kerry_grim

For general photography, I will use the center focus point and then recompose. This works fine unless I press the shutter before recomposing. But that is not your problem. However, if I am out in the woods and doing closeups of salamanders, I will change my focus point so that I can focus on the eye and NOT recompose. In other words, when you recompose at a very close distance you will very likely move the focus out of the depth of field. if I were to take a butterfly photo and the flower or the wings of the butterfly are moving, I would use AI-Servo. It would not work with One-shot as I would very likely be out of the depth of field area. To be fair, I use macro flash at f16, so the motion is stopped and there is a much larger depth of field. As others said, f1.4 has virtually no depth of field. If you do a considerable amount of close-up work, a macro lens is great. Hand-held photography of flowers is not easy. Try to do it when flowers are not moving due to the wind (good luck there!). Do your composure and select the correct focus point. Just as the flower settles with out wind, press the shutter button. Keep in mind you may need to try it many times and then select the best ones. Also, try to use something like f5.6 as that may be just enough depth of field to get the area of focus you are looking for. I can successfully take a dozen photos very close of say, frogs or salamanders and all will be in focus. When I try flowers, the success rate is pretty low. So just keep practicing and studying your results. You will get better. Lastly, a macro lens is better if you intend on photographing close-up more than just occasionally. I've been updating to the newer Canon lenses. My favorite is the 100 2.8IS lens, but there are times I use the ancient 50 compact macro as it is produces excellent results. I will never get rid of this lens, old or not. It is something like a 1987 design, sharpness is absolutely excellent and I would recommend a used one for someone dabbling with close-up photography. Truce macro lenses are corrected for close-up and you will have a flat plane of focus, which something like a 50 f1.4 does not have.

I thought about the 10-18 when it came out. Decided I didn't want a lens that slow and what I really wanted was a 24 fixed lens with a full frame body (I do have a 17-40). So I got the 24 2.8 IS lens and intend on getting a full frame body as soon as I save up for one. Pentax make a 15 f4 with depth of field scales (remember those) but Canon will obviously not do that, so I will just go to full frame for landscape photography.

Santosh, you mention about having serious range overlap if purchasing a 70-200. I think there is a simple solution. Depending on the type of photographing you will mainly be doing, simply leave the 24-120 or the 70-200 behind. Scenario 1: UWA zoom + 50 + 70-200 Scenario 2: 24-120 + 70-200 Other scenario: leave the 70-200 behind if there is only a slight chance on needing it. If there is a missing range like between 50 and 70mm, so what. You can always crop during post processing. If you want to carry a bunch of lenses, then find a way of carrying them comfortably, via bag, backpack, or vest. Frequently I will carry just a 17-40 and a 100 macro when walking on the mountain. Now if I were at a place with a lot of potential wildlife, then, yes, I would have that 70-200 along. To sum up what I am trying to say...a 70-200 is a very useful lens. However, I seldom see it necessary to carry four lenses when I tailor my lens selection to what I will be shooting. On the other-hand, if you think you will be using the 24-120 and the 70-200 frequently, then there is not a problem with overlap...the overlap may preventing some lens changing. Lens selection was easier when we did not have the excellent variety of quality zoom lenses we have today. There are times when I let my 17-40 behind but instead bring the 24 lens. Galen Rowell, renowned adventure-photographer once stated he could have done 90% of his photography career with just a 24 and 85 lens. Hope this helps.

Just to elaborate a bit further on what I said with the 17-40 on a 40D. While there may be better choices, I do like my lens. I sometimes use my son's 10-22 and I can pick out photos from that lens as it has a sharpness and color that stands out from the 17-40. I never have compared one lens to the other at similar focal lengths. I think what is import is to get the lens with the range that suits your shooting or desires.

I have a 17-40L and use it with a 40D. It is good lens, but not the best for a cropped camera. A little soft at f4 and better at f8. Beyond f11 not so good. So, somewhat limiting range. That said, with Lightroom, I have been pleased with the sharpening results. I do like the lens, excellent build quality and I am glad I have it as I anticipate a full frame camera soon. I did purchase the 24 2.8 IS lens which is awesome. Not as a replacement to the 17-40, but as a supplement. The 15-85 I believe is better on a 40D and you may want to consider that if it is in the range you want. The 40D is getting old (but still an excellent and highly useable camera). Have you considered what you will do when you want to replace that? If you will get a full frame, then you man want/need to keep in mind about incompatibility with EF-S lenses. The Canon 16-35 f4 IS has proven a great lens, but that is well above your $600 limit.

