paulo bizarro

Well, the new 24-70 looks really attractive, but... Nothing beats an EOS 300V with the 50 1.4. Portability, lightness, and consistency.<div></div>

Michael,

Last week I went on a field trip to one of the most widest places on Earth: the Musandam Peninsula, in Arabia. We were trekkink lots of km per day (I am a geologist), so I had to carry a light photographic equipment. I chose my EOS 300V and my EF 50 f/1.4 lens, with E100VS film. One light camera, one light lens, good film. Came back with great images. One of my fellow companions was carrying a 6x6 camera, one lens only (80mm) and Velvia, plus one small tripod. In normal circusntances, I would have carried my EOS 1V and 16-35 zoom lens, but for this sort of trekking, nothing beats a lighter combination. I can tell you from my experience that either the 50 or 35mm lenses will be suitable.

Uuups! In my previous posting make that -1 and 1/3 FEC...

Just another thought: I may be wrong, but I think that CF14 only kicks in when the ambient light level is high enough (refer to the camera manual, it has a graph of that somewhere), so I am not sure it applies indoors.

With bounce flash, the light is reflected from above into the subject, effectively shadowing the faces of people. This is where a flashgun with a second tube comes in handy, like some of the Metz's. For indoor shots, I usually use Av mode, disable CF14, and dial in +1 and 1/3 FEC.

EOS Magazine (they are on the web) has it for sure.

The field of view of the 24 Tilt&Shift lens is actually around 15mm. This is to allow the T&S in the first place. So, when you T&S, the image quality deteriorates to the edges of the lens. That is normal. With normal use (without T&S), this lens is as good as it gets.

The new 16-35 L lens is am amzing performer, and my current choice for wide angle work. I will not comment on its performance against the 20-35 3.5-4.5 that is addressed in a previous posting. I can only vouch for the lenses that I use. Perhaps I was lucky with my particular sample. Heavy? Bulky? Expensive? Sure, but it provides the equivalent of 5 (at least...) focal fixed lenses and then more. And with top quality, focusing down to 28 cm.

I used to have fixed prime lenses, but this zoom has convinced me otherwise. What is the cost of buying the 15 2.8 (closest to 16 Canon are offering), the 20 2.8, the 24 2.8, and the 35 2.0? Top lenses for sure, but then... Not to mention the 24 1.4 and the 35 1.4.

And don't give me the line that the zoom 'attracts attention' blablabla. I use it in the Mutrah (Muscat) souk and similar environments, no problem.

Primes have the advantage of being faster lenses, that is correct. And if you need the speed, there are no alternatives really. But to work from a tripod at f/11 or f/16, the zoom is a lot more convenient.

Buy a 24 2.8 and a 85 1.8, perfect traveller set. Get the lens hoods too.

1. Shower cap for camera rain cover;

2. Book to read while waiting for the right light.

I have traded my 17-35 for the 16-35. Why? The new lens is more solid, focuses closer, and (at least my sample) gives more consistent quality. Especially when dealing with distortion. You can see some examples in my Madeira folder.

Well, it depends. Canon have top-quality lenses in L and non-L designations. It is up to you to find out which ones are more suitable for your type of photography. For instance, until the introduction of the 16-35 zoom, I invariably preferred using primes in that range. However, this new zoom is an amzing lens; it focuses really close, and is so much better (both optically and in build quality) than the 17-35. So I bought it, and never looked back. I now have a wide-angle zoom lens that can deliver top quality results. I also have the 50 1.4, a superb lens that I use for photographing local markets and the such. It is a fast lens, and together with Provia 400F, the results are really good. I really don't think that thee is a justification to buy a lens like the 50 1.0, you can get speed by loading faster quality slide film. And again, for street shooting, the 50 1.4 is lighter and quicker in response.

I have recently bought a used 85 1.2 lens, after years using the 1.8 lens. The latter is top performing in every aspect, but the 1.2 is one step above. Now, this lens permits me to resort to extra speed both form the lens itself, and also using Provia 400F. At 85mm, and hand-held, I need all the speed I can get from lens/film combination. It makes more difference then at 50mm.

So you see, it is not a matter of being labeled as a professional or non-professional lens, it is a matter of getting the right tool for the task.

