chris_clarke3

<p>I replaced my old 580’s and ST-E2 in May.<br>

The 600 EX RT manual is very comprehensive. It does go into detail on master/slave/ST-E3 RT use.</p>

<p>Briefly if you are in radio mode, at the moment you are limited to using a 600 as a master on camera/ as a slave controlled by a master 600 or using the ST-E3 to control your 600’s. The ST-E3 only does radio.<br>

If you are using the 600 in optical transmission mode, you can use it to trigger 580’s, other 600’s et al or to be a slave with a non-radio flash system.<br>

I don’t know of any third party kit that does what the 600 and ST-E3 do very, very well.</p>

<p>My most used lenses are the 50L and 35 F2 IS.<br>

The 35L is overdue a Mk II IMHO. I sold mine a few months ago and got the 35 F2 IS. The F2 is half the weight/size. Bokeh can be debated but the specular highlights are very nice and round compared to the pentagon type highlights of the L.<br /> IS really is a wonderful thing and add in the weight/size factor, the F2 is a contender in the FL. F2 gives a pretty decent shallow DOF and I'm pretty sure the F2 is sharper than the 35L at F2.</p>

<p>Now I could be tempted to buy a 35L Mk II with IS and weather sealing, until then the F2 more than adequately replaces my 35L.</p>

<p>Justin. If you have USB 3 ports and use the Lexar USB 3 card reader, you will see significant increases in your download speeds from card to computer.</p>

<p>When I started with a DSLR with the 20D, I had all zooms. Gradually I got primes. I liked the speed, the bokeh, the look and I found I was using the zooms at their widest or longest. I sold most of my zooms. None of them really did it for me creatively.<br>

Primes suit my style of shooting now. I have one zoom left, the 16-35, which just does things none of my primes can do. I just added the 200 F2.8L which is cheap, light, black and sharp.<br>

I often go out with a 35+100 or a 50/40 +200 and I have the range I need. I sold my 24-105 as F4 wasn’t doing it and I barely picked that lens up in four years.<br>

Unless you are a pro catering to a certain customer set like weddings/events I think lens choice is a very personal thing. It depends on your own personal creativity, preferences and skill set.<br>

90% of my shots are with the 50/35 combo. It would be tough to do a wedding with just those two. There is no right or wrong answer here, it’s down to you, your style and professional needs.</p>

<p>If you have a SD card in with the 5D3 set to write to both cards at the same time, the buffer will write at the max speed of the slowest card (the SD card). This will have some impact on FPS.</p>

<p>I suggest you try shooting with a fast CF card (UDMA 7) and either remove the SD card or set it to the 'Auto Switch Card' setting and give that a go(pg 117 of the manual). <br>

I'm getting a reading of 12-13 in the buffer with writing the largest RAW files direct to the CF card only. I'm sure I could get 18 with a super expensive card but 12-13 is good enough for me.</p>

<p>I'm no expert on the 5D3 as I only got it a couple of weeks ago myself but I'm happy that it performs as specified with the above settings.</p>

<p>Just got my 5D3 last week. It's a huge jump in technical ability from the 5D2 for me. AF is great and worth the upgrade alone. Six frames a second, in camera HDR, dual card slots. These all do it for me. It will be good for 4 years I reckon.</p>

<p>I just got the 5D3 after having the 5D2 for 4 years.<br>

Even though it's early days I have to say the difference from Mk2 to Mk3 is very significant to me. I've been test shooting with the 50L. A huge difference in accuracy. The AF is a quantum leap. It reminds me of the differences I experienced from the 20D to 5D2. This is the camera I wanted 4 years ago. It will make you love your existing glass.</p>

<p>The 100L is just a great lens. It's light and usable as a portrait or general prime. This lens gets a lot of use by me. the 100mm focal length is very useful and the IS is amazing. The sharpest lens I have used. </p>

<p>As somebody who doesn’t make money with my camera, I have to say I’m very content with my 5 good lenses and the 5D2. I know what focal lengths my style suits and I see no need (besides pure gear-lust) to ‘upgrade’ to the latest version of a lens.<br>

I can totally see why pro’s would as it’s their livelihood. I’m content with my camera, my lenses, my wife and my job.<br>

Although my wife is the MK2 version, she’s been great for 11 years and I’m pretty sure I can get at least another 30 years out of her and my 50L.</p>

<p>I have the 35L and 50L. I have been semi-interested in the 24 & 28 IS offerings. This 40 looks like fun. It would have to perform well at 2.8 and the MTF charts look like it might just do the job! It will probably be a rip-off $299 in Canada so I'll have to go the B+H route as usual!<br>

