kerry_grim

Not a weid question, I like it. I use a 17-40 and a 70-200 2.8L at high school track meets and also for landscape on a 40D. This is an ideal combination for me. If I were to have a full frame body and did street work, I would think the 24-105 would be my first choice.

 

One slight advantage in using the first combination is the 77mm thread. One filter size for a polarizer, without a stepup ring. I bought the 2.8 version for speed. It would be hard to justify the cost just becasue of the thread size. However, the 2.8L is big and heavy. My son has the f4L non-IS and he would not want my 2.8L becasue of the size and weight.

 

Your question is which one I would buy for APS-C. Without a doubt, number 2, the two lens combination.

I,ve used a 70-200 with an EOS 3 body and now with a 40D. Generally, I can get close enough for adequate image size. However, had I had the money, I would love to get a 300 f2.8. The zoom is excellent and sharp but I would be more comfortable at a further distance so as to not distract the athletes.

 

My problem is taking vertical pictures and holding steady enough to keep the focus point on the subject. So I think a monopod would be very helpful.

 

Don't forget to monitor the sports forum also read the section on Learning Sports and Action.

Since you know your 70-200 is a sharp lens because of using it on the xt that about narrows it down to focusing, movement, technique, or camera settings. The body is almost certainly not the problem.

 

You did not say whether or not you used a tripod. If you did not use a tripod, there is no need to waste our time. So I will assume you used one.

 

You also do not say whether you shoot raw or JPEG, in camera sharpening or post-process sharpening.

 

This is not personally directed at you, but so many people complain of lack of sharpness but they are using improper technique. Sorry, but handheld is just no way to test for sharpness, and I don?t care if the shutter speed is faster than the 1/focal length so-called 'rule'. I think everyone who thinks they can hand hold at this rule should try it and then try it again on a tripod.

 

Give this a try:

Camera on a tripod, self timer, mirror lock-up, aim at a still subject, shoot raw at a moderately high shutter speed.

 

I use a 40D, and a 70-200L 2.8 lens non-is and it is tact sharp. I do not buy most of the back-focus stuff I read posted on PHOTO.NET, just for the heck of it, I tried shooting at an angle on a fine-lined ruler. Focus was perfect. Possibly you would want to try this also. I think most of the back-focus problems is the point getting off the subject.

I haven't been very happy with it"

 

What is it you are not happy with?

 

My son has an 400d and he has gotten amazing photos with it. Is it the sharpness of the images, poor exposures, feel of the camera, or what?

 

What lens do you use? Do you use a tripod? Do you manually focus or rely totally on autofocus? The camera is very capable. Do you shoot JPEG or RAW? What are the in-camera settings? Do you sharpen the images? Likely what you are not pleased with may be just your technique. In that case, switching to a different model or brand will not help anything. It may be a matter or leaning digital cameras...and there is a lot to learn. In that case, a supplemental book or two in addition to practicing, and more practicing may help. We need more to go on.

How about a tripod? But I would consider that a necessity. Polarizing filter? Neutral density filter for long exposures of streams? It is always easy for us to "spend the money of others".

"Canon 10-22 if you're a lens snob"

 

Well, I guess I am a lens snob 5 times over. No wait, 2 of the Canon lenses are L lenses, so maybe that applies 7 times or more!

 

He, he, all in fun, Not taking it personally!

Buy for the appropriate focal length you will be needing. Sharpness will mostly be determined by your technique.

I also use DPP 3.1. When I can afford an iMac and Lightroom and Photoshop, I will go to that and use my existing RAW files. I shoot everything in RAW, although so far I have not converted many to JPEG. However, what I have converted, I saved as JPEG with the image quality set to 10. Is your setting at 10? The saved JPEGs look excellent.

 

Which program are you viewing the JPEG in? I ask that because if I view a picture in Imaging for Windows it will look pretty bad.

