gerrymorgan

<div></div>

<div></div>

Mechanical objects with human qualities.<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Josh, I took a couple of test shots over the weekend. I realize now that I was jumping to the wrong conclusion about why you want a prime lens for your food shots. So these photos are probably not much help, but I'm adding them to the thread because I promised I would. They are at f/4.5, not f/2.8 (I did that because I re-read your second post and realized that wide open apertures are not what you are after). Both photos have both had the same, minimal processing (convert from raw and adjust colour balance for tungsten as I was shooting indoors at night -- both shots had the same colour balance adjustment). I have applied no sharpening to any of these. The shots at the bottom are 100% crops of the point where I focused (manually, by the way).</p>

<p>Apologies if Friday evening's vegetable couscous is not quite what you want to be looking at whatever time of day it is where you are.</p>

<p>In my opinion, there is not much to choose between these shots (Sigma 30 and Canon 17-55 at 28mm), so there's probably no point in your getting a Sigma. But nor is there any kind of colour cast. I have several Sigma lenses (30 1.4, 50 1.4, 50 macro, which is the sharpest lens I have, and 10-20) and none of them has any kind of colour cast that I have ever noticed.</p>

<p>I now think that if you still want to get an alternative to your 17-55 (which does a fine job, in my opinion) your best bet might be a wide-ish macro lens... and Marco's pastry chef.</p><div></div>

<div></div>

<p>I've never encountered a yellow cast with any of my lenses, whether Canon or Sigma. And I find the Sigma to be sharp. I'll post a comparison with the 17-55 later. Probably comparing them at f/2.8 would make the most sense.<br>

I find my Sigma 30/1.4 to be a wonderful lens and very sharp. However, many new Sigma lenses (especially for Canon EF mount) are calibrated wrongly and need to have the autofocus recalibrated by Sigma (or to be returned to the retailer for exchange). You might understandably feel that the risk of needing to send a new lens away for calibration is unacceptable. My first Sigma 30 was badly calibrated when I received it but I liked the lens so much that I exchanged it for another that autofocuses accurately. Apparently, if you send them to Sigma they fix them in a few days.<br>

I like the aluminium reflector idea. I made some that I pasted onto small pieces of card and that I carry around in my camera bag.</p>

<p>It's really very simple. The man was not breaking the law and refused to be browbeaten by the police. He refused to stop filming and he chose not to be silent, but he did not say or do anything actionable. He did no more than what is permitted in any free country. It doesn't matter whether he was "egging them on" or not. Heavy-handed policing in the UK has been getting a lot of press recently and it's important that courageous people such as the man who made this film should remind the police where the boundaries lie. Otherwise those boundaries will change and freedoms will be lost.</p>

<p>Low-light and flashless suggests that you're talking about having fun taking photos of the food you have ordered, rather than getting into professional food photography. And I would guess that your desire for "something primey" is a primal desire for depth of field far shallower than you would see at f/2.8. Otherwise, you would stick with your 17-55 (I have the same lens, and it easily focuses close enough to fill the frame with an average-sized dinner plate at the 28mm setting).<br>

My favourite prime lens in this range is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Its out of focus blur is gorgeous and it has no trouble focusing at the kind of distance you will need. No currently available macro lens will suit your purpose because none of them is faster than f/2.8, which you already have. If you need to get any closer, you could consider getting a Canon 500D (the close-up lens, not the soon-to-be-released DSLR). I sometimes use one with my Sigma 30/1.4. It requires a step-up ring because the Sigma uses 62mm filters. Canon says the 500D is intended only for telephoto lenses but I have never had a problem with this combination. However, I doubt you will need the 500D.<br>

Is out of focus blur (i.e., bokeh) quality what you care about? I'll post an example of what I get with the Sigma. If that is important to you, perhaps someone else will post an example of Canon 28/1.8 bokeh. Bokeh is very subjective and it can be hard to find a lens that you really like.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Did you buy it new? Recently? If so, perhaps the dealer's return policy might cover this (or local laws about fitness of goods for purpose, depending which country you are in).<br>

