trothwell

I have both the Canon 17-40 and the 20/2.8. I believe that most of the complaints about the 20/2.8 are on full-frame cameras, in that it loses sharpness toward the edges.

 

I've used it both on a crop camera and on full-frame cameras. On the crop camera, it was great; no problems at all. On full frame, it may be less sharp at the edges than the 17-40, but honestly, I don't really notice much. Perhaps I'm just not demanding enough, but I rather like the 20.

I concur about the 135 L. It's a great lens. I hope the new 50mm produces similar quality images.

James: the 85/1.2 L Mark I is increasingly hard to find new. I highly suspect that the rebate applies to the Mark II model.

RAW is the superior format, as you can do more with it in post-production.

 

However, if you're generally happy with what you get from the 5D JPEG output, then using the 5D to make JPEGs instead of RAW will save on comptuer processing time and hard-disk space. There is nothing wrong with using JPEG only, if you don't need the flexibility of RAW.

 

That said, if you have the time and money, you might want to get some nice RAW-processing software (e.g., Adobe Photoshop tools) and learn about what you can do with the RAW format. You might find that you really like it, or you might find that you are still fine with JPEGs.

For general purpose zoom, I like the 24-70. (I also mostly use a 5D.) I've never used the 24-105, so I can't say anything for or against it specifically, but I imagine that the maximum f4 aperture would be too limiting for me indoors and wouldn't give as much nice background blur for portraits and such.

 

If you don't mind switching to your 50/1.4 when needed, this might not be a big deal, and the extra 35mm on the long end would sure be nice to have.

Part of the answer to the question "is it worth it?" lies in "how many dollars are in your bank account?"

 

Both of Canon's 300mm lenses offer IS, but one is f4 and one is f2.8. Is the f2.8 worth it? It comes at around a $2000 premium. For folks who have lots of dollars in their bank account, $2000 is a rounding error, and of course the f2.8 is worth it... might as well get the f4 as well, just for good measure! For folks who work hard to muster up $2000/month, most of it going to living expenses, they might think a little harder about how much they need the extra aperture.

 

I personally think that if you don't mind waiting for the money to come in, and don't mind spending it, then you'd be happier with the "IS" version, just for those (potentially rare, potentially frequent) instances where you can make good use of it.

In my case, I was just a guest at a wedding reception who was not the official photographer and was asked by the family to take some additional pictures. All I had with me was the 135/2, and I really couldn't get much closer to the band without getting in the way of the dancing. Nor had anyone asked me to photograph the band.

 

My photo wasn't meant to demonstrate brilliance, but rather to show that even a high-quality, reasonably fast lens isn't always enough.

 

That said, I still think it looks kinda neat. :-)

I largely agree with Pavel, except you may prefer the 30D for ergonomic reasons. It is larger, and potentially easier to hold if you have large hands. If it really comes down to the dollar, by all means prefer the better lenses, but see if you can try out the camera bodies in a store a bit to see how they feel. I personally find that important, though I know some folks don't so much.

Question answered. Thanks all!

Can anyone share experiences (and links to photos) from using the 135mm soft

focus lens? This lens has been intriguing to me for a while, but I already

have the 135/2 lens, and just want to learn more about how useful folks see the

soft focus effect being.

 

Thanks!

Insane? Nope. I just got started with photography last year, and absolutely love it. If you have the money, go for the 5D; I think you'll be happier with it in the long run.

You might try getting a 50/1.8 and see if that kind of lens takes you in the right direction. If you like it, you might later want to move up to something like an 85/1.8, 85/1.2, or 50/1.2, depending on your needs and budget.

I've had mine for about seven months, shot around 4000 photos, and no defects.

...and how low of light?

 

<p>

I shot this at a wedding reception last week:

<p>

<a href="http://www.trevisrothwell.com/photos/misc-photos/funk-101.jpg">http://www.trevisrothwell.com/photos/misc-photos/funk-101.jpg</a>

<p>

using a Canon 5D, 135/2 lens at ISO 3200. Most of the shots I got along these lines weren't even this good, because it was just too dark. IS might have helped somewhat, but I think the best solution to this kind of situation would be to get closer and/or get a faster lens...

Michael: thank you very much! I really like that focal length on a full-frame camera, but had been hesitant to buy this lens because of various bad things I had heard about it. I think I shall go ahead and purchase one now, then. :-)

I too bought the 5D, after waiting to see what the 30D would have in store. For me, like many others I'm sure, the main selling point was the full-frame sensor.

