jim_d5

Jan, I doubt any sharpening was performed on the bug picture, this is well within the capabilities of this lens (without any sharpening) and a handful of other Canon lenses, i.e. 100mm f/2.8 macro, etc. Many have said this lens is sharper than the 50 f/1.4, and I don't doubt it from what I have seen.

 

If you want to look at the numbers, dare I suggest, all the problems you have had with this lens are just not 'possible'. All lenses will produce some flare under the right condition except a few designs that are, for what is humanly noticeable, "perfect". I believe the 200 f/2.8L II makes this category.

 

So I wonder about this post, and read on with great interest.

Jan, I doubt any sharpening was performed on the bug picture, this is well within the capabilities of this lens (without any sharpening) and a handful of other Canon lenses, i.e. 100mm f/2.8 macro, etc. Many have said this lens is sharper than the 50 f/1.4, and I don't doubt it from what I have seen.

 

If you want to look at the numbers, dare I suggest, all the problems you have had with this lens are just not 'possible'. All lenses will produce some flare under the right condition except a few designs that are, for what is humanly noticeable, "perfect". I believe the 200 f/2.8L II makes this category.

 

So I wonder about this post, and read on with great interest.

Killer setup man. I still have my Elan 7 even after getting my 30D and I will never give it up. I love that camera. And it just 'fits' with the 50 1.4 perfectly. Hey, you have a full frame 20 megapixel+ camera for $300. You cannot beat that. Happy shooting.

"One area where Sony may have a problem is that of customer service. I've always received competent service from Canon and hopelessly inept service from Sony. Even if the Alpha turns out to be great how many people will be willing to compromise on customer service and QC? While Sony's marketing budget is massive they've erred by not keeping many current users happy."

 

Yes, yes, yes, yes a thousand times. I couldn't agree more! I sent a Sony digicam in that had a sensor with a smudge on it. I had had it only a month so it was definately within warrenty. After getting it back they had not fixed the problem at all and ultimately the camera was worse than it was before. They had allowed dust to get in between the screen surface and the screen plastic cover, this was very annoying. They also screwed up the lens because it was much looser after getting it back.

 

So basically they had made me extremely angry and in the end cost themselves more money than if they had just done it right to begin with. Because, finally, I got a new after much talk and arguing.

 

This was enough for me to say that I will NEVER buy another Sony camera of any kind.

 

However, what is funny is that their audio department is a complete 180. I have never had anything but great experiences with Sony's audio customer service, in fact some of the best experience I have had with any customer service, go figure. Sony optics is pretty much a separate and different company from Sony audio in many ways.

You must make sure first which camera you have. Canon flubbed one here, they named their new midrange camera the 30D. This was a brilliant one, as now it is easily confused with the old D30 or the 300D Rebel, etc. They would have been well advised to choose a name like 35D or 40D.

 

My favorite name choice would have been 25D as the 30D is essientially a 20D with a bigger screen and a few other new bells and whistles, this name would have made more sense. Whatever.

 

As the last post said if you have the older D30 get the BG-ED3 and if you have the 30D get the BG-E2.

 

Yes I reccommend the grip, it is completely necessary if you have big hands like me or if you wish to use AA batts from time to time like me.

Thanks, you have all been helpful.

 

I think I have decided the wider opening and inherently smoother background blur of the 200 2.8 are more important to me than the flexibility of the zoom. So now I have to pay off my 30D so I can get my lens ;-)

 

Interestingly enough this will be my third prime lens purchase in a row, my zooms are now outnumbered.

Thanks, you have all been helpful.

 

I think I have decided the wider opening and inherently smoother background blur of the 200 2.8 are more important to me than the flexibility of the zoom. So now I have to pay off my 30D so I can get my lens ;-)

 

Interestingly enough this will be my third prime lens purchase in a row, my zooms are now outnumbered.

I did a search and could not find a satisfactory answer that fit my needs. I am

trying to decide between these two lenses. The longest focal length I can reach

with my current lenses is 105mm.

 

I have a 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 but I really don't like it because it is extremely

cheap and optically poor, so I am not counting it for this discussion, plus it

is old and was given to me.

