ken schwarz

<p>I use the 5Dii with the battery grip and the Kirk L bracket for the combination. It is rock solid stable--no issues.</p>

<p>It looks like the 5DIII tames the flaming red that I have found characteristic of the 5DII, an improvement in my book. Otherwise, these two shots are hard for me to distinguish. Thanks for this detailed and thoughtful post!</p>

<p>I had that lens. It was terrible! Hard to focus accurately, impossible to hold steady. Remembering this now makes me appreciate modern AF and IS technology all over again! (The OM2 was wonderful, however!)</p>

<p>I submitted my response, but I wonder what will come of it. The option of "RAID" as one of the storage types doesn't make sense. RAID could apply to my internal drives (but it doesn't) and/or to my network storage (which it does). I don't think that anyone who looks at my response could know for sure how I'm storing my images.</p>

<p>There is no perfect option. You can get a cheap zoom, but it will be slow and won't have the super contrast of a prime or an "L" zoom. You can get the nice 15-85, but it's slow. You can get the nice 17-55, but it doesn't go very wide or long.</p>

<p>If you get the 5Dmk2, you have more choices. There are two very high-quality standard zooms. The 24-70 is fast and wide. The 24-105 is a little slow (but fast enough on full-frame in most situations, IMHO) but goes longer and is lighter.</p>

<p>The availability of the 24-105 and the options that it represents are the reason I switched from crop to full-frame.</p>

 

<p>I did a baby shoot over the weekend with the 85/1.2 on a 5DMk2 and I was reminded of my main beef about this lens: it doesn't focus close enough! Really annoying. Results are spectacular, however.</p>

<p>I'd wait. There's nothing ridiculous with your camera. You are missing out on some wide-angle and shallow depth of field opportunities of full-frame...that's pretty much it. Neither has much impact on macro photography, but only you can judge the urgency of adding them to your bag. I'd be surprised if Canon didn't improve the AF of the 5D3 along the lines of the 7D, but undoubtedly there will be some surprises. Surely savoring the anticipation of those alone is worth the wait?</p>

<p>The macros could be taken with a 100mm - 180mm macro lens. The longer lenses give you some more working room which might be helpful not to crowd your poor subject. These macro shots have quite a bit of depth of field, so they were probably stopped down quite a bit. That would mean you need good lighting. The texture revealed by the examples you found is remarkable. I think that the lighting is key here.</p>

<p>A moon shot like that requires a telescope and a tripod. I've done it and it's easy. I used an 8" (diameter) Celestron telescope (2000mm focal length--f/11) and attached my Canon 5D2. The image filled the frame. (I also tried a 4" refractor telescope at 600mm and have a few examples of that; the image was smaller so I had to crop more.) You expose at daylight settings. The tripod holds everything steady, but due to rotation of the earth the moon appears to be on the move, and it's a little hard to keep it in the frame. Liveview is essential for getting good focus. Here's my result:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1016797</p>

<p>I was surprised how easy this was to do.</p>

<p>- Ken</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Most of my wedding shots show people together, and I've always imagined that this is why the 24-70 is considered the "wedding photographer's" lens--it's a good range for that. I usually stop down to f/5.6 however, because I want all the faces to be in focus. Depth of field is still plenty shallow to blur the background and with a bit of fill flash using a flash card I can get the people to stand out nicely without looking artificial. Back in the manual focus days, I wouldn't have considered an f/4 lens--it would be too hard to focus, but AF is reliable so who cares? For artsy, abstract shots of details that depend on very shallow depth of field to isolate the subject, I get in close and use a prime, such as the 50/1.4 at f/2.</p>

 

<p>You should go to a store an get a feel for both lenses--they are completely different. In my case, I chose the 24-105 because it is more compact and light, which makes it easy to put in and pull out of a shoulder bag and comfortable to carry about for hours at end, even with a vertical grip and flash. I never feel that sharpness is lacking, although the 50/1.4 is indeed notably better. In my kind of shooting, corner sharpness at f/4 is unimportant because rarely will subject matter be in the focal plane there anyway. To get everything in focus, you need to stop down, regardless of lens. If you are photographing flat subjects close up and therefore need corner-to-corner sharpness and faithful geometry, a flat field dedicated macro is usually necessary. Otherwise, an extension tube or a close up lens on your zoom or 50/1.4 will work very well.</p>

<p>Tripods are very personal, starting with their height. A 5'6" photographer and a 6'2" photographer will probably want different ones. Two pieces of advice: don't get a very cheap one because they tend to be too flimsy, and don't get a very expensive one unless you are utterly sure that this is the right one for you--it usually takes some experience to figure it out. Better tripods usually come with legs and head sold separately, and you can get a very effective one for a reasonable sum if you don't mind some extra weight. Recommend that you read about tripods here at photo.net, and then go to a well-stocked store and try out many different models to see how they work for you.</p>

<p>You're in good shape for lenses. If I were you, I'd get a tripod and a short extension ring. The tripod will let you take long exposures of night skylines and the ring will let you get in close to the flowers, which you should also photograph with the tripod if you can.</p>

