chris_mills1

<div></div>

<p>For the economic reasons previously mentioned, I cannot see Canon putting any more resources into further development for film cameras. So, if you want a 1 series film body, the 1v is very likely to be the last in the line. I am very happy with mine.</p>

<p>As for the AF, it was state of the art in 2000 when it came out -- but that was 10 years ago. Canon seemed content to tweak their pro AF a bit here and there and focus their R&D resources elsewhere for several years. Pressure from substantially improved Nikon AF systems built up, but the resources were still on the main sensor. The embarrassing bugs with the 1DmkIII AF seem to have compelled Canon to put more resources into AF for the 1DmkIV and the 7D.</p>

<p>If your question is whether the 1v's AF is on par with the AF for the 1DmkIV or the 7D, then no, it isn't. The new AF in these bodies is superior. I hope it makes its way into the next iteration of the 5D. Soon.</p>

<p>If the comparison is with the AF from the 1 series bodies in between, then it depends on whether the incremental improvements matter to what you shoot. For birds in motion or sports with long, bright lenses, the extra cross points can matter. I'd say the 1DmkII is a real but incremental improvement over the 1v. For less technically demanding AF circumstances, I think the differences are negligible.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I want the camera that will finally replace my Elan 7. This is a full frame, AF camera that shoots 3 fps and cost under $400 brand new in 2000. So what I want is a brand new, retail, full frame digital SLR, AF, 3fps, for $400-$500. Why should I expect anything less?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hal, this is a flawed comparison. I shoot film too. I like it for a variety of reasons, but I have certainly considered switching over to a digital body. Part of my consideration was the cost of consumables.</p>

<p>How many rolls of film have you put through your Elan 7? 100? 500? More? A very, very conservative cost estimate for film plus develop-only processing would be about 6 bucks a roll. So to actually use the camera to shoot 100 rolls costs at least another $600 on top of the cost for the body. So, based on your numbers for the body cost, buying and using an Elan 7 to shoot 100 rolls would cost a total of $1000 or more. With a DSLR the body cost includes a battery and a memory card, and shooting the equivalent 3600 images with it will not require anythings else.</p>

<p>The way I figured the cost comparison was to figure out about how many rolls I would shoot within the likely lifetime of the camera. I considered the minimum "lifetime" to be about 3 years. Right now I shoot around 60 rolls of Velvia, TMax and Tri-X a year. Over 3 years, that's about $1000 in consumables, even before printing and mounting costs. That's already more than the cost of a Rebel T2i. Add what I spent for my used 1V and we're solidly in between 7D and 5DII territory. So, unless your Elan 7 just sits on a shelf, you aren't making a fair cost comparison.</p>

<p>For some subjects -- birds in particular -- 400mm is the short end of usefulness (for a full frame sensor, anyway). For catching a bird in flight, it often helps to be able to move the lens around more freely than even a gimbal head would allow. </p>

<p>That's where the 400/f5.6 shines. It's relatively light and very sharp, so you can shoot without being locked down to a tripod if you have decent light. And if you do lock it down, a 1.4x TC will give you a 560/f8 that's still quite sharp.</p>

<p>Now this is interesting:</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://vimeo.com/5267475">http://vimeo.com/5267475</a> </li>

</ul>

<p>The video examples I've seen from the 5D Mark II were impressive, but I figured the UI was still so firmly skewed towards shooting still images that video was still mostly a gimmick -- added because the DIGIC-4 could do it anyway, not because serious video people would prefer it over their existing tools. However, Mr. Hudson's efforts cause me to rethink this a bit.</p>

<p>The fact that somebody took the time and effort to write up their own firmware in order to fix a few things suggests that at least some folks out there are taking the addition of video to the 5D as significantly more than a gimmick. I guess the DOF-control and the crazy low-light performance are enough to make up for the awkwardness of the video mode.</p>