There seems to be two schools of thought with filters...keep one on for protection all the time, the other, use no filter unless protection form sea spray, etc.

 

I don't use filters, but rely on the lens cap and keep it on except when using the lens. Just my personal preference. No doubt a UV filter is a safer route to go, but I will take my chances.

 

Back in the early 80s when I used four Nikons lenses...all 52mm size, I bought UV filters for each. Never used them even once.

 

Well, some 26 years later, I ask myself...why have I not taken comparison photos with and without filters to see if there is any difference?

 

One of the main reasons why I use the 50 f2.5 macro is because it has a recessed elements, no worries due to flare, etc, and no shade needed.

 

I just may do a test of sharpness with one of the 1982 Nikon filters, but I won't expect to see a sharpness difference between using the filter, and not using it. My guess is it probably less a difference in sharpness than between Canon's 4 different 70-200 L lenses.

 

Has anyone actually did tests with and without filters to see if there is a difference in sharpness? Surely, there is a higher chance of flare with a UV filter which is basically why I don't use them (right or wrong!).

Here are two excellent links regarding sky photography.

 

http://www.weatherscapes.com/techniques.php

 

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/

 

Knowing the cloud types is a big help. With practice you may find that middle layered clouds may produce crepuscular rays which ice clouds will produce an amazing variety of phenomena.

 

I see so many people hoping to take great sunset photos when the sky is perfectly clear. If only they would turn 180 degrees, they may find an Earth?s shadow.

 

There are many sites available on the internet for finding sunrise and sunset times. I would suggest doing a search with Google and download a program that will give sunrise/set times, along with moonrise/set times and at what compass degree this will occur. I can?t recall the program name, but I have a print out of all of this information for the rest of the year for where I live. With it, when conditions are right, I can go to a scenic location, aim the camera where the moon is going to rise, and count on the time and location to be perfect. With this knowledge, my son and I were able to photograph a full moon rising out of an Earth?s Shadow over the Ocean at Chincoteague NWR in addition to a moon setting in an Earth?s Shadow. It took five years and some knowledge to accomplish this. None of the photographers there with their long L lenses appeared to be aware of an Earth?s Shadow. Unfortunately I had only a film camera at the time.

 

In short, study everything you can about the skies. Most people have not even heard of sundogs, but just being aware and observing, I probably see them 60 or more days in a year?s time.

 

Looking back, I don't think I answered your question. To increased you chances of seeing a firey sunset...just be ready as much as you can. The more to you are ready, the better your chances are. If I would have the knowledge to know exactly what the sunset is going to be like, all the fun would be gone.

My daughter did high school running events and now my son is doing it?cross country, winter track, and spring track. With track and cross country photography, I have not anyone question my activities, not even in the county meets. In the county meets I simply walked through the gates where spectators were not allowed. Perhaps, they thought I was a newspaper photographer with my white L lens. I do try to maintain a low profile and don?t stand on the track and am careful to not distract the runners. No one, in five seasons of shooting, has ever questioned me. I have gotten a few curious stares when entering a county event since I use a photo backpack. Should someone ant to check my pack because of the obvious possible safety concerns, I would not mind that.

 

I haven not tried winter track (indoors) but may so in the future, but I will NOT use a flash as I think that is an annoyance to the athletes and spectators. Although, parents take photos all the time with their P&S cameras. At one indoor meet, the spectators were allowed to use flash, but were warned not to use it at the start of the race as it could mess up their timing.

 

I would simply go to these events, maintain a low profile and I suspect you will not be hassled. If so, go to the away meets and try there. However, this particular principal sounds like a real a__hole, so maybe maintaining a low profile will not work. By all means, don?t give up easily.