<p>JDM - GREAT article from MP. Cool that they found a Zeiss knockoff that performed like the Luminar. At $96, it was a pricy little lens in its day. For laughs, I did a search and found one for sale on eBay -- for $875! (A good lens but an even better hedge against inflation.)</p>

<p>All I can say is that the example shows how much better flare control you get with your zoom; it's really impressive. Shooting into the sun at f/16 is not the best-and-highest-use of the 35/1.4.</p>

<p>I can see the whole frame pretty easily with my glasses; it's OK. I've found that different glasses have worked out differently in this regard, so you might find that a new pair or an adjustment of the bridge to ride higher on your nose could move the lenses closer to your face.</p>

<p>Given your update, and your desire to get a lens in connection with the birth (congrats!) I would recommend getting a macro, probably the 100mm. I love the 50/1.4, but you already have the 70-200 zoom. You could easily use your zoom with an extension tube as well. Newborns are ridiculously easy to photograph because they don't do much. Just take lots and lots of closeups and some of them will have expressions or other details that will blow you away. I used a tripod and off-camera flash for my best shots.</p>

<p>Sorry, I don't own the 60/2.8 but I do use the 50/1.4 and when I do, usually at f/2 or f/2.8. The "pop" of the sharp subject against the blurred background is pretty similar at the two settings, perhaps a bit better at f/2.8. In truth, the depth of field at f/2 is too shallow for many pictures, so f/2.8 is in practice more useful. So, if I were in your shoes I would not bother with the 50/1.4. I would much prefer spending the same money on an off-camera bounce flash.</p>

<p>I've used my Canon 50 for many years and it is one of my favorite lenses. I've NEVER had a bad shot with that lens and thought that it was the lens that let me down, and I have MANY shots which still make me stop and say "wow"--the image quality is just great. I typically shoot at f/2-f/5.6. I use a hood, and perhaps because this protects the lens' focusing mechanism I have never had a problem with reliability.</p>

<p>I have also tried a friend's Sigma and it was terrific, too. But it didn't make me want to trade.</p>

<p>Canon works hard to make the color balance of all its lenses consistent.</p>

<p>I once did a careful test on a Canon 30D body that compared the color balance of a Nikon 35mm/1.4 AIS with a Canon 17-55/2.8. I was amazed how much warmer the Nikon was...until I realized that the protective filter on that Nikon lens was a skylight and the filter on the Canon was a UV. Duh! The subtlest of filtration differences swamped the results.</p>

<p>Gordon, it will certainly help with that, but be aware that as you open your lens up to admit more light, you lose depth of field. So, it can be very hard to take sharp pictures of groups of people, but you can get very attractive pictures of one person. If you shoot at f/2 - f/2.8 with the lens you mention if you focus on the nearer eye and this will give you a pleasing result. You can also get much better results with your existing lens if you get an accessory flash that lets you bounce off the ceiling. Direct flash looks pretty bad no matter what the lens.</p>

<p>It's a very different lens, so no, it's not a replacement of your zoom, but it's probably a very a good lens for improving your picture-taking and skills. That's because it has a somewhat narrow angle of view and lets you shoot at wider apertures, both helpful for making your subject stand out. Most beginners benefit from making their subjects bigger and reducing visual clutter. This lens will help you do that, so it's a good choice to supplement your kit lens.</p>

<p>Your test shots are at the same aperture, but have different depth of field because they were taken at different distances from the handle. You must have adjusted your focal length to make the perspectives similar. You will always have less depth of field with your full-size sensor for a given angle of view and aperture. Notice how even the background is more blurred in the 5D2 shot. This is normal and actually desirable. With the 5D2 you get options for depth of field. On your 24-105, f/4 has pretty shallow depth of field. For small groups, I usually shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 if I want to make sure that everyone's faces are in focus.</p>

<p>In other words, your camera and lens are working fine. If you want to get more depth of field, stop down more. You can bump up the ISO more on the 5D2 than on the 40D to compensate if you are worried about subject motion blur or camera shake.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Would a longer eye piece one that extendeds outwards prevent smudges on the camera LCD</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, a little bit</p>

<blockquote>

<p>or would it be too much trouble ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I tried it and gave up. I wear glasses, and with the Canon eyepiece extender, it's easier to see the whole frame at a glance, but it introduces gross distortion (straight lines are bent) that is too ugly to overlook. (Of course, it doesn't affect the photo taken, just the usability of the camera.)</p>

<p>The setting for this is in Custom Function I. Are you exiting the custom function menu with the "set" button to record your setting? (If you exit by pressing the "menu" button, your settings are not saved.)</p>

<p>For HDR, you should use Av mode (not P or Tv) because you want to hold the aperture (and depth of field) fixed for all of your exposures).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Regardless of what you choose for exposure settings, note that you can switch the ISO adjustment to full stops, which I find preferable for most shooting situations.</p>