<p>Now, I'm more of a still image shooter, so I don't think I'm likely to overwrite the firmware on my camera in order to tweak the video performance. But I am intrigued that the video folks are taking the 5D Mark II's video seriously enough to spawn this kind of thing.</p>

<p>I have bought 6 lenses, two bodies and a bunch of filters from KEH since 2005. 3 of the 6 lenses were labeled as BGN.<br>

Of the 3 BGN lenses, all 3 are free from optical defects. One of them has a slightly loose mount, and all of them show normal wear marks on the outside of the lens barrels. Functionally, however, they are great. I have no qualms about buying BGN marked lenses from them.<br>

Sometimes they make mistakes. On one occasion I got an empty box marked "58mm circ. pol., B+W, EX" rather than a box containing the filter described, but I called them and they sent me what I was supposed to get without any hassle. I have also returned a used (LN-) lens about 10 days after I got it (I decided I wanted the IS for the 70-200/2.8). The return went quite smoothly. So, overall I'd say customer service is not perfect, but it's more than good enough for me.</p>

<p>For use with a 1v and or a 5d (so, full frame):<br>

- 15mm/f2.8 fisheye<br>

- 35mm/f1.4<br>

- 85mm/f1.2 II<br>

- 100mm/f2.8 USM macro<br>

- 70-200mm/f2.8 IS<br>

- 500mm/f4 IS<br>

I might be tempted to swap the 135mm/f2 or a 400mm/f2.8 IS for the fisheye, but I'd want more time with each before making that choice. I might also be tempted to shoehorn the Zeiss 21mm in there somehow. But anyway, the six above would be fine -- so all Father Christmas needs to do is get me the 500 (used is fine with me) and he can haul off everything else not listed above.</p>

Take a second and think about why you want a film body if you'll have a 5DII shortly: nostalgia and weird film types. Both reasons say go with the 1V.

 

For nostalgia, it is the apex of what Canon did with film cameras. It's the last of the V8 interceptors.

 

For weird film types, IR film is probably the most interesting for most folks. You can't really do the same thing with the 5DII no matter what kind of Photoshop-Fu you have up your sleeve. For IR film, the 1V can still mark the film leader with a serial number, but it's smart enough to kill the IR-emitting LEDs after marking the leader. The 1 and 1N aren't this smart.

 

Go with the 1V. I love mine.

EF 35/1.4. It's not the most useful lens in the bag, but on average I like more of the shots with it than with any other lens. It's probably a combination of the availability of an extremely short depth of field and the potential to get natural light shots with very little available light. It also forces me to get closer to the subject than I would normally feel comfortable with. I think that slight discomfort on my part is actually helpful.

Part 1:

I have both the 70-200/2.8 (IS) and the 100/2.8 macro. I use them both, but in completely different circumstances.

 

As I'm sure you are aware, the 70-200/2.8 is a big, heavy lens. Comparatively speaking, the 100/2.8 is tiny. Obviously if I'm headed somewhere I know I'm going to need the 70-200, that's what I bring (usually along with the 35/1.4 to cover the short end). However, the 70-200/2.8 is way too big to use as a walk-around. For that, I end up going with the 100/2.8 about half the time (with the 35/1.4 filling in most of the rest).

 

The 100/2.8 macro USM is small, light, extremely sharp, focuses quickly and lets you get right up to the subject if you want to. The only drawback is that it can be a little too sharp for formal portraits (where the subject is going to complain about wrinkle lines). Anyway, I highly recommend it. It is one of Canon's real bargains.

 

Part 2:

I rented the 300/4 IS and the 400/5.6 a few years ago to try and decide which one to buy. I ended up getting the 400/5.6. My reasoning was that the 70-200 plus the 1.4x tele-converter gave me a 300/4 IS equivalent that was still pretty sharp, but neither the 70-200/2.8 + 2x TC nor the 300/4 + 1.4x TC gave me results as sharp as the 400/5.6. Further, I assumed that I'd be using a tripod at that focal length in any case, so the IS was not as big a deal.

