ifeito

Screw that, go for a 580EX II... if you absolutely cannot afford it then get a 430EX. I had the 380EX and sold it because it didn't have manual mode and it can't swivel. No manual mode means it can't trigger studio lights.

The 580 is definitively the way to go. Master mode, strobe, extremely fast recharging (10 FPS for about 8 seconds)... wouldn't consider any other flash.

http://www.photo.net/photo/6621525

Ignacio

Consider any of these depending on what you're going for:

24 mm f/3.5 TS-E

EF 15 mm f/2.8 Fisheye

EF 16-35 mm f/2.8 II

The 24 may not be wide enough on a crop sensor, but the movements are a blessing when shooting architecture. Also, you can do perfect stitching with tilting.

Ignacio

Chris,

Your observed difference in behaviour comes from exposure sensor placement on crop sensor cameras in relation to "full frame" film cameras. For that matter you won't get the same exposure readings for the same scene with say a Rebel XT against a 1D MkIII.

Regarding the TS-E lenses, the behaviour described is absolutely normal. Instead of using the AE I would suggest that you use Manual mode, I've found I use it more and more and just watch the exposure meter before shooting with normal lenses. Of course with Tilt and Shift you determine exposure before adding any movements.

I don't understand how you're supposed to focus BEFORE tilting, since you need to take tilting into account before determining plane of focus (Google: Scheimpflug).

Hope this helps!

Ignacio

It's down to $2,199 today. I believe the daily variations are dependent upon the recent devaluation of the US dollar against other world currencies.

Ignacio

Actually, it's also $2,999 with the $1,050 24-105 f/4L lens, which makes it roughly $1,950 if you're planning on getting that lens.

Will those prices have the rebates applied to them?

Ignacio

Hola Andrea,

I apologize to the forum for replying in spanish.

Mi consejo es que, antes de comprar un lente caro, compres el 50 mm f/1.8 (o el f/1.4). El f/1.8 cuesta como $80 d�lares, no debe de pasar de $100 d�lares en Chile. En M鸩co cuesta algo menos de $100 d�lares. El f/1.4 cuesta $300 pero es un poco m᳠luminoso y algo m᳠resistente.

Posteriormente probablemente te convenga probar con el 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS; realmente funciona bien eso de la estabilizaci�n en lentes largos.

Mi consejo es que no compres lentes baratos de Sigma o de Tamron, a mí ®o me fue bien con Sigma, te recomiendo que te quedes con Canon por un rato.

Saludos desde M鸩co!

Ignacio

PRATYUSH

I would say that you should be looking at the 50 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.8, both well within your budget.

50 f/1.8 is tempting, but once you're used to the handling of nicer lenses you'll probably feel that it's too plasticky.

Like many here have wisely stated the 50 is long enough for portraits on a crop camera, but the 85 will give you a tighter head and shoulders portrait. Sounds like you should give the 50 m a try because of the tighter indoor shots you're trying to get.

Hope this helps!

Ignacio

Michael,

Sorry for the delay, I was out of town.

Most of the shots were only cropped to fit on an 8 x 10 frame, they are 100% shots.

Ignacio

Michael,

The 100 Macro is one of my favorite lenses. Since I'm not going to get a ring or a twin macro I'll tell you what I did to work around this.

Like you said, AF on the Rebel doesn't work for macro, so just set your lens to the magnification you desire and then use your body to focus by getting closer/farther from your moving subject.

For lighting I use a Canon flash (used the 380EX, now I've got a 580 and a 430) on an off camera shoe cord, I hold it in one hand while holding the camera on the other. I know it sounds complicated, but it gives me a lot of flexibility in lighting and once you get the hang of it it works fine:

http://www.photo.net/photo/5322462

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=591620

With some other bugs I've used formal studio lighting.

http://www.photo.net/photo/5299983

Hope this helps!

Ignacio

Ross,

On the XTi the 70-200 is usually long enough, and the image quality is really amazing. The 70-300 IS has to it's favor that it's stabilized and does stretch a significant 100 mm more on the long end.

If you're ever considering a longer lens (say, a 300 f/4 IS) then get the 70-200 if not then there's no question, go for the 70-300.

Skip the 75-300's, they're really not worth it even for tripod shooters.

Ignacio

Bob,

You state on the reference made above:

http://bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_5d_mkII_4D_6D.html

That Sony makes the CMOS Sensor for the D3. All I have read is that Nikon designed that sensor and there's an "undisclosed" partner manufacturing it. I agree with you that the undisclosed partner could very well be Nosy (I mean Sony)... But do you have any evidence to that matter?

Thanks!

Ignacio

People keep bringing the issue of the sensor outresolving the lenses and that is just wrong.

Resolving power of a lens plus sensor as a system depends on both elements of the system. The higher the resolving power of each element the higher the resolving power of the system will be.

Like they have already stated here, there are "denser" sensor cameras that use even cheaper lenses and they are still OK.

What people really have is the ability to look at every single image at 100% on their computer screens and can see issues with their glass that they probably never knew existed.

