drew_para

Honestly, I would keep the money for wine and beer on your trip. However, short of that I would look for a used prime, perhaps ~100mm or a fisheye, perhaps an ultra-wide zoom.

I shoot digital and film, and I have a similar set of lens (I have the 17-40, 28-135, and 100-300). If you like what you have, and you want to keep working that way, go with the 5D. The other real option is a 40D with a crop zoom (17/80 - 50 or so).

 

It's not my money, but I would get the 5D and forget about crop ratios...

If you're comfortable with a canon point and shoot, you'll feel right at home with an XTi. As for 40d versus 5d, good luck!

If you have a healthy budget, the Canon EF 17-40 f/4L USM ($629 @ bhphoto.com) if you have a more earthly budget, the Canon EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM ($499 @ bhphoto.com), and if your frugal and looking for under $100, the Canon EF 50 f/1.8 ($69 at bhphoto.com).

 

All the prices above are from B&H which is a very nice store in NYC. They have good prices and are easy to deal with. Highly recommended.

I agree with taking your time. I have the 28-135 on my XT and like it fine. I am sure most people would rather an L, but not everyone has a k note to drop on a lens. I would add the 50 1.8, at $80 it is a no brainer. I would also look around for a used EF-S 18-55 lens, which I would think you could pickup for $60-90. Once you start using the camera, you'll figure the rest out. Also, put money aside for a 72mm polarizer and hood for that 28-135, a 2GB CF card, a decent camera bag, and a cheap tripod that you feel is sturdy. If you have money leftover, road trip and find something to take pictures of!

The 28-135 has an early generation IS system, so if you have IS turned on and the lens is on a tripod you will get fuzzy images. I find this lens quite hand-holdable on my XT, but your mileage may vary...

Poor answer on my part. Got caught up in something else. I was speaking of general optical distortion. I am not looking now, but the person who answered before me commented about perspective distortion. I was thinking about the UWA part, since I seem to notice keystoning less in the absence of barrel distortion.

You should see slightly less distortion on a crop body compared to a full frame body with the same lens.

 

Check out www.slrgear.com and look at the cannon lenses. They have 5D and 20D evaluations, including distortion.

<p>The EF 35 f/2 has a pretty good optical reputation from most of what I have seen. I tried a copy on my Rebel XT, but I think I had a soft copy and am not 100% that ~56mm is where I want to be any way. With the 5D, my understanding is that you'll have some vignetting to deal with</p>

<p>I would guess the 35L would be the ideal option if you have the cabbage to burn.</p>

<p>You could also look at an EF 20 on a crop body camera like the new 40D. That would give you ~32mm.</p>

I cannot see someone taking the camera apart and putting it back together for less than $150 or $200. If something significant is broken... If you have the option to use this as an reason to upgrade, I would say do it.

The 17-40 does show some flare, but it is normally minor and only when a strong light source is in the frame. I would say that "considerable" flare is probably from your UV filter. ...Have you tried taking the filter off? That should answer your question faster and better than anything someone might say here.

Look around for people doing this with their 16-35L lenses. Same filter size and very similar field of view.

In the pictures that you wanted to balance out, what were you metering off of? My experience is that how you meter these shots makes a lot of difference. I guess you could dial your exposure down and your flash up... But, I am not sure that you could have evened things out much more than you did. If you really are not happy, I would take it into photoshop and see if you can balance it out more.

I think the Canon 100mm or 60mm macro should both work quite well for you. Also, Tamron makes a 90mm macro, which I have heard a number of good reviews for...<br>

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/51/cat/22<br>

<br>

Before you buy the Sigma f/1.4 I would check out Canon EF 35.<br>

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/147/cat/10<br>

<br>

...I tend to stick with Canon, just less thinking involved in the process.

Unless you are traveling really light, I would lean towards the 24-105 and keep a 50 or 28 prime handy if the light goes south on you.

I would not worry about what the distance meter reads if you feel that auto-focus is working, and I assume that you can manually focus the lens. I certainly would not put weight into the infinity end of the distance scale.

Assuming that you have a DSLR, I would ask if you can take a few shots through it and see if you have any problems with it. I have the 100-300 USM, and while its not the image quality champion it does focus fast and handle well.

I have never heard anything put good about the Canon 10-22

 

"I'd buy the Canon 10 - 22 mm lens in an instant if I had a Canon digital camera. The Canon 10 - 22 mm is better than any of these four lenses, including the Nikon."

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

I really do love my 17-40... But, out of curiosity did you look at the Canon 20 f/2.8 or 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5? If it's a sideline item that you don't use much and are trying took keep affordable without loosing to much quality, I would look towards a prime.

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-20-35mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I have an XT and a Rebel T2, I find the XT to be reasonably sized. You need to make that decision about how comfortable it is. I would lean heavily towards the f/2.8 lens. For what you describe it will beat the f/4 hands down. If you are worried about the XTi's size, look for a deal on a 30D (that will probably put you to something like $2200 unless you can find a good deal).

Thanks for the ideas everyone, sounds like I need to just shoot a few rolls and see what happens...

Sorry, the camera is a Canon EOS Rebel T2, right about a year and a half old. According to Canon "Vertical-travel, focal plane shutter with all speeds electronically controlled. Front and rear shutter curtains both have dedicated electromagnetic release control."

 

I do not know if that helps...

 

Thanks for the input.

<p> I was curious if anyone has an idea about what happened here. I guess that

it's light infiltration, but does anyone have an idea about if the issue might

be in camera or at the lab?</p>

<p>For what its worth, I use Snapfish. Their scans always show +1ev or so, so

the blow out look I am comfortable with. The other stuff, not so much. I sent

two rolls, the first was fine, and the second came out with seemingly random

issues, except the later third or so of the roll has similar vertical banding

like pic2 shows.</P>

<br/>

Pics are <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/drew.para/Film">here</a>

<br/><br/>

Thanks for taking a look!

One of Canon's major advantages over Nikon has been money. Canon can bring more money and resources to bear on any problem that it faces. Sony has a similar advantage over Canon in much the same way. I believe Sony's presence will definitely be motivator for Canon and a serious resource for Nikon. I think most of the other plays will stick with the 4/3 system, since I think the margins on large chip(sensor) design are lower than small chips.

If you can sell your 17-85, you could probably take the profits along with your $1k and buy the 17-40 f/4 ($655) and the 70-200 f/4 ($560). The only real loss with this plan will be IS, so you'd want to make sure you have a decent tripod. This is $1200 in lenses and you'll be styling if/when you go full frame.