saurabh1

I recently got a few 8X12's from a photo lab and all the prints show red/yellow

cast on them. The images look just fine on the computer screen but prints are

turning out to be a little more staturated in all colors and definitely warm/red

shifted, e.g., the dark blue sky due to polarizer appears a little bit violet in

prints. Also the problem is more pronounced for pictures taken indoors with

white balance set at tungsten.

 

What should I look into to get my prints to look the way they show up on screen.

Will ICC (not sure how it works) solve this problem? Any suggestions will be

very helpful.

 

Thank you,

Saurabh

From what I have read and seen f/1.2 gives you bokeh and pictures that no other lens can. <a href="http://alfieri.smugmug.com/gallery/2256513#137962197">Sample shots</a>. It is expensive but if you can spend get one.

17-55 is a very nice lens. I would prefer that over 16-35. However, do you plan to go full frame in future. Thousand dollars seems a lot of money to me for 17-55. It is not L, it is not weather sealed and IS is not that useful for most of the zoom range. You will surely enjoy it as long as you have it but I doubt if it will hold its value in the resale market a few years from now.

I will also take a shot on this. Imagine you are standing at the same spot and shooting the same subject with the same lens and same aperture and shutter settings but with two different cameras. One is a full frame camera and the other is a 1.6X crop factor camera. Now you print both pictures at size say 12X8 inches. Now cut out the edges of the picture from full frame camera so that it is exactly similar to the picture from 1.6X camera in terms of contents. What is clear is that the 1.6X camera is missing the extra information around the edges that full frame camera includes in the picture. It is equivalent to saying that the full frame camera gives more wide-angle effect compared to 1.6X camera for the same focal length.

 

In other words if you crop and resize the images from both cameras so that the contents are exactly the same and if you then print both images at the same print size you will not be able to tell which image came from which camera. That is because the depth of field and out of focus blur effects remain the same irrespective of the camera.

You may have seen these before:

 

<br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/gmr2048/image/69975502">Back side of mirror</a><br>

 

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/gmr2048/image/69975510">Closeup of mirror</a><br>

 

In the second picture it looks like the mirror is glued to the mirror assembly. It certainly looks more cost effective for Canon to replace full mirror assembly.

I guess very few people are going to have both lenses. I have the f/4 version and it gives very sharp pictures wide open. IS is apparently one stop better on f/4. Optically both should be very similar. f/4 has one fluorite element (CaF2) whereas f/2.8 does not, however, I do not think there is any noticable difference in optical quality of these lenses. f/2.8 is great for low light, f/4 is nice to carry around as it is much lighter compared to f/2.8.

I tried sensor cleaning kit from Green Clean and vacuumed up the dust. It worked very well. I am still afraid to use swabs ;)

Here is what I guess is happening.

 

The IS is correcting for any motion of the lens during exposure. The motion of the lens is independent of the focal length. However, the amount of correction needs to be more precise at longer focal lengths. This is also the reason why IS is not that popular for wide angle lenses.

 

Like every control device the IS also has lower and upper bound on the shutter speed at which it is most effective. Let's say IS is able to correct for camera shake between 1/30 and 1/250. Now let's say you are shooting at 200 mm focal length at 1/30. Then the IS will be able to correct the camera shake and give you a steady image (3 stop improvement). However, if you are shooting at 50mm at 1/30 then the required amount of correction is only from 1/60 to 1/30 (1 stop). IS will be able to do it but now it only needs to correct for 1 stop unlike 3 stops at 200 mm.

 

If you demand further correction from IS at shutter speeds lower than 1/30 and the correction is equivalent to 3-4 stops then it would mean you are shooting wide angle to normal focal lengths. At these focal lengths the IS is not required to be as precise as it needs to be at 200mm. So the IS which is tuned for shutter speeds between 1/30 and 1/250 is still able to give you 3-4 stop improvement at lower focal lengths.

 

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding.

Canon just offered ISO 6400 in the 1D MKIII and I think ISO's will go much more up. So for low light I will be more dependent on ISO than on the fastness of lens. With excellent L zooms it is indeed possible to get a very high IQ comparable to primes. So with high ISO's even f/4 zooms can be enough for low light situations in future but I still think primes will hold their place. In addition to all the reasons mentioned in posts above, good quality L zooms are usually heavy and I like the compactness of primes (non L) and also their image quality (50f/1.4 and 24f/2.8 for example). My guess is that the sales of primes will stay reasonably healthy at least for 50mm and 85mm and even 135mm. Then there is super telephoto range too where primes will stick around; 500 f/4 for example. For me zooms make a lot of sense in extreme wide angle range and telephoto range below 300mm. For other ranges primes are very useful.

I will agree with Christopher that both exposure and color temperature are important with snow and ice. If you are using digital then custom white balance using the picture of the snow you are trying to capture works quite well. 2 stop overexposure may sometimes be too much and if you are using film you can have some ruined shots. With digital just set the dial to 1 stop overexposure and you should be fine. Any further minor exposure adjustments can be done in post processing.

The prices for FF will go down in a couple of a years so if I were you I would invest in lenses with intention of eventually using them on a FF camera.

I think it is always good to have lens with better resolving power. The lens and the sensor work in series, i.e., first there is a loss of detail through the lens and then there is more loss of details because of the sensor. So the losses in resolution due to lens and the sensor should add up.

 

Now if the loss in resolution due to the sensor is much more than the loss due to the lens then I see your point that the sensor is a much dominant effect but there is still that small contribution from the lens to the total loss in resolution.