Who in the past made 78" x 52" prints of every single shot and expected them to be perfect? (That's the size of a 1Ds MkIII print at 72 dpi screen resolution) And back then you could always blame the enlarger lens, paper, emulsion, etc. Nowadays it goes straight from pixel peeper's camera to 30" monitor.

So rest assured that increments in resolution will indeed result in increments in printing and enlarging quality, just don't expect that to be the single selling issue of new cameras.

Ignacio

Here's my take on the 40D info so far (which by no means makes me an expert, just a geek)

10 megapixels, but at 14 bits. This is big guys, smoother transitions and better image quality. Need more than 10 megapixels? Get a 5D.

Possible weathersealing. Not a big issue, but important for a sports camera.

Possible live-view. I bought the 1D MkIII and have found this to be a very handy feature. I've used it in product photography and even used it in an event, certainly usable!

ISO in viewfinder... finally!

3" screen. Have to admit it's awfully nice

Higher FPS. When there's action every frame could be the one!

So I wouldn't discount it as a me-too offering, it will probably retake the lead in that segment!

Ignacio

This guy:

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/final/24mm_final1.html

Thinks the 24 f/1.4 is the best 24 mm lens ever produced, period.

Ignacio

Hi,

If what you're after is sharpness in a lens under 20 mm, I guess I'll point you to the only site where I've seen testing like the one you're looking after:

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon1635ii_a/c1635ii_a1.html

Hope his helps!

Ignacio

Just bought mine in Mexico for $54,990 pesos. Once you deduct VAT (IVA) and convert at MX$10.9:US$1 it ended up costing about $4,300 US. First time I've seen an item cheaper here than in the US.

Ignacio

Hate to do this, but I just can't help myself.

Would you take any camera review from a guy that shoots pictures like this

seriously?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/ryan/index.htm

Now don't be too hard on him!

Ignacio

Tim,

You know you want that white lens, but seems like you have the longer end better covered. Then again, that's what you seem to be shooting most. Is it because that's what you've got or because that's what you like?

I agree that only you can answer that, but I know sometimes you want to read what other people may think.

Left some ratings on your portfolio while visiting, btw!

Ignacio

Your question begs for this answer:

Just how small is your daughter that you need a macro lens to shoot her?

Sorry, couldn't help it.

Have a good one!

Ignacio

I believe there are minimum numbers of ratings for an image to appear in a certain category. I've seen some top images in the last 24 hours showing up with as little as 5 ratings; once you start requesting longer periods of time the number of required ratings seems to go up.

Ignacio

Joe,

The image was shot at f/8, 1/500 of a second and at 17 mm wide. I own the 17-40 f/4 and I have gotten sharper images with it and my 350D (8 Megapixel crop camera). I know you'll say it's because of the design of the lens being optimized for the center portion of the frame, but the log cabins don't look particularly sharp either.

I believe this shot was probably handheld and the focus seems to be somewhere behind the cabins.

Let's see if someone with the 5D and 35 mm lens can post a better shot than the one you mention.

Ignacio

Dan,

I have only used that wonderful lens on a 1.6 crop body (350D), and I haven't found it limiting at all.

When I first got it I tried using it on a tripod an thought about buying a tripod collar ring. My main macro subject are insects, and trying to mount the camera on a tripod just makes it impossible to catch them.

My technique now involves holding my flash on an extension chord on my left hand and after "dialing" the desired magnification I get closer or farther from my subject to acheive focus and then quickly pressing the shutter.

I would probably be more comfortable with a ring flash, but I decided to put that money towards a couple of studio strobes that may prove more profitable if I go pro.

Here's my "Little Critters" gallery:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=591620

You can see in the brown mantis shot that my technique wasn't perfect and I missed the focus; since then I believe I've gotten a little better.

Having the flash on your left hand is a little bit uncomfortable at first, but you do get a lot more creative lighting options this way compared to using a ring flash. I've even crossed my left hand under my right arm to light from behind and from the right when the subject allows it.

Hope this helps!

Ignacio

Tim,

I asked the same question a few months back. There is a review on Luminous Landscape that could help you decide.

I also have the 70-200 f/4 and also had the 1.4xTC when I decided to buy the 300 f/4, and I absolutely love that lens.

I believe the best image quality comes from using the 400 f/5.6, but you do loose IS (which works amazingly at that focal lenght) and you probably won't be able to use it with your TC.

The 100-400 is heavier and you loose some image quality, however many swear by it. You probably wouldn't be using it with the TC either.

The 300 is a great lens to use without the TC (I feel it's sharper than the 70-200 at 200 mm) and it definitively gives you a great 420 f/5.6 to shoot birds at midrange.

Here's an almost full frame shot with that combination:

http://www.photo.net/photo/5317256

(DOF was actually not as shallow, photoshop helped a little bit)

Ignacio

Oops, link isn't working properly... It just points to a standard optical slave, B&H part No. KASHS

Thanks!

Ignacio