About the 85 1.2 lens. I have recently got my hands on a used one. it is a superb lens, and yes, it focuses slower than most others. But it is due to the amount of glass that has to be moved, I suppose. As for the peculiar solution to manual focus (electrical contacts), it works great, and the lens is a joy to focus manually, with a sort of gliding sensation to it.

I use the Cokin P-holder in my 16-35, but I have cut-off the front slots, keeping just one. Usable with a Singh-Ray soft grad from 20mm onwards.

16-35, 50 1.4, 85 1.2, and 180 macro. From 16 to approx. 200 mm with top quality. Expensive for sure, but it took me more than 10 years to get to the point of having this set-up. The 16-35 converted me finally to wide-angle zooms, it is so much better than the 17-35.

I have just read a very interesting essay by Michael Reichmann on his LL site. It addresses the angst of the digital camera buyer. As I said before in a similar posting, profeesionals will buy this camera. Why? Because with its full-size 35mm sensor, they will save money on film, a lot of money. Pros shoot thousands of images per annum, so they will save a lot of money by going digital.

A more important question is disk storage space and how fast the huge image files will transfer. If you buy this camera, or the others with full-frame sensor that will come along, just make sure your PC or Mac is up to it.

Why not? Any lens will do, provided you take care with composition. Look at the corners to prevent any unwanted things poking into the frame. Check my children portfolio, there is a picture in there of my kids taken at 16mm.

From the picture I have seen, it looks like that the barrel of the lens extends while zooming (like the old 28-70 L). This is a tad disappointing, if true. Also, the old lens used to zoom out of its own accord when pointing up or down, due to poor construction. If the new lens keeps the same construction, and only adds 4 mm, it doesn't look very attractive. If it were 24-85, that would be different. The current (and only) EF offering in this range (24-85 3.5-4.5) is an excellent lens at f/8 and produces some nice results, with a very helpful range for a zoom.

For portraits, I am quite happy with my 85 1.2. For photojournalism, or street shooting, I use the 50 1.4 lens.

Well, I went through that same decision about one year ago, when I decided it was about time to put my 1N to rest. Having a 1N background, the 1V was the logical choice. Even so, I have tried the 3 for a while. Function-wise, it's a hell of a camera, but the 1V feels better on the hand, more solid. If you hold the two of them, and listen to the shutter, you'll know what I mean.

BTW, there are quite a few 1V's on the used market, at least here in Europe. I suppose people switching to digital.

I can only recommend the EF 85 f/1.2 L lens. It is simply superb. If you want an 85mm lens that can be more suitable for indoor sports, for instance, then the 1.8 lens is a good choice, because it AF faster.

1. Try to shoot some portraits with the lenses that you have, and make notes on the focal lenses you end up using more.

2. I have used all of the lenses you are thinking about. I liked the 85mm perspective more.

3. Conclusion? I ended up getting the 85 1.2 lens. Expensive? For sure. Unique in its results? You bet!

Eos 30 + 24 1.4 + 50 1.4 + 100 2.0 prime lenses (sometimes I ditch the 50) with slide film. GRv1 for b&w.

In fact, I have both lenses, and they are truly superb. With 400 ISO

film, they are super for photographing children indoors.

The previous posting is not correct, as far as the Eos 1n is concerned. I use this camera with the new 100 macro and its tripod collar. It rotates freely, no problem.

I am a petroleum geologist, and I have worked in the desert (Oman),

tropical heat (Mexico), and Russia (-21ºC). I would like to put on a

good word for the EOS cameras that I have used in those conditions:

EOS 300, and EOS 30. I would not be too confident in any camera

surviving a drop without consequences, even the FM2. If you are going

to work in harsh conditions, you need a "weather proof" camera body,

in the category of an F5 or EOS 1V. The latter is currently the only

35mm camera that is completely sealed against water and dust, with O-

rings. As for batteries, I would recommend a battery pack; I know the

FM2 works without batteries, but can you meter without the help from

a built in meter? Unless you carry a hand meter. Trust me, it is a

lot easier to do macro photography with a TTL available light and

flash light meter. If you do not believe me, just read John Shaw's

"Close ups in Nature", even if you subjects are not alive.