yet. What's the best way to insure Canon gets my contact information, etc.?

 

I have a dealer record card and the "Limited Warranty" card but since I want to make sure I'm contacted should I call in to Canon service (I am not elligible for CPS since most of my income is from teaching not photography). or register at some online site?

These are two monitors I'm considering as replacements for my aging but lovely

Sony GDM-C520K (21"). The price of the Eizo is roughly 3 times that of the HP

and I have been told that all I will miss with the HP is a wider color gamut. On

the other hand, I have never heard someone who owns and Eizo say "I wish I had

saved my money and bought a cheaper monitor."

 

So, does anyone have hands-on experience (or at least eyes-on) or informed

speculation about whether I should save my $ or take the leap?

 

Thanks.

Noah,

 

If you are seriously considering Canon/Nikon vs the M8, I would suggest you borrow or rent your most likely options. I use both Canon and Leica and they are simply different. I love Canon for IS & AF. For most refined color or b&w work, I find the results from Leica lenses way more satisfying. From what little I've seen of your work (on your website), I would guess you will appreciate the greater precision & detailed "drawing" of your Leica lenses, particularly the wider ones. Certainly, I urge you to try before you buy.

 

--Gib (north Jersey kid now in SF)

Don Goldberg

DAG

2451 Thatcher Lane

McFarland, WI 53558

608-838-4769

 

Honest. Thorough. You can talk to him directly and get time & cost estimates.

Jay,

 

As I see it, there are lots of variables in lens choice. Some haven't been explored yet in this thread: quality of lens, value of image stabilization, lens weight, lens speed, future plans. For example, if you are happy with the quality of images from the 10D AND you don't plan on upgrading your camera, say to a 40D, then lens quality is not a big issue. Personally, I have chosen to use a 300 f/2.8 IS lens for my backyard birding mostly with a 20D. It was a choice based on lens availability (used). I didn't think about many important issues. Fortunately, the choice was the right one for me. I value the speed and the optical quality. I love the IS. It means I can often get excellent results at 125th of a second hand held. I also find the weight acceptable. It's just a superb lens, for me.

 

What to do? Well, if you can't rent lenses in your area, how about going to a dealer and trying out a few lenses in the store to see what appeals to you. Or how about seeking out one or two other Canon shooters who might have the lenses you are considering. I was lucky my choice worked out, but there are so many options, it seems worth while to do a little hands-on research.

I currently own one 25mm Canon extension tube. Any reason I can't buy another

25mm and stack them?

Ellis,

 

I'm not sure where you are pointing me to on the RRS site. Is there information on the site about using twin-flash heads for macro work? Are you suggesting the RRS two-arm bracket in preference to the Wimberley?

I am about to take delivery of an MT-24 EX Canon flash with two small heads for

macro work. The heads mount on the end of the lens (180mm or 100mm macros), but

there are options for buying brackets with arms (Wimberley) that would position

the heads out from the lens and camera body and give me more flexibility for

lighting subjects. Is that a useful investment to make? (I'm photographing

insects & small plants)

 

Thanks.

David,

 

I was under the impression that the 500D did not degrade the lens. I believe Canon says that. If that's not true, someone please let me know for sure.

I am planning to buy a Canon MT-24 EX twin-head flash very soon. Are there any

advantages of a ring light flash that I will miss if I use just the twin-head?

Thank you, Bob. I tried to contact the author but his e-m address is out of date.

 

I guess I'll just buy one and see what it looks like when I capture images :-).

John, that was JUST the table I was hoping for, EXCEPT that it leaves out the 180mm f/3.5. Don't know why.

I haven't been able to find out what magnification this lens offers when

attached to either a 100 macro or a 180 macro. Can someone point me to a site

with specifics or share them with me.

 

Thanks.

Thank you, Dan.

 

If I do start using a two-head system, I assume I will generally use one flash as the main light and the second flash as "fill". While that set up will still produce two sets of shadows, one should be considerably darker.