You have excellent equipment and you should not handicap yourself with a cheap tripod. If you can afford it, buy something like a Really Right Stuff Tripod, ball head and release clamp. They also sell Gitzo. Their on-line catalog gives excellent descriptions, suggestions and weight capacities. You can also download their catalog. Excellent information. http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/ I understand Kirk Enterprises is another excellent company, so you may want to check them on-line.

Apparently some question as to this being valid. My apologies...perhaps I should not have posted yet.

There is a press release on the Canon 5DS & 5DS R cameras on Canon Rumors.

Also consider National Geographic Field Guide...either eastern or western, appropriate to your area. I would suggest NOT purchasing a version that has eastern and western U.S., east or western version better especially for a non-expert as one that has eastern and western has too many choices. As an aside, I recently asked my birding friends (about 30+ year experience) of their preferences. National Geographic was on top, followed closely by Sibleys Guides and then Petersons. Some books, particularly with photos (thinking mostly Audubon Society) are crap. Although each person's choices vary. My preferences are for National Geographic simply because the book is laid out well, pages, easy to turn, quick index in the front flap, and even easy to page through, whereas other some books the pages don't separate as well. I guegs what I am trying to say is the usability is better than others...at least to me.

Good advice, Bob

I could care less about GPS or WIFI. Had Canon done away with that and concentrated in NOT dumbing-down other features (like focusing), I would by one in a heartbeat. When I see what Canon has to offer in their 750D which is understandably newer and more expensive, I don't have much desire to purchase this model and will put off a FF camera for now. I believe Canon realizes they screwed up with this model which had great potential. I do know it is a good cameras and does what I want (to a point) but I will wait for a newer version or model. I won't buy a gray market camera to save a few bucks.

I agree...Green Heron. The difficulty is that this bird has very recently fledged; showing few field marks. The striped neck does match immature Green Heron. Bill shape matches immature although is a bit short , but will grow longer. The only other possibility is Black-crowned Night-Heron but nothing really matches that. The size difference between the two species is tremendous and Green Herons are much smaller. Shapes and patterns are MUCH more useful for identification than color. Newbie birders often try to match colors, but this can often be a handicap.

I've been considering a 6D and it does what I need it to do. Maybe Canon realized its lack of sales may be because they dumbed-down the camera too much especially when comparing to Nikon. I've had excellent luck with Canon bodies and lenses, but buying if I were starting form scratch, the new Nikon D750 would be a no-brainer (although it does seem Nikon has had a fair number of problems with their bodies). If a 6DII is not released by the time I am wanting a full frame body, so be it. But I would agree a 6DII may not be released for awhile yet. Please surprise us Canon!

Here is another site...Cloud Appreciation Society: http://cloudappreciationsociety.org/gallery/#p=1&i=0

You may be interested in Atmospheric Optics website... http://atoptics.co.uk/

Anyone know where Oben Tripods are made? I am a bit leery of reviews. Too often, people do reviews shortly after getting the equipment, but I want to know how good it will be 2, 5, 20 years from now. Are parts available should a repair be necessary, etc. The tripod philosophy seems to be to buy the best tripod you can afford. That is excellent advice for an experienced photographer. However, to a newcomer, I would recommend something like Manfrotto and then in a few years, if this one is not suitable, upgrade to an expensive one like Gitzo or Really Right Stuff if that is within budget.