At my schools there is one photographer that takes photos of all the events. He does sell photos to the parents. At the end of the school year the school has its sports awards ?banquet?. At the beginning of the program, the athletic director has a digital slide program run from a laptop in the auditorium with music and a mix of all the sports. It is a fast moving program with photos by the same photographer. You see the pleasure, pain and most of all the camaraderie of the athletes. It is simply awesome. No one, after seeing the program would ever ask ?why do we need sports?? If that principal saw a program like that, I guarantee he would not hassle you!

"Just please remember to buy him a lens hood together with lens, it's really important."

 

wrong....

 

L lenses come with a lens hood. A Canon lens hood for the 17-55 is an addition $49.00 or so.

Your "very non-user friendly" statement is likely a result of "I just switched from corel paint pro shop to ps6". It indicates to me that you expected to be up and running immediately without taking the time to learn it properly. To judge a program like that would be an insult to the programmers who spent many hours developing it!

 

Every major program whether it be AutoCAD or Photo Shop or even Elements will take time and patience. I am not sure which program you mean, however, spend the time to properly learn it and I would bet your attitude will be totally different.

 

My son, still in high school, purchased Lightroom and CS3 Extended. I bought him books by Scott Kelby. He spent many, many hours and months going through the entire books and now has a very good knowledge of the programs.

 

I can guarantee you that now that he knows the programs well he does not consider either one user non-friendly.

 

I am sure you will get many book suggestions. Give yourself the chance to lean the program, then come back to the forum and tell us whether you still think the program is very non-user friendly. But I think you meat to say user non-friendly. Sorry, but the lack of not using capitalization in you post is a possible indication of your lack of patience.

Tommy, I got the 70-200 2.8L a few years ago to use for photos on my daughters sports in high school...track and cross country. In addition I would use it for nature photography. At the time it was all I could afford switching to Canon, a few lenses and an EOS-3 body. I did not want to spend the extra money. Now, my son is into the running sports and I got a 40D and am anxious to try that out with running events. Although I am more into nature, particulary landscape photography. If I were to purchase a 70-200 now, I would really have to thing about which version. I do like the faster, and brighter lenses. I do not regret not having IS, however, if I did have it, I am sure I would like it. So, a purchase now, I would probably get IS if the cost was not a factor.

 

My son also purchased a 70-400. He got the f4 version, non-IS, a bit more affordable for a school student. He prefers his f4 over my 2.8 version becasue of the weight.

I too like the problem of too many lenses to choose from. I switched to Canon a few years ago, basically for that reason.

 

As for the high cost of lenses. I have a hard time judging the cost. Take a look at your 70-200 lens. They each have a lot of elements. Even to make an element and coat it is no simple process. I can not imagine the engineering that goes into these lenses and then it all has to be aligned extremely well.

 

Purchasing a lens, at least for me, is usually by compromise. For example, I purchase a 70-200 2.8 L because I wanted a fast lens but did not want to spend the extra for IS, nor did I even want IS.

 

My recent purchase of a 17-40 was also a compromise...cost was important. Had money not been an object, I may have considered the 16-35. My preference was for a landscape lens. However, if I did street photography I would have seriously considered the 17-55 IS EF-S. Yes, my decision was complicated because of the different choices. If I owned all three, I would likely waste a half-hour indoors deciding which damn lens to use when any one would be fine and I would be better off out shooting!

 

In one of Galen Rowell's books he mentions that 90% of his photographs in his career could have been taken with just two lenses...a 24mm and 85mm. In his later books he mentions about using some of the cheaper consumer-grade Nikon zooms because of the mobility of using a lighter lens. And to think we worry about a missing millimeter in our lens arsenal and split hairs worry about an extremely slight difference in sharpness between different models of the 70-200s!

For what it is worth, John Shaw's website states he uses:

Epson 9800 UltraChrome pigment printer for print longevity, and Epson Premium Semi-matte paper.

"Always take pictures handheld"...therein lies part of your problem. IS doesn't make sharp pictures idiot proof.

 

What about autofocus? Are you using this correctly? Have you even tried manual focusing?

 

What about camera settings...RAW, JPEG?