I am currently using a single flash (580 EX) with a diffuser for close-up (up to

1:1) images. I use a Canon 100mm and will probably get a 180mm for more

distance. I am also thinking about the advantages of more lighting control

offered by the Canon MT-24 EX. I assume it provides clear advantages for

close-up work but I have never used one. If someone could clarify the advantages

and whether they are really significant, I would be grateful. The unit is about

$650. Not cheap. Plus an extra bracket if I want wider spread between the heads.

Sorry for the confusion. I DID mean 40D. I assume Canon will produce a follow-on to the 30D, probably this fall, and will call it a 40D. It is likely to have the same sensor type and same general technology as the recently announced 1D Mk III. That new body appears to give photographers another full stop of speed. Meaning ISO 800 looks like the current generation ISO 400. So, photographers using a 100-400 will have more speed to work with if they invest in a 40D next fall. The 40D would, of course, have a 1.6x sensor in the lineage of the 20D and 30D.

Yes, it's hard to answer your question without knowing more about what limitations you feel using the 100-400 and what you hope to achieve with the 70-200 or any new lens.

 

Personally, I own both the f/2.8 IS 70-200 and the f/4 IS 70-200. They are both wonderful lenses. The faster lens is very useful for classroom candids and for sports outdoors in lower light or fast action. The f/4 is very light and very sharp. I would say the IQ is just a tad better than the f/2.8.

 

As for IS or non-IS, I am personally passionate about owning IS (current generation) lenses. In my work it's crucial. You have to decide how much you need it. I have gotten many acceptable images with the f/2.8 70-200 at 200mm at 1/60th of a second. You may not need that capacity.

 

I also own a f/2.8 300mm f/2.8. I use it for recreational birding and sports. It's a BIG lens. It's wonderful if you need it.

 

Canon has some lovely lenses. If you haven't used any of these lenses, go to a dealer with your camera; pick them up, try them out. See how they feel.

 

On the other hand, you might consider waiting until the D40 arrives (probably next fall). It will probably cost about the same as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS AND give you an extra stop of speed along with better IQ. Just a thought :-).

Joseph,

 

I assume you know that Canon is expected to release information about new bodies prior to PMA (March 11?). At that point (or before) you will have more choices of Canon bodies and the prices of existing camera bodies are likely to be further reduced.

I?d like a longer lens for birding with a 1.6 body (currently a 20D which I

expect to upgrade after PMA) and I have been considering three IS lenses: 300mm

f/2.8, 300mm f/4 and the 100-400mm zoom.

 

I have not been inclined to get the 300 f/2.8 because of the weight. I do a lot

of walking when I photograph birds and I don?t think I want to carry an extra 6+

pounds. On the other hand, I hear this lens produces superb images and image

quality IS a primary concern.

 

With respect to the 100-400mm, I already have a shorter zoom (70-200mm f/2.8) so

the longer zoom would be primarily for the longer focal lengths. I assume the

image quality would not match the 300mm f/4 at 300mm but I have heard that the

newer model is pretty sharp. I would be interested hearing about the comparative

image quality from people who have used both. I am hoping that with both lenses

there will be some advantage in using them with a 1.6x (or even a 1.3x) to

reduce corner softness.

 

Comments please!

I prefer both the 1.3x and 1.6x to FF. Why? Because I get good results from the "belly" of the "L" zoom lenses with less distortion. The 24-105 is quite good at either 1.3x or 1.6x. I don't know that I would feel as good about it with FF. The 70-200 f/2.8 & f/4 might be OK but I'd rather stay with 1.6 & 1.3. I do enough long lens work to be a very big fan of the 1.6x.

 

I hope Canon does upgrade the resolution of the 1.6 body but still keeps the 1.3x.

I own a number of the current generation Leica zooms. I use three on a consistent basis: 28-90, 21-35, 80-200. They are all three very good. Of those three the 28-90 is the best performer wide open and my favorite walk-around lens. I would guess that at the long end it produces images that would be indistinguishable from the fixed 90mm APO f/2. It's only down sides are size & weight.

Thank you, Brett. I hope I have the same experience with the 75mm.