 

I like the 400/5.6, but my actual usage didn't match my predictions exactly. It turns out I have used it without the tripod a bit, and when I do I'd be happy to have the ability to turn on the IS. On the other hand, I have also used it with both tele-converters on the tripod, giving me a pretty sharp 580/8 with the 1.4x and a passable 800/11 with the 2x. I guaruntee the 400/5.6 + 1.4xTC is sharper than the 300/4 + 2x TC, and 800mm is a lot of reach if you can lock the sucker down sufficiently.

 

So, I like my 400/5.6, but not entirely for the reasons I expected.

In terms of image quality, I would not worry about either the 24/2.8 or the 35/2. Both are plenty sharp, and both are significantly sharper than the 20-35/3.5-4.5 (or, for that matter, the 20-35/2.8).

 

I was in a similar situation about two years ago. At that time I was in the market for wides on a full-frame (a 1v). I rented all of the above plus the 20/2.8, 24/1.4, 24/3.5 TS, 28/2.8, 35/2, 35/1.4, and the 16-35/2.8. I tried them out head-to-head over a three day weekend and ended up buying two of them. One was the 35/1.4 and the other was the 24/2.8.

 

I seriously considered the 16-35/2.8, but I absolutely loved the perspective and the low-light capability of the 35/1.4 -- so there went most of my budget. I still needed something wider than 35mm, and of the options the 24/2.8 was my pick.

 

The 35/2 and the 24/2.8 are on your list, and I liked both of them. They are both small, light, relatively cheap, and sharp. The 20/2.8, 28/2.8 and the 20-35/3.5-4.5 were noticeably less sharp, and even if you tend not to shoot in limited light, the zoom's smaller maximum aperture makes the view during composition much dimmer. The 20-35/2.8 is sharper and brighter, but still not as sharp as the primes.

 

If you can, rent them first and see which you prefer. If you can't rent them first and you know you want a wide perspective, I'd go with the 24/2.8.

 

cheers,

 

Chris

I go and rent (or borrow, if possible) the ones I'm interested in, shoot a few rolls, and take notes. If this route is open to you, I highly recommend it. Blogs and review sites are helpful -- especially to decide what is on your short list for consideration. But when it comes time to decide what to buy from your short list, nothing compares to trying them out in person.

 

At least one surprising result from this approach was against the 85/1.2. I was completely sold on the idea of the lens, but when I rented it for a weekend I found that I just didn't like the perspective as much as I thought I would. A later rental weekend had me comparing wides and I absolutely fell in love with the 35/1.4, which I had expected to be of less interest.

 

Anyway, I guess my point is that there are factors that emerge in use (even relatively brief use) that I would not have thought to look for in a review that affect whether I will actually use a lens. So rent before you buy if you can.

 

cheers,

 

Chris

A 16-35/2.8 would be flexible, but you would probably be stuck

shooting at pretty high ISOs at best. For low-light, your best

zoom is probably your feet. Which is to say, I'd go with one or

two fast primes at f1.4 over a zoom at f2.8.

 

On a 40D you have a crop factor of 1.6x, so a 50mm is going to be a

decent short telephoto. If you tend to have one person in frame up

close in your work, I'd go for a Canon EF 50mm/1.4 USM. It's sharp,

fast (both in terms of light and in terms of time to focus), and

relatively cheap given its quality.

 

If you want to get more in frame and you can afford it, I'd strongly

recommend the Canon EF 35mm/1.4 L USM. The color is rich and

saturated, the time-to-focus is very quick, and it's f1.4. The focal

length is short enough that you can hand-hold the beast for 1/30s

consistently, and longer if you're lucky. That's a lot of light.

I love mine.

 

I have tried the 24mm/1.4 L and the 35mm/2 as well. The 24 is just as fast (in both ways) and has the same great color saturation, but it

isn't quite as sharp as the 35, and I didn't like the perspective as

much as I liked that of the 35 (though note that I'm shooting full

frame, so the perspective of the 24 for you is quite like that of the

35 for me). The 35/2 is a good lens for the money, but not the equal of the 35/1.4.

