ken schwarz

<p>I like Photozone's reviews more than most because they are thorough. The star ratings are not useful for comparative assessment because the lenses under review are too diverse to compare with a single number. Also, most lenses perform "poorly" by PZ's standard when wide-open, but that doesn't mean that you should always shoot with them that way or that it even matters for real photos. Still, if a lens gets a 4/5 or a 4.5/5 from PZ, you know that it is one impressive optic.</p>

<p>Do you see color fringing like this for areas of the picture that are sharply in focus? I don't think that you can expect perfect correction in out of focus areas.</p>

 

<p>I had a 30D, which I later replaced with the 5DmkII. Resolution and image quality of the 30D are not a problem at all. There are various usability issues in this older body that have been addressed by Canon, and while none of them are show-stoppers, they are significant and you should be aware of them before buying this body.<br>

The #1 gripe I had against the 30D that you see addressed in some of the higher-end new bodies is that calibration of the camera and lens for perfect focus was only something that could be done in service centers. The 5D2 (and 7D, but not 60D) let you do this yourself at home. The next big improvement of newer bodies over the 30D is the provision of Liveview, which lets you check precise focus before taking the shot. It's very helpful for macro and essential in some low-light situations. The last major improvement missing from the 30D is the anti-dust shake feature of newer bodies, which really works. I didn't find dust to be a major problem with the 30D, but that's mostly because I was very careful to keep the camera and lenses clean and didn't shoot stopped down (f/8+) very often. But when I did, I could find dust spots. The dust was pretty easy to remove with a blower (I never resorted to liquid cleaners or other direct interventions) but it was impossible to clean it all off--blowing dust usually left a little bit behind or moved it around. I never seem to have dust problems with the 5D2.</p>

<p>Good advice from Joseph. Let me second the caution about a cheap rack-and-pinion focusing rail. They are worse than nothing because they are so flimsy and subject to vibration. I found that at least with the 180mm macro, simply sliding the camera back and forth in an Arca-style clamp works well. I attach a long plate to the camera and this gives me several inches to move the whole business back and front, and because the plate is smooth, I can nudge it in tiny amounts and then lock it down. I use the focusing ring of the lens for fine-tuning. It's inexpensive, sturdy and easy to carry.</p>

<p>I haven't used a ring light or other lens-mounted flash, but I will say that the reflection of the ring light shape on bugs doesn't look so good to me, so I would investigate the dual flash attachment (more money, I know) or use regular flashes with another type of mounting contraption. Web sites of serious bug photographers often have a page or two about the equipment they use, and often they have creative lighting solutions and don't use the Canon macro flashes.</p>

<p>I use the 5D2 and found that I really like shooting with the battery grip because it makes it easier to shoot portraits and it accepts a hand strap. You can spend more money and get that same large size with the 1DsMk3, plus a slightly faster shutter, nicer viewfinder and better AF. I think it's a lot for an incremental improvement, and you'd lose video. Doesn't sound too appealing to me, but no question the 1D cameras are a pleasure.</p>

Lensbaby specializes in this kind of thing.

24-70/2.8 is probably the single most useful for you. Remember that depth of field on your HB is much shallower for a

given angle of view than on the Canon, so you might want some faster long lenses than you get with the MF Zeiss

glass.

<p>Even with an f/2.8 zoom and flash, you will be challenged to take good photos of kids running around indoors. That's because they will generally be poorly composed--the subject will be small/indistinct and/or there will be a lot of distracting background junk, or you won't see the kids' cute expressions or both. I've found that setting up situations where they are engaged and relatively still (with toys or other people) and then shooting with f/2 - f/2.8 to use shallow depth of field to make them stand out against the background works well. I use two flashes bouncing off the ceiling and/or walls to get nice lighting. It's not so much that indoor lighting is dark, although it often is, it's that the quality of the light is really bad - with heavy color casts that are hard or impossible to fix up in post processing. For kids running around, I try to find situations where they are effectively running laps (around a table, say) and then getting in position to catch them as they go by the same spot repeatedly. That usually gets me good ones. Lastly, I sometimes use slow shutter speeds and pan with the kids' movements to keep the figures relatively sharp against what becomes a motion-blurred background. All of this works at f/4 with full-frame or f/2.8 with crop. G'luck.</p>

It's a wonderful lens. At f/1.4, contrast is a little low, but by f/2 it is very snappy and still DoF is shallow enough, especially on full

frame cameras. From f/2.8-f/4, image quality is superb. I have several L lens primes, and hanker for more, but have never felt

compelled to upgrade this one.

I toured the U.S. west and shot extensively with a 30D, the 10-22, 17-55, and 70-200/4 lenses. Results were great,

but I FREQUENTLY hankered for a full-frame body. Why? Not image quality. Dust! It's a constant concern: entering

and fouling the non-sealed zooms, and getting inside the camera during lens changes. The 5D2 and 17-40 and 24-

105 zooms are better sealed, and because the main zoom goes wider and longer, lens changes are much less

frequent. It's a big improvement in the field and for your purpose I do recommend it. You would not get these benefits

with the 7D.

