PuppyDigs

<p>I owned the 35 2.0 since 1990 and upgraded to the 35 2.0 IS last Fall. Both are nice lenses but the 35 2.0 IS one ups the older design in most ways save for cost: sharp edge to edge at all apertures, silent, faster more surefooted focus, 3-stop IS (Canon claims 4) and a more handsome appearance. Both lenses are very sharp in the center but the newer design has much better edge performance and less CA. The focus motor of the old 35 2.0 is buzzy and, worse, has trouble locking in low light.</p> <p>However the biggie for me has been ease of shooting. With the older 35 2.0 I had to look for points of contrast to lock AF in low light, so lots of lock-AF-recompose technique. With the new 35 2.0 IS, it pretty much locks on anything, at least with my 6D, and I can shoot from the hip without worrying about doing the lock AF recompose dance.</p> <p>I also have the 40 2.8 STM and while a bargain for $150, it pales before the 35 2.0 IS for low light work.</p>

<p>Or the seller has bad eyesight and needs larger AF points! My old Rebel had almost microscopic AF points and were difficult to see compared to the XXD and XD series. I've even read complaints from users they couldn't see the AF points in the 7D and it slaps you in the face with a glitzy light show.</p>

<p>I have both DPP 3.14 and 4.0 on my Mac and they coexist fine. The 4.0 installer doesn't touch the older app. </p> <p>I really don't see DPP 4 as an abandonment of recent and existing cameras. It's Canon merely doing what they've been doing for the last decade: being really slow out the gate due to a low budget and priority for software. It took a long time for Canon to add many lens models to the digital optimization database and many cried about their lens not being included. Whenever there is an OS change that breaks DPP you can expect to wait many months for a fix. And it's almost reasonable since they know 99% of us use LR, Aperture, iPhoto or Elements to manage and convert RAW. </p> <p>As for Canon "abandoning" the 5D a few years back, I find it odd 5D RAW files still process just fine in DPP 3.14, looking better than they ever were in 2005. In fact, even my 10D RAW from 2003 still process fine. Obviously these older cameras don't have access to some newer features. However, DPP digital lens optimization and correction work a treat on these ancient files. DPP is actually much more supportive and feature rich than when these cameras were in production. </p>

<p>I haven't noticed moire problems with 6D, 60D or 70D video, and I've posted hundreds of hours of footage from all three:<br /><br /> <br />https://www.youtube.com/user/gochugogi69</p> <p>Of course I don't shoot close product video or fabrics.</p>

<p>I agree with Eric: the 6D is a much better camera in most ways but the 70D is a little better choice for video due to the flip out LCD and movie servo mode.</p> <p>Realize 70D video quality isn't better than the 6D, you merely get more video tweaks aimed at weekend video hobbyists. I use both cameras for stills and video and, if I had to choose between the two, I'd grab the 6D. Why? Audio quality is terrible on both cameras so you have to use an outboard audio recorder and mics. So the extra audio features of the 70D are a moot point since you have to sync with separate audio tracks in PP. The 70D biggie is the contrast focus and movie servo. Most videographers use MF but if you want to use AF while shooting video the 70D has the best in the business. The touch screen focus pulls work very well. Ultimately, I had to disable movie servo as it's too twitchy for me: a subject moves slightly and it quickly adjusts focus, ruining a quiet scene. MF stays pull until you need it.</p> <p>If you plan to mainly use outboard audio and MF, you don't have to worry about focus noise or stepped motors. So any good lens in your fav range with a smooth MF ring will do. If you plan to use movie servo, stick to STM lenses: slower and smoother focus than USM and completely silent. I needed to shoot inside a small music ensemble so I used an EF-s 10-22 USM. Optically excellent lens but when I tried contrast focus the lens focused crazy fast and in such distinct steps it caused the video to shudder. The audio guide track had a high pitched laugh-like tremolo noise! What strange is you can't hear it while shooting. It exists only on the audio track. So MF with a follow focus ring for the 10-22 (or prefocus for static subjects).</p>

<p>It's a major overhaul and an excellent supplement to Aperture and Photoshop for me. It's so different than DPP 3x I had to spend an hour figuring out the basics (has tabbed tools and looks like LR). However once learned, it's a major step up from DPP 3 tools and interface. It's also fast and nimble on my Mini i7 (OS 10.9.3). It seems odd they didn't hold the release at least until they expanded support to all current production cameras. I can only open my 6D files while the 70D--a newer camera--isn't supported yet. Really wish it was a plugin rather than a standalone.</p>

<p>I briefly owned the 18-55 IS and it was truly horrid: entire left side was soft! So I returned it. It was known in its day to be decently sharp but suffered from QC issues. Also, some lenses drift out of alignment with the wear and tear of mechanical parts or a good whack or two. My 70-200 4L became decentered after I jogged a couple blocks to catch a shot. Canon aligned it for free and it was tack sharp again.</p>

<p>One of the nice things about the 50 2.5, although a macro design, it makes a fine general purpose lens and even a nice portrait lens on APS-C. So while macro doesn't need a hood, it's not a bad idea while shooting outdoors, especially since a 52mm metal hood is cheaper than a Big Mac.</p>

<p>Haha, you need to wear a hat: makes a much better hood than your hand (unless you're blessed with jumbo mitts).</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I thought maybe canon's hood from the other lens would match."</p> </blockquote> <p>Canon didn't bequeath the 50 2.5 with the notch/groove to fit a clip-on or twist on Canon hood. I find these Chinese metal hoods more attractive and durable than Canon's plastic fantastic hoods. <br> <br> However if you want a name brand hood, Nikon makes a couple screw-in metal hoods for 52mm. They'll cost ya a pretty penny tho' but are cute as all get out. The Nikon HS-9 screws on but has an ingenious quick release. Plus it makes the 50 2.5 look like it's wearing a mini skirt! The HN-3 also fits but is a bit shallow. I didn't buy them for the 50 2.5 but they're what's left of my Nikon film kit. I kept them around once they're great designs and 52mm is a common size.</p>

<p>Just buy a 52mm screw-in metal hood. There are dozens on the market. I have this one and it looks and works great:<br> http://www.amazon.com/RainbowImaging-HM52-Metal-Nikkor-Standard/dp/B0031CS83U/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1402258283&sr=8-5&keywords=lens+hood%2C+52mm</p>