 

If your budget is in pounds, I imagine you should be able to get

either but maybe not both. I'd lean towards the 35/1.4, but that's

just me.

 

cheers,

 

Chris

I spent five weeks in Costa Rica four years ago. I was shooting with an OM-3 at the time,

and I took a 21mm, a 90mm Macro, and a 65-200 zoom. The OM-3 is smaller and lighter

than my current Canon kit, but even that felt like a lot to be lugging around. I rented a

tripod for the week I was around Monteverde, and I was glad I did.

 

My photos fell into three rough groups: people, macro (bugs & flowers), and long (birds &

monkeys). For people I used both the 21 and the 90 in about an even split -- these were

about 10 percent of the total. The macro shots were obviously all with the 90, and these

made up about a third of the total shots. The rest (more than half the total) were taken

with the 65-200, and almost all of these were with it racked all the way out. I found

myself wanting more reach pretty routinely.

 

So, suggestions. First off, the 28-135 should cover everything you actually _need_ except

for long shots. Anything else in your bag will be a special case lens.

 

If you are going to be around Monteverde and have any interest in butterflies and or

hummingbirds, you will want your macro. The flash could help here, as could the

monopod. Plan to spend a day with just your macro at the Hummingbird Gallery, the

Butterfly Garden and La Finca de Mariposas. If you are indifferent to hummingbirds and

butterflies, leave the macro and the flash at home.

 

Birds and monkeys will be too far away to frame decently with your 28-135, and the

70-200 won't be much better. Renting a 100-400 IS is a decent choice, but if it were me

I'd rent the 300 IS prime instead. It's sharper, a stop faster and about a half a pound

lighter. Your long shots will usually be under the canopy, so you will not have a ton of

light. Your subjects will probably be too far away for the 420 EX to do much good, though

a Better Beamer would help. Even with IS, the 100-400 isn't going to be very useful in the

300-400mm range under those conditions without a real tripod with a real head. A

monopod is a good compromise, but the extra stop of light with the 300 will make it a

better compromise.

 

Lastly, consider renting whatever you are going to rent for a few days prior to leaving on

your trip so you can try it all out, see if it works, how it works and that it's what you really

want. You don't want to be getting used to the switch placements while the Quetzal or

Motmot you _had_ in frame heads for cover.

I use the 35/1.4 all the time. It is sharp enough. It's autofocus is fast enough. I like the

proportions at the focal length. The color and contrast are excellent. I can shoot

handheld with available light at dusk. It'll do weddings and street photos well without a

flash.

 

It's not huge, but it is relatively heavy. And the weight is right at the front of the lens, so if

you are attaching it to a light camera your center of mass will be in front of your hands.

 

The lens has been out a long time. I doubt it's a big candidate for replacement. It's too

short for IS to be of any use. The current version already has a ring USM autofocus motor

and no big flaws. And, of course, it's a prime. I think Canon has a lot of lenses they'd

rather spend their R&D cash on.

 

As for the mentioned alternative, if you need f1.4, f2.8 just won't cut it. If you can live

with f2.8, the 16-35 is a real workhorse. I have used both. For what I shoot, the 35 is a

better fit.

<p>I also bought the 70-200/2.8 sans IS first. I shot with it for a week and a half and

looked at my results. I found that I had a significant number of shots (around 10% or so)

that all had the following characteristics:</p>

<ol>

<li>handheld</li>

<li>aperture-priority mode</li>

<li>limited light</li>

<li>focal length > 120mm</li>

<li>motion blur on a (mostly) stationary subject</li>

</ol>

 

<p>The kicker was that two of the "lost" shots would have been solid

portfolio candidates had they been sharp. That was enough reason

for me to upgrade to the IS lens.</p>

 

<p>I have not regretted the upgrade a single time. IS on this lens is

fantastic.</p>

<p>

As I understand it, currently a manufacturer may not forcibly dictate the price a retailer

asks for a product. So, if you have a bottle of soda and you want to sell it for a penny and

take a loss you are welcome to do it (as long as you aren't violating other laws in the

process). You could also try selling that same bottle of soda for a million dollars. It's up

to you as a retailer to decide what price works.