<p>The grip makes shooting portrait orientation much easier. With two rechargeable batteries inside, you have tremendous capacity--double that of a single battery. Also, you can attach a wrist strap, which keeps the camera securely in hand without you needing to grip it tightly. It doesn't add much the the overall weight. Well, not as much as the 85/1.2!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you are photographing big paintings and you aren't very tall, I'd recommend bringing a small ladder or step-stool so that you can more easily work the camera on a tripod. It's important to raise it to a height matching the center of the painting. A grid focusing screen helps for alignment, too.</p>

<p>The primes will typically have less distortion, which counts for a lot when you are photographing paintings. Otherwise, unless you are shooting details, the shorter focal length of the zoom sounds more versatile to me. Depends on how much room you have to back up. Lighting is critical. Make sure the lamps all have the same color temperature so that you can correct later.</p>

<p>Hi Karen. I looked at some of your pictures (the landscapes) in your portfolio. I think the main thing that will change for you is that your 17-40 will become an ultra-wide, and that will give you some new perspectives to explore. Of course, you could achieve the same with a 10-22 zoom on your 40D. Otherwise, I don't think you would get a very different end-result, unless you are blowing up your pictures to large size, in which case the 5D2 will have more detail/texture. If you are like me, you'll be glad to have the 28-135 behave as a wide-tele zoom rather than being cropped in the 40D; it becomes much more versatile. You won't have to switch lenses as often.</p>

<p>No problem carrying around your gear in such a bag but I don't advise storing equipment in canvas bags because they retain moisture and become breeding grounds for mold and mildew. Lost a lens just this way.</p>

<p>The in-camera correction isn't done on RAW images, just JPEG. I don't believe that DxO can do its magic on JPEGs, just the RAW files from the camera. So, #1 isn't an option. Even if it were, you'd still be better off working with RAW images for post processing, just because you get much more flexibility. DxO was a pioneer in this kind of correction software, but now there are many options, including Lightroom. DxO used to be ridiculously buggy, but it's fine now. Lightroom, in my opinion, is much easier to use, but DxO still has it beat in terms of the corrections it can apply. DxO has also finally gotten around to instrumenting more lenses; check availability for what you want before you take the plunge. (It must be a big burden on the company to keep up with all the new bodies and lenses, but this is the whole point in buying their software!)</p>

<p>Park, let me plug the Canon 180/3.5, which is a superlative lens in every dimension and one which is sure to please you from both an image quality and usability standpoint. The focus has zero play and is therefore very precise. While it's true that a long lens macro gives you working room for shooting bugs and so on, it's also very nice for flowers because it's easy to throw background out of focus. Contrast and color saturation are jaw-dropping. Because Canon makes several other very well-regarded macro lenses for less money, the 180 is used less often, so work that benefits from its distinctive properties stands out all the more.</p>

<p>It's a good choice--probably the best you can buy. I recommend you practice with it before you go on your trip. Your camera has enough resolution that you can shoot wider than you need and then use post-processing software such as Photoshop or DXOOptics to fix up converging verticals as well as clean up distortion and other residual aberrations in the lens. You need to leave room on the margins of your frame to do this and shoot wider than you would otherwise, so it's a good idea to do some tests near home before your vacation.</p>

<p>I like using the flash outdoors for fill on back- or side-lit portraits. The sunlight glistening in a figure's hair can be gorgeous. The built-in bounce card on the 580exII does a good job. Just a little fill goes a long way - too much flash looks unnatural.</p>

<p>The 30D is terrific, but be aware that it has no micro-adjust for focus, no optional coarse-grained focus screen, and no Live View, so you might have problems nailing focus with f/1.2-f/1.8 lenses wide open.</p>

<p>The 15-85 has extremely good image quality, but f/5.6 is slow on the long end. At least it has IS to help with longer exposures. There's a big difference between a 15mm and a 17mm wide-angle and that's the main reason to prefer it to the 17-55. I used the 17-55 for many years and liked it very much, but I found that at least in the one that I had that I rarely used it wide-open and got better image quality from f/3.5 on. The fact that the maximum aperture varies with focal length in the 15-85 matters mostly if you are shooting manual exposure, which you probably won't use much. I use manual when shooting flash, but hardly ever elsewhere.</p>

<p>The 17-85 is a better lens than the 18-55, but image quality isn't in the "L" class, unfortunately. Given your budget and interests, I'd take a look at the 15-85, which is a significant step up.</p>

<p>I'm sure that you'll have an easier time getting aurora shots with either lens. No doubt that the 24/1.4 is the superior quality optic, but I was disappointed to see how much coma distortion (off-axis point sources are smeared and rendered with "wings") when it's used wide-open. It improves in this regard when stopped down and is probably best used around f/2-f/2.8. I've not seen demonstrations of coma with the 28/1.8, and it might be worse. For auroras, however, this doesn't matter, of course!</p>

<p>It's one of Canon's best and a good value. Unlike the 85/1.2, you can get enough magnification on full-frame body for a tight head shot, if that's what you want . And, it's not nearly as heavy or expensive. But, on a crop body, you might feel a bit boxed-in by narrow field of view for indoor people photography and prefer the 85mm alternatives.</p>

<p>I would get the 15-85. The 17-55 is a wonderful lens (I used it for years with the 30D and thought the world of it), and would be perfect if went just a little bit wider. I've not personally used the 15-85, but I've seen its test results and they were terrific. In principle, you could pair the 10-22 with the 24-105, but I caution you that you may be frustrated by frequent lens changes.</p>