I hear it on my 70-200 f/4 IS. It is like a humming sound and seems to be quite normal. Sometimes if I press the shutter button halfway and immediately release it without taking the picture I hear even stronger and scarier sound from IS. I guess that is normal too. The IS still works just fine.

Go for Canon 10-22. It is a fantastic lens. I do not know about Sigma but having used Canon 10-22 I am totally impressed by it.

I use a bulb blower every time before changing lens to get rid off the dust on the outside. I also get rid of the dust on the lens and that seems to help. I have not had dust problems for months. So I would not worry much about the dust issue when deciding which camera to buy. Good luck.

I was also considering buying 1.4 TC for the lens you mentioned but eventually decided against it. As mentioned in the earlier post 1.4 TC on this lens is not going to make bird photography any easier. 70-200 f/4 IS is such a great lens that I do not even feel like using something that reduces the sharpness.

Like Louise said I also did not feel the small viewfinder frustrating. I was, however, frustrated with the lack of wide angle solution before I purchased 10-22 lens. I also want to go for a FF digital sometime in future but small viewfinder is not bothering me at this point.

Thanks for the link. Very cool.

I bought this lens for my film SLR and I was quite pleased with it. It is sharp and focuses well. But on my 30D it is no longer a wide angle lens. I have 50 f/1.4 and I find myself using that much more than 24 f/2.8 for indoor shots. I think it is best suited for a FF camera.

I wish that too but I seriously doubt if Canon is going to upgrade 35/f2 lens. I would love to see a lens like 35 f/2 with USM. Also considering growing popularity of Sigma 30 f/1.4 if Canon were to do something about 35 f/2 lens then they would definitely try to cater to crop factor camera market because it would make an excellent normal prime on 1.6. But since Sigma is already there with f/1.4 Canon will be forced to make it f/1.4 in which case it is almost like a new lens rather than an upgrade of 35 f/2. And since 35 f/1.4 L already exists a smaller lighter version of 35 f/1.4 can only be made an EF-S lens. And if they make EF-S lens then they will make it 30mm.

 

Also 24 f/2.8 could go for an upgrade and 50 f/1.4 could also possibly go for upgrade to ring USM and a little btter performance wide open. With at least these three lenses needing upgrade my fear is that Canon will simply ignore.

I am guessing here that they could be using piezoelectric actuators to move the lens element/groups.

I recently got 70-200 f/4 IS and it is great. IS really works very well on it. Canon claims a 4 f-stop IS and they may be right. Yes, with IS on I feel the lag between taking pictures because I try to make sure that the image in viewfinder is stable. IS by itself does not create any lag.

 

It is not heavy compared to its f/2.8 counterpart. f/2.8's are also great, maybe even better, but I did not go for f/2.8 due to weight and cost. I wanted IS either way.

Hi Bob,

 

Canon certainly has a wide range of full frame EF lenses and in that sense one is not limited with 1.6 camera. I myself have 30D and shoot quite happily with 10-22 and a bunch of EF lenses. However, my point is that most, if not all, EF lenses were designed with full frame in mind. I do not have a 1.6 equivalent of 5D and 24-105 L IS. If I go with 17-55 I have to spend almost thousand dollars and still not get L build quality. Similarly, if 10-22 were not there I do not know what other EF lense I would have used.

 

Since there is no equivalent of 17-55 in FF it tells me that Canon appears to be generous in putting f/2.8 and IS for EF-S line of lenses but not making it L. If they had designed this lens for FF it would have definitely be L grade. Since I own 30D and am looking to invest in lenses I feel strong pressure to go for EF-S 17-55 instead of EF 16-35 L for longer reach and IS. It is this difficulty in choosing lenses for 1.6 that I feel there ought to be more choice. You get the focal length range and speed and IS but not L.

 

Prices of FF cameras will certainly drop in future. Let's face it. The only reason I own 1.6 and not FF is due to cost. If I go FF I got to sell my EF-S and rethink my lens collection. If I plan to stick to 1.6 then I cannot have a satisfactory L glass collection because I already own 10-22 and next I would buy 17-55. With FF camera I would gradually invest in L glass over time and build my arsenal. Since I cannot do that with EF-S I feel limited. But then maybe thats what Canon wants.

1.6 is here to stay but currently it is not mature in terms of lenses. As far as quality of camera goes you will always get better/cheaper cameras as time passes. What I hope is that canon brings out more ef-s lenses including some nice primes. And that is going to take time and will also depend on how market grows. Although FF lenses work with 1.6, I hesitate to buy some excellent FF lenses for my 30D, e.g. 24-105 is a perfect lens and very exciting perspective for FF but I would not buy it for 1.6. Same is true for 85/1.8, I want to use that lens for what it is build for, however, I can only do so on a FF camera. 16-35 is great but for using it on 1.6 I would have liked to see IS on it. But again that will add abother 500-600 dollars to its price. So my only option is 17-55 which has f/2.8 and IS but does not give me pleasure of owning L grade lens for almost a grand. Its all marketing. If 1.6 lenses are smaller and cheaper to make why not go an extra mile and make some L lenses for 1.6 for reasonable cost... the answer is there are not many pros wanting 1.6.

 

So I am quite happy with 1.6 and will stick with it because going FF is very expensive for me. As the market developes I hope Canon adds more ef-s lenses.

28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM is a great lens. Not expensive and very good impage quality too.

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28-105">http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28-105</a>