If not, I would send it back to Canon and give them a second chance to fix it. They will probably do a better job the second time. If they do not, I would approach the problem from the top down by corresponding directly with senior management at Canon (public information that you can get from Google), and let the request filter back down to the repair centre from there. However, I would not do that at this stage -- let them try once more to fix it first.<br>

Also, I would return it to Canon myself rather than through the dealer. It makes things much simpler for you later if you have to start dealing with Canon in a more robust way.</p>

<p>The full text of <strong><a href="http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=845460&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649%0D%0A">the ruling</a> </strong> (in French) makes it clear that it does not necessarily have wider implications. Paragraph 34 says <em>The court considers it necessary to limit the scope of this matter.</em> And Paragraph 37 goes on to say:<br>

<em>The Court emphasizes that the plaintiffs' son neither knowingly nor accidentally put himself within view of a photographer's lens in the context of any activity that might be publicly recorded or reported. Rather, the photographs were taken in a place that was accessible only to hospital medical staff.</em><br>

In other words, this ruling does not seem to imply any right to privacy in a public place.</p>

 

<p>Like Kenneth, I used to always skip a frame when re-inserting a partially used roll in my EOS 3. But it was so accurate that I always felt afterwards that it had been unnecessary to do so. Nevertheless, I never quite had the confidence not to skip one frame.</p>

<p>The results of Ken's test of the 30D against the 5D Mark 2 are consistent with what I found when I compared a 20D to the original 5D (the results are in <strong><a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RKeR">this thread</a> </strong> if anyone is interested).<br>

The differences in image quality between different generations of DSLRs are casually described in Photo.Net threads as being very large. But when one actually compares output it's obvious that such differences are quite subtle.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>The discovery in a German archive of documents and photographs related to the Prussian mission to Japan in 1860-61 has shed new light on the early history of photography in Japan. In particular, newly uncovered letters and records help explain the mystery of why so few images from the well-equipped mission survived and provide new facts on some of the earliest photographers in Japan.<br>

Full article <strong><a href="http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fa20090403a1.html">here</a> </strong> .</p>

 

<div></div>

<p>I have the Sigma 50mm EX macro and it's a superb lens. In fact, it's the sharpest lens I have. The Canon 60mm is also reported to be excellent. And if the new Tamron 60 is as good as my Tamron 90, it will also be high-performing lens. You might also want to think about the Sigma 70mm EX macro.<br>

If you care about internal focus (lens does not extend when focusing), that would eliminate the Sigmas. But for me, that's not at all important. Given that all these lenses (probably including the new Tamron 60) are wickedly sharp, I would be more interested in looking at the quality of out-of-focus areas (bokeh) and choose the lens that gave the most pleasing (to my eye) blur. It's a very subjective way to choose a lens, though, so you'd need to see sample photos from each.<br>

Will you be using the lens for any purpose other than macro? Portraits? if so, having f/2 available on the Tamron might be useful (for blurring out backgrounds at portrait distances).<br>

If you want full-time manual control (manually adjust focus even when autofocusing), the Canon or the Tamron would be the way to go.<br>

On balance, if I were looking for a macro lens in this range, I would wait until the Tamron becomes available and then look at some sample photos.</p>

<div></div>

<p>The Tamron 90 macro is one of my favourite lenses. There is nothing wrong with its build quality, and in any case Tamron offers a six-year warranty. The autofocus is louder than the Canon 100, but I never use AF with macro lenses. If I were you, I'd save the money and get the Tamron, but buy it somewhere reputable. The <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/330641-USA/Tamron_AF272C700_SP_90mm_f_2_8_Di.html">B&H price</a> looks particularly good at the moment ($419 BEFORE the $60 rebate). I've found Tamron's rebate programme to be less frustrating than Canon's.<br>

You might also want to look at the Sigma 105mm macro.</p>

 

<div></div>