erikhaugsby

I can't imagine that Canon would spend R&D money to optically upgrade a lens so soon after introduction (it hasn't been around <i>that</i> long, has it?), but I'm still interested as to the reasons behind the superficial changes.

I'm going to venture a guess and say the lens is a 24mm f/1.4L (I or II, I'm not sure)--note the relative length of the body combined with the short length of the hood.

I wish my 70-200 could go a little wider--the gap between 70mm and 112mm-e would be ridiculously nice to have. That and I'd like my 17-40 to be able to shoot wider than 28mm-e.

One Nikon D700, please.

Why not try some black acrylic nail polish, delicately applied to problem areas?

Horses for courses, perhaps? The main reason I shoot a Leica M2 (a <a

href="http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?LeicaM2.html~mainFrame"> rangefinder

camera</a>) is because I can quickly and accurately focus wider lenses (28s and thereabouts). For other people

who prefer a telephoto sort of view, SLRs reign supreme in both viewing and focusing accuracy.

<br><Br>

Roger: do you consider yourself a 'wide' or a 'telephoto' shooter? Being able to become aware of your shooting

habits is critical in lens selection;, and only you are able to judge whether a wider and faster kit like

puppyface's 10-22 + 17-55 kit, or a longer kit like Jeff Labanz's 24-70 + 70-200 is more suitable to your

shooting style. Therefore, go and look through your past libraries; determine the average use of general wide,

standard, and tele lens lengths, and pick lenses to suit these averages. That should leave you (as well as your

wife) with a 2-lens kit that can capture what subjects you look for.

<br><Br>

(Personally, like puppyface, I'd take the 10-22 and 17-55. The Canon is fast enough (f/2.8 even <i>without</i>

image stabilization turned on) and the Sigma is wide enough (10mm on the lens =16mm on the 30D) for some serious

wide and low-light action.)

Can you post EXIF data?

Or you could mount one of <a href="http://www.westlicht-auction.com/index.php?id=64558&acat=64558&offset=1&_ssl=off">these</a> (Item 55) on a camera with a T setting (or use B with a lockable release cord). The shutter on the camera stays open while the lens' shutter exposes the film as many times as you would like.

<br><br>

Plus, it has an LTM mount, so it can be used on virtually <i>any</i> Leica, (new) Voigtlander, (new) Zeiss, or other L39 or M-mount cameras. That said, it is a bloody expensive piece of glass, selling for €6.600 at the last WestLicht auction (linked to earlier in the post).

Here is a link to the story Vince was alluding to:<br><i>

<a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/107855/camera_confidential.html">Camera Confidential</a>

<br></i><br>

(It was in PC <i>World</i>, not PC <i>Magazine</i>)

Clive, I wholly concur.

Now, how have only two of us have managed to notice his little addition...?

But Aizan's image <i>is</i> showing up, at least for me. It's a black Hexar RF with a Hexar 28mm f/2.8.

Some straps, like the Domke Gripper, have two of the 'bumpers' included with the strap; I'm not sure if you can buy them OEM without the actual strap.

Do you have any sample pictures?

Considering that you can get a 40D (body only) for under $1000 (<a

href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/518207-REG/Canon_1901B004_EOS_40D_SLR_Digital.html">here</a>), barely

$200 more than the XSi body only (<a

href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542178-REG/Canon_2757B001_EOS_Rebel_XSi_a_k_a_.html">here</a>), there

should be almost no contest--get your niece the 40D.

Why not get an LTM-M adapter and use an Elmar 50mm f/3.5 on an M body, which will also accommodate your Elmar-C?

The 17-40mm f/4L is a great lens for the price, as long as you can accept the slow speed. The 17mm is wonderfully wide when used with FF or film, and will roughly estimate a 28-70mm-e zoom when used with your 450D.

Are you sure that the lens head is screwed in properly? On a Summicron, of similar build nature, it is possible to screw the lens head (the first centimeter or so of ribbed chrome) in or out of the body, and this upset the alignment dot for the aperture settings. Maybe your problem is an improperly-screwed-in lens head?

To be perfectly honest, the only way to get true "Leica Quality images" is to buy an R* or an M* and get a handful of Summicrons, Elmarits, or Summiluxes.

 

Pick up a cheap dSLR (like a Nikon D80 or a Canon 450D), a good flash (SB600 for the Nikon, 430EX for the Canon), and a quality short-tele (like a 50/1.4 or an 85/1.8). This will give you a wealth of flexibility in the way of upgrades, high-quality glass, and image IQ that trounces what the (very dated) fixed-lens cameras you mentioned can produce.

 

Though there certainly exists an elusive 'je ne sais pas' about true Leica glass, it comes at the cost of an extremely high price tag.

 

(disclaimer: I've got an M2 and a handful of vintage Leica lenses. Nothing to sneeze at, but certainly nothing I would use for serious portraiture. I leave that to my 20D+85/1.8)

Orville-I hate to say it but your Montreal (1986) shot of the runner looks an awful lot like it was taken in Camp Snoopy, Mall of America, Bloomington, MN, US.

 

I really do enjoy your Central Park image of the wheelchair/dog, however.

You might try looking at the Vivitar 285. It's a huge flash, but has non-TTL "auto" modes like the Metz flashes and will connect to your M2 through a short PC cable.

Why not use Kodachrome? K25 was THE color film for still photography from the thirties through much of the seventies, and today's K64 isn't too shabby either.

It's probably dust on your sensor.

Canon makes 2 decent flashes, the 430EX and the 580EX II. One is less expensive and has fewer features, the other can do anything you could want a flash to.

I'd buy the Biogon even if it was more expensive than the Summarit.

Recognize that the front element of your lens rotates, causing you to need to re-adjust the polarizer filter each time you refocus.

<br><Br>

Your 18-55 lens has a 58mm filter thread, while the 10-22mm has a 77mm thread. Plain and simple: you're going to need two separate filters.

<br><Br>

Brand choice is all up to you, but realize you get what you pay for. B&W or Heliopan filters are the 'better' filters, but again they can empty your wallet pretty quickly. Remember also that your 18-55mm isn't at the top of the pile optical-quality wise, so you might save some money by not buying a filter that out-resolves the lens.

<br><Br>

Take a look <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison-filters.htm"> here</a> for some more user-friendly input on using polarizers with wide zooms.