I very recently bought the 24 IS lens. Excellent quality although I have not used it much except to tryout the IS. I bought it primarily to use on a full frame body which I have yet to purchase. I've used the old 24 EF 2.8 on a crop body which I really like and that is a nice choice (for me) as a standard lens on my 40D when I want something more compact than my 17-40. I chose the IS lens to use as a landscape lens on full frame and I do like the DOF scales and focus distance markings on the lens. Under certain circumstance the IS lens would be a better choice, but probably for 95% on shooting, the STM would be as good, more compact to carry around which may not as the IS lens is not that big. The STM is an awesome value, cheap and excellent quality and I doubt would would go wrong with either lens. I purchased the 40 pancake lens for my son a couple of years ago and that compliments his 10-22 very well. He loves the 10-22 and does not like to carry a lot of gear and bulk. That has worked very well for him. In short, I don't think you will go wrong with any of these lenses. That are all excellent. When I had an EOS 3 film body I did by a 50 compact macro. It is ancient, slow focus, but I use it occasionally for macro and even landscape. Not sure I would recommend that as a standard lens becasue of the slow and loud focus, but on the other hand if I had a so-called 50 nifty I would probably throw it to chase stray cats at the bird feeder.

What are your intended uses? Budget? I suspect 5DIII is out of the question due to cost, but what about a 6D, refurbished form Canon? The 1D series is a brick, I think, which may or may not bother you. The 6D may be dumbed down but it is compact, and has new technology.

The new Canon EF-S f2.8 STM would be a great and compact fit for the SL-1 for only $149.00 (B&H prices). Combine that with the EF-S 18-55 IS STM f3.5-5.6 for $249.00 = total cost $398.00. Still money left over for a polarizing filter and camera bag or vest. The Canon EF-S 18-85 is $$799 and reported to be an excellent and sharp combo if you can live with a 5.6 aperture. To me, using a one-do-all lens is too many compromises. I would not want a 5.6 aperture except in a telephoto. Too much depth of field. I do use a 17-40 which is pretty versatile, but not the best on a crop body. Best sharpness at f8-11. Often I will use a 24 because of its compact size and great sharpness; especially if traveling light. The latest 24mm is awesome, has IS and is $600.00. I just bought this lens as an upgrade to the old 24mm lens and it will be prefect as a wide angle when I get a full frame, yet an excellent "slightly wide angle lens which I use as a normal lens on a crop body.

I upgraded to version 5, not CC. Worked flawlessly.

Almost certainly I will sell the old 24 and get the new IS version. Yes the old one is a good lens and I recall reading your review on that lens when I bought it to use with an EOS 3. It stinks that a lens with the cost of the new IS does not include a lens hood. But it is what it is. Not sure if my EW-60II lens hood will work on the new IS lens...likely not. If not I will buy a cheap knock-off.

I have Lightroom Version 4 and am considering upgrading to a standalone version or a CC version. This has been beaten to death but I see information overload while the basics seem to get blurred. If I upgrade to the standalone version, which Adobe says is the final version, will I be cut off as to new versions of camera raw, lens profiles, etc.? What does the CC version do for me? I am not interested in using Photoshop or using the program from iPads, etc, just my iMac. If I do upgrade to version 5 standalone or to the CC version, is it as simple as logging onto Adobe’s website and following their instructions? Certainly, I would backup everything. Would it upgrade my version 4 or simply leave it on the computer? I assume I download software? I would be grateful simply to learn these basic question before making a decision on what to do and find out later what it actually does! Thanks much.

Are there any EF24mm 2.8IS lens owners who also have owned the EF24 2.8 lens? I am contemplating going from a Canon 40D to a 6D. As for wide angles I currently I do have Canon 17-40, 24mm f2.8, and 35mm f2. Plans are to keep the 17-40, sell the 24 and 35 and get the 24IS lens. I do like the IS and that is not the issue so I am not question that. I am just wondering how much better the new 24 IS lens is compared to the old one. Do you find the new lens better optically in the corners? Is there less CA, distortion, etc. in the new lens. There are times when I prefer using a 24 even though it is cover by the zoom range, so that is not an issue. The 24IS is not cheap and that is also not an issue. Simply wondering the thoughts of users that moved from the old 24mm lens to the new 24IS lens. Thanks in advance!

I respectfully disagree with Michael. The gap between your 18-55 and 70-300 is basically nothing. No need to cover every mm. If the lenses were tested I would venture to say they would not test out as exactly 18-55 or 70-300. It would take just a bit of cropping of the image to change the look from 55 to 70. I would definitely add a tripod.

Thanks everyone, a trip is definitely in order.