 

So I want a telephoto because I feel I need a telephoto. I find myself wanting

to go a good ways beyond 105mm. I will be using the lens on my new 30D AND my

Canon film bodies. I will be doing mostly 8x10 or larger prints, in fact, that

is all I do. Only rarely do I print something smaller than 8x10, maybe for

'proofs' purposes.

 

So, I want tack sharp clarity. Not just sharp at the center or sharp here or

there, I want it to be the best optically for my large prints. However, I do

not need anything over 200mm. The difference in price of these two lenses is

negligible. The 2.8 aperture seems advantageous to me as I shoot in moderate to

low light most of the time. Reports of quite a few 70-200s with back focus

problems disturbs me. Also, I read a report that showed the prime 200

outperformed the 70-200 in all the test criteria.

 

Many have said that with the 70-200 they rarely use the shorter end of the focal

range and effectively find themselves at the 200 end. It seems to me that would

be the case for me too. So I have just about made a case for myself on getting

the 200 f/2.8L. Am I justified in thinking this way?

Only thing is, if you get the Sigma 10-20 you will not be able to use it on your film bodies or any future full frame DSLR you get.

 

If you want to shoot full frame now or in the future I would suggest the Canon 17-40 f/4L, as it is the best performing lens for the price range it is in. Just not AS wide as the 10-22. How wide do you need?

A second vote for the Sigma 10-20, cannot be beat for what you get at that price.

"I'd suggest to buy a cheap body of the Canon FD line (Like a Canon T70 or a Canon FTb) and a Sigma 14 mm F 3.5 lens for FD. The Sigma 14 mm is a very good lens. That'd just make it, budgetwise, I guess. Check at KEH.com.

 

Also, with thre FD line, you can buy 20 mm third - party lenses for about that amount. "

 

Yes, I second this option. Get a Canon FD body, the AE-1 Program is a good option and it can be had for little or nothing! Then the lenses are going for very good prices nowadays.

 

BTW, to my knowledge there is not a Sigma 10-22, only a Canon 10-22. More than one person here has mention a Sigma lens that is in a focal range that they don't cover. There is a Sigma 10-20 and 12-24, am I missing something here?

Dust on the lens's surface will never show up in the picture unless it is a fairly large particle.

 

This is sensor dust. It only shows up when the picture was shot with an aperture of approximately f/16 or smaller, some start at f/11. Try a shot at f/22, it should be even more of a black point instead of a blob. Maybe this was at f/22.

 

We should have a forum just for image spots and anomalies, as this is becomming an everyday question!

"Will Sony's Alpha DSLR wreak havoc on Canon sales?"

 

LOL, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, LOL, LOL...

 

Whew, breathe, breathe...

 

I'm okay now.

I had these same problems with a non-IS lens. I then tried manual focusing the birds and got much better results. Call me crazy but most of my panning bird shoots are done with the AF off. Try turning the AF off Vlad and using that MF ring.

 

Unfortunately, your lens has a small manual focusing ring. If you can get your hands on an L lens like the 70-200's you can manage fast manual focusing. Beware, this requires much practice too. That is why the lens can be switched out of AF mode. Give it a try.

 

One alternative, another thing I like to do is to set the AF to one focusing point. Pick a point and follow the subject under that one, some find this easier for some reason than keeping it in the whole AF "area". However, remember, area AF was designed just for this type of photography.

 

This is the type of experimenting you need to do, you need to get to know your camera's AF system as it varies from model to model and even camera to camera! It works differently in almost every situation so you have alot to pay attention to and learn. With this experience you should be able to take tack sharp action photos. Enjoy.

"How about cheesy bokeh (from a pentagon iris); plastic throughout; slow to focus, non ring USM; too soft wide open; and noisy."

 

The AF speed difference is hardly noticeable. If you have both of the lenses compare the AF, the 1.8 is just as fast as the 1.4 for all anyone can actually notice, its just a bit louder, but it is by no means loud.

 

The bokeh is certainly acceptable for a lens that costs this little and does this much. And, I must say the plastic has NEVER failed me, I have been rough with my 50 1.8 MkII and it has not broken yet.