 

Applying any sharpening?

 

Try using a tripod, manual focusing. If anything is wrong, it would seem more likely the lens that the camera body.

 

If the camera take exquisite pictures indoors with flash then there is little reason to think there is something wrong with the lens. I have not used IS so I am not sure if that could be part of your problem.

 

I just bought a 40D. No prior digital experience, but many years of film camera experience. Before purchase I downloaded the manual, printed it, studied it. In addition, I bought a book just on the 40D and studied that. Certainly, I did not absorb everything, but my photos from the start were extremely sharp.

 

Take a deep breath, relax, go outside and take photos using a tripod...without IS. If you do not have a tripod, try taking photos at a high shutter speed, and manual focus.

 

I personally think that about 90% of the questions like this are user error.

I think the bottom line here is that both lenses are excellent and the choice should be made towards the lens that is most suitable fot your type of photography.

 

My preference is for the 17-40 for landscape and will use on a tripod. But that is just me. Everyone is different. If I would do fast street photography, I would certainly choose the 17-55 IS.

 

The 17-55 does have more range, but for me, the long end, I use the least, and if I need that, or an indoors lens, I always can go to my 50 macro.

 

Excellent thread.

I have the 40D and just ordered the 17-40. Although just a tad short on the wide end, I ordered this one for landscape work. The 10-22 is wider than I really needed and I did not want an EF-S lens should I go full frame. Had I prefered a walkabout lens, I would not hesitate to go for the 17-55IS. The 17-40 does have a somewhat limited range, but it will reduce my switching between 24, 35, and 50 macro lenses. Had I purchased the 10-22, I would be carrying more lenses and switching lenses more.

First and foremost, learn to be a naturalist. There are many books devoted to nature photography to get you started. I would suggest take it up as a hobby and simply enjoy doing it. Not to sound discouraging, but realistic...very few people can actually make a career out of nature photography. Art Wolfe is one of the best nature photographers around. He did not suddenly one day say "I've decided to be a nature photographer". He was a keen observer of nature as a young child. Only later did he develop an interest in photography.

I own the 24 and 35 and the quality is excellent on an EOS3 body.

 

However, I would go with the 17-40 over the 20-35, expecting the new design of the 17-40 to be much better. In addition, should you eventually go to a crop body digital, you may find the 20-35 not wide enough. The 17-40 a little better on the wide end, but not a whole lot.

 

I am sure others will have links to comparative tests. I would be very surprised if the 17-40 wasn't a lot better than the 20-35. The 16-35 is excellent and generally about equal in quality to the 17-40, but, for landscape work, it may be hard to justify the extra expense of the 16-35 except for the pros.

Go to the Apple website apple.com.

Scroll to the bottom and select the link where it says find Retail Store.

Visiting a local Retail Store may help you decide. You can test and compare all the Mac products.

I did that and just loved the iMac with 24" screen...supersharp. If money were no object, I am not sure if I would choose a Mac Book Pro with an additional larger monitor or an iMac. Since money is an object, my goal is a 24" iMac. The screen is glossy, but I see no problem with that. The sharpness is truely amazing. Best to go visit!

Only one suggestion: TRIPOD

MacBook Pro

 

Take a test drive at an Apple super store.

 

There are student discounts on Microsoft Office, Apple products, and Adobe products. Regardless of what is said by Windoze users, Macs are not more expensive. You really don't need to buy much else and it will run quite well on 2 gigs of ram and is well equipped to begin with. Please, I don't want to start a Mac - PC war. But, as an opinionated PC user, I highly recommend Macs.

 

Vilk Inc...do you mean why do you need a computer, or a laptop? Connecting and moving the computers of a desktop is a real pain in the butt, I know I have a daughter in her second year of college. When home on breaks, students still need access to college, etc. So a laptop is best, although an iMac would be a good choice also.

Choose the system you like first. Worry about the flash later.