 

It was more expensive, yes, but it's a great camera, and I don't expect to need to replace it for a long time.

Can you get blur-free photos, sans flash, with a 30D or an XTi?

 

<p>

Sure. But the most important factor here isn't the camera, but what lens you use with it. If you go with the 18-55mm "kit lens" that often comes with one of these cameras, then, especially indoors, the odds are good that you will find the pictures blurring without flash. This is because the lens aperture doesn't open up wide enough to let light in fast enough.

 

<p>

If you're wanting to shoot pictures indoors without flash, then you will need to have a reasonably fast lens. Without spending a lot of money, you might try buying the Canon 35mm/f2.0 lens or the 50mm/f1.8 lens. Either of those should let you take some good photos indoors (though the 50mm lens may be too long in some cases).

 

<p>

As far as the price difference, the new XTi actually has some good technical features that make it BETTER than the 30D (e.g., more megapixels). The differences are arguably useful, but they are certainly not without merit.

 

<p>

However, the 30D is larger, and feels more solid in your hands. I personally find that VERY important (I'm not particularly small), and I would prefer the 30D over the XTi just for these "ergonomic" reasons.

 

<p>

Either way, there is (yet another) camera show up this week, and there are rumors that Canon may announce a successor to the 30D, to include the newer technology from the XTi. Might happen, might not. Wouldn't hurt to wait a couple of days to find out though.

Try using the 17-40mm at 17mm before going for 14mm or 15mm lens. Some people find ultrawide lenses difficult to use effectively, and 17mm is pretty wide.

 

You've got a lot of range covered, especially if you're content with 200mm on the long end. So basically you're looking to get higher quality lenses within the range you already have, yes?

 

If so, then here are some potential purchases for you:

 

- 35/1.4 L

- 50/1.2 L (coming out later this year)

- 85/1.2 L

- 135/2 L (I love this lens -- beautiful results, but might be too redundant with your 70-200 zoom)

- 24-70/2.8 L or 24-105/4 L to replace your midrange zoom

- 100/2.8 macro or 180/3.5 L macro (for flowers and insects)

- 65/2.8 macro (for rice grains)

 

In other words, um, go browse Canon's website for any cool lens that you don't already have. :-) In general, the "L" primes will likely be most impressive to you.

Another data point: don't worry about it. The L lenses are generally better. But many non-L lenses are good too. On my 5D, I mostly use the 50/1.4 (non-L) and the 135/2 (L). The 135 looks better, but they're both good.

 

I also use the 20/2.8 (non-L). It lacks sharpness at the edges, but hey, it's also a very wide lens. In my opinion, it's no big deal, and I like the 20. In some other folks' opinions, the 20/2.8 is junk. Your call for your photos. :-)

I bought the 17-40 about a year ago, and have largely wished that I had splurged for the 16-35. The 17-40 is great, but I personally miss the 2.8 aperture. I will likely get the 16-35 sometime, but having the 17-40, there are other lenses I am more interested in at the moment.

 

Your mileage may vary, of course, depending on your needs.

I got the 50/1.8 as my first prime lens on the RebelXT. Some folks say 50mm is too long on a 1.6x-crop camera, but I wasn't informed enough to know that, I really enjoyed the 50mm lens anyway.

 

That said, for buildings and houses 50mm often may be too long. You might also consider the 20/2.8, which offers a 32mm equivalent view on the RebelXT. I used that combination and really liked it as well, for wider shots.

Angelica: you might find this very website to be a good source of information!

 

I just started getting seriously into photography about a year ago, and much of what I've learned, I have learned either through experimenting with my camera, or through reading the articles and forums on this website.

 

Just start browsing and reading, and I'm sure you'll pick up a lot!

Not valuable at all. In most cases, I personally do not find video to be a good way to learn over the internet.

Haven't tried wide open for flowers, but I do like the 135/2 for flower photography. Here are some of my attempts at using it as such:

<p>

<a href="http://www.trevisrothwell.com/photos/20060701-flowers">http://www.trevisrothwell.com/photos/20060701-flowers</a>

I opine that this geographical information should either be optional, or let them be as vague as they want (e.g., U.S.A., or, Earth, or whatever). Some web users are very open about where they live in real life, but some prefer to keep that part of their life anonymous, and I don't think that's an unfair preference.