 

You know plastic is not bad if it is quality 'engineering' plastic. Look at the EOS-3 for example, it has a plastic body! I don't hear people complaining about that camera. Remember many components of the craft that NASA designs are made of the very material many consumers bad mouth, PLASTIC! It is, in many cases, superior to metal believe it or not.

This is pure Canon marketing genius. This company knows how to advertise their products, this should be obvious, but for some us no advertisment is needed ;-)

 

My first white lens will be the 70-200 f/4L which I'll get in about a month. I can't wait.

I have an EOS-3, Elan 7, and Rebel 2000.

 

Get a used Elan 7 or a new Elan 7N. It is inexpensive, reliable, fast, and has many professional features. A feature filled full frame SLR for under $300, and how! It has most of the shooting features of your 5D. The only difference is a top shutter speed of 1/4000 instead 1/8000 and exposure adjustments are in 1/2 stops instead of 1/3, and the Elan has two less focus points. The viewfinders are similar. If you need these features get the EOS 3 and pay twice.

 

The "N" stands for "NEW" on the new model and the only difference is that it has full E-TTL II flash compatability and an electroluminescent LCD panel. Plus the N has the super-matte finish to distinguish it from the older model. Otherwise they are identical.

It is called RAW, it saves alot of hassle, nuff said.

oops, forgot something, it needs to be USB 2.0 type

Just got my 30D yesterday. I love it, until I get to the computer, transfer

takes f o r e v e r. I have seen many card readers. I would like it to be able

to read type I and II cards and do it very quickly. I do not care about it

reading other formats and would like it to be portable for my laptop/camera bag.

 

I just want to know which reader you guys have the best experience with.

 

I am using all 80x+ cards.

Get the 50 1.4.

 

The 50 is Canon's bread and butter lens. It is very fast, very sharp, and very contrasty. 85 will be too long for you on your XT, 136mm? I doubt you want that unless you are only using it for tight portraits, then maybe.

 

I personally would highly reccommend the 50mm f/1.8II. Slightly slower than the 1.4 but just as good picture quality, IMO. The 1.4 may give you a little better background blur (more diaphragm blades = true circular aperture = smoother blur). The 1.4 has a USM motor, but the micromotor on the 1.8 is very fast. The 1.8 mkII is cheaply built, I guess, with a plastic mount and all. But, I have used it for many years without any reliabilty issues. It hasn't broken yet, and I haven't exactly pampered it. The glass, the stuff you take the picture through, is of no compromise quality.

 

Heres the kicker, the 1.8 costs $80! That's much less than the 1.4 without giving up much performance. Something to consider, especially if you are new to this.

 

PS, sometimes you can find a 50mm f/1.8I used (note the mark I designation behind the 1.8 instead of the II above). I have seen used ones for around $100. Do a search as many swear the original is better than the II because it is better built, has a metal mount, and is easier to manual focus. I think it also has that 8 blade diaphragm, right?

"My opinion is that the DOF button should follow along with the Print button and be removed in future versions of bodies."

 

Ahh, Savas, this is not the spirit. You should be saying, "My opinion is the DOF button and Print button should be available for a user-defined function!"

 

See, if they made these two buttons user-definable no one would have a reason to complain, right? Firmware update maybe, for the print button at least? I am sure I will never push that button, I have no use for it.

Fake? This was always strange to me. I am one who does not believe the "how" matters here as the images are all of the same quality (minus noise). The intermediate steps are still useful and there have been many who have seemed to prove just the oposite, that they are not fake.

You wouldn't be talking about the A-DEP mode on the dial would you? Just a wild guess. I have never used this feature, it has been on several EOS bodies. I think the printed manual describes how to use it.

 

If you are talking about the DOF preview button, then that is another story. Many years ago, when I was an SLR newbie, I kept tapping the DOF button expecting it to do something. I never could understand what it was for, so I figured it was broken ever since I got it (used AE-1 Program). Then my father told me you got to HOLD it down. I felt stupid.

 

If you hold down the DOF button it shows you "through-the-lens" the actual Depth Of Field of the image. Of course it makes your view darker because you are looking through a stopped down lens (a smaller hole = less light).

Let us know how this wedding shoot turns out!