</p>

<p>

The reason I say "currently" is that the question of whether a manufacturer can forcibly

impose pricing restrictions on a retailer is currently before the US Supreme Court. The

case in question is about whether a manufacturer can set a minimum price for an item, but

the general right of a manufacturer to force a retailer to limit their pricing is being

discussed. The Washington Post had a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601582.html">story about the case</a>

last week.

</p>

I have both the 50/2.5 and the 100/2.8 USM.

 

The 50 is small, light and very sharp. It has an old autofocus drive motor that is both slow

and noisy. It is absolutely perfect for taking pictures of relatively flat artwork (paintings,

collage, illustrated manuscripts, etc) with a copy stand, where the 100 has too narrow a

field of view.

 

The 100 is not as small or as light. It is just as sharp. It has a fast, quiet USM autofocus

mechanism. The greater reach of the 100mm focal length makes taking pictures of

insects and other traditional macro subject matter much easier.

 

I use the 50 once in a while. I use the 100 all the time. Unless you plan to photograph flat

artwork with a copy stand, I'd strongly recommend the 100.

I would not be worried.

 

I bought a BGN 1V from KEH almost exactly two years ago. It had some brassing on the

body and about 850 rolls through it (acording to the three digit counter, anyway). I have

since put around 300 more rolls through it, and I have had no problems at all. It's a

beautiful camera. It does as much or as little as you would like, and everything is right

where it should be. Except for mirror lock-up, but I digress...

 

Also, my experience with their returns department has been better than Jon's. I returned a

lens I didn't like right at the 14 day mark and they didn't give me any hassles. He's right

that it can take a few weeks for them to process the return and to get your money back,

but I got the right amount and got it when they said it would arrive.

 

I like KEH. I like my BGN 1V. I wouldn't worry.

I love the 35/1.4.

 

Prior to getting the 35/1.4 I would switch between using the 24/2.8 and the 50/2.5, but

the 35mm focal length was a better fit for me. I rented both the 35/2.0 and the 35/1.4 to

try them out. They were both sharp enough for my purposes. The 1.4 obviously has a

wider aperture, but it also has better color saturation, faster autofocus, and better bokeh.

For me, these differences were worth it.

 

If you don't need the wide aperture and you're unsure of where in the wide range you'll be

most comfortable, you might want to consider a zoom. If you can live with f4, the 17-40

is about half the cost of the 35/1.4, and it is a very fine lens.

I've had the 70-200/2.8 IS for a couple years and I use it all the time. I think I've turned

off the IS once in that time (for a long exposure shot at night on a tripod). I leave it on

even when using a tripod.

 

Your question seems to ask whether there is a difference in sharpness when turning the IS

feature on or off on a lens with IS. I have not seen any difference of this sort. I have seen

a difference in sharpness between the IS and non-IS versions of the lens -- though a very

minor one. I think this difference is probably due to the increased number of elements in

the IS version of the lens.

 

I compared the IS and non-IS versions of the lens prior to buying the IS version. At the

time I was shooting almost all handheld, available light shots, so this is how I compared

the two. Both lenses are quite sharp.

 

At shutter speeds greater than 1/250th (i.e. - where my hand stability had no effect) I

found the older, non-IS lens to be a little sharper. The IS lens, however, resulted in a

couple of keepers shot wide open at 200mm and 1/30th of a second. There is simply no

way I could have gotten those shots without IS. This is what convinced me to fork over the

extra cash and get the IS version of the lens. I have been very happy with that decision.

 

cheers,

 

Chris