Bokeh and the DOF will be the things I'll be interested in. Sure it would be nice if it was 1.8 or 2 but if the build and AF is decent, the speed compromise + price + size might make it worth buying. </p>

<p>I first used my 50L on my old 20D and it didn’t really do it for me at that crop FL, especially indoors. With FF the 50 is the classic FL . On the focus-shift, I have experienced it but it’s not as big as a problem for me as it seems to be for some posters in the forums.<br>

The 50L is a great lens and (IMHO) but it does take a bit of getting used to at the wide open end. When I first used the lens I got very frustrated at F1.2-1.8 with my hit (or lack of) rate. It just takes a bit of skill to use and once you get the hang of it the results are very rewarding. I think the 50L really upped my skill levels</p>

<p>35L or 50L again.</p>

<p>The bokeh on my 50L is amazing. That said, for low light stuff I'm finding the 35L better for me as I'm not the steadiest and I can get a sharp shot at a 40th sec with the 35. The 50 and me need 100th to get the same result.</p>

No need to be knobby about this Jeff. I don't have a web site as I'm a lowly enthusiast.

 

I can personally send you a few shots of the kids and around the house taken at 1.2-1.8 for you to dissect and dismiss, if the internet chatter thing is something you would like me to counter. I didn’t really think what I posted about the 50L was anything new.

 

Maybe I should re-phrase for the picky pro’s amongst you.

 

I can tell instantly when I scroll through my shot library, which shots are taken with the 50L. That makes it distinct to me.

 

I posted my viewpoint as I thought that was what this forum was about. I don’t think I’m alone in being able to see the particular, nay distinctive, bokeh that the 50L exhibits.

 

Merry Christmas to you all.

<p>My 50L has given me a lot of joy since I bought it 5 years ago. I see me getting a lot more years use out of it. No lens I've ever had compares with the distinctive look it gives to shots.<br>

I love this lens!</p>

<p>Victor,<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentalscanada.com/product_info.php?cPath=1_57_4&products_id=30&mcatPath">http://www.lensrentalscanada.com/product_info.php?cPath=1_57_4&products_id=30&mcatPath</a>=</p>

<p>The 24-105 is a great lens but it is more suited to a FF camera. I used the 16-35 II on my 20D ( I was waiting for the 5D2 and didn't want an EFS lens).</p>

<p>As others have said the 17-55 2.8 IS is a fanatstic lens. If you are staying with crop I think this is the lens to get. Rent one from the above link.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>That's quite a jump from looking for an alternate to the 17-40 and then getting the 180L macro.<br>

Just sayin'.</p>

<p>I have decent uv filters on all my lenses (B+W, Rodenstok, Heliopan). I take them off under certain conditions and leave them on in others. I have never noticed any degradation in prints up to 14X11. I'd check it out for yourself as this is a subject where you will get polarised opinions.<br>

The down side to me on wider lenses that the thinner filters negate the use of Canon lens caps and you have to use the pop-on caps which always pop-off. Not real biggy though.</p>

<p>I had the 24L II and although it is a very good lens, it just didn't do it for me. I sold it and got the 35L which I love dearly. Great bokeh, sharp at 1.4 and just a great multi-purpose lens, but I don't really consider it wide.<br>

My 24-105 is getting more use these days but at 24 it does distort more than the 16-35 and I really don't use it in the wider end of the focal lengths. It's more useful in the 50 mm and on FL's for me.<br>

If I need WA I reach for my 16-35 II which is a great lens. 16 is wide without giving a fisheye type distortion. The focal range is very useful and 2.8 does the job in most light.</p>

<p>As Dan said though, lens choice is a very personal issue. You may end up buying and selling a few lenses until you find the right one for your personal tastes and shooting style.</p>

<p>The 5D2 is a very good deal at the moment. Buy it and start shooting, I've had mine 3 years. Great bit of kit.</p>

<p>Mmm, well my two most used lenses are;</p>

<p>50 1.2 and 16-35 2.8.</p>

<p>I recently got a 35L and it's a tough choice at times between it and the 50L.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Unless the Mk3 is just too amazing to pass, I'll stick with the 5D2 and in three years or so I'll get the 5D4. I shoot for fun not money.</p>

<p>IS has it's place. I would love my 50L to have IS. I have the 24-105 and the 100L, love IS on both of them.</p>

<p>Those that say primes don't need IS speak for themselves. I would love primes to have an IS option. The 100L is a good example of IS enhancing the diversity of a lens.</p>

<p><br /><br /><br>

I used to have this problem, it was all me. I got a focusing<br />screen with a grid pattern. My shots are way better aligned now.</p>

<p>I just came back from a long weekend in NYC. I took my 50 and the 16-35. That did the job and I got some very interesting street scenes.</p>