scott sanford

Good grief

Monib,

I'd focus instead on lighting techniques rather than lens selection (others will

disagree) but for me lighting is the more important consideration-- you can use a

variety of lens choices. Getting the lighting set up right is a bit more important for

product photography.

Take a look at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=00K7lv">this post </a> that might be helpful.

Or <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FkGg">this

discussion </a> for some ideas.

Must take exception to Ken's assessment of the 24-105! Not a "wow" lens-- how interesting and (in my experience) false! Fantastic zoom for its class and I've been nothing less than very pleased with the results.

Lots of postings these days about features of new Canon DSLRs. Many of these

features make the photographic experience easier/more enjoyable (faster

autofocus, faster frame rates, user adjustable custom settings, sensor dust

mitigation, etc.), but what's on the horizon that stands to really boost image

quality to the next level? While I know most feature tweaks are desirable and

nudge many to buy the next "latest/greatest" product, what should we be

looking forward to in future cameras that will make the next big leap in image

quality, (assuming the photographer's skills are not in question)?

Believe me, I'm very happy with the results from my 30D and 5D...just curious

about what might be central to the next evolution in digital technology beyond

more mega pixels--new sensors from what we have today?

 

Thanks

JSS

Ken,

 

OOOps, only partly correct-- they are in fact L39 Albatros flown by the Patriots Team from Airshows America.

Sorry.

Ken,

 

A correction for your photo caption:, those aren't F-18s or the Blue Angels---

Believe that's the Breitling Jet Team from Dijon France flying the L39 Albatros.

Yes, it is definitely broken.

However, I'd be willing to take the 5d for half of what you paid if you want to unload it.

 

.....No doubt, a lens hood issue from this vantage point.

Thanks for all the great input. I'm holding steady and will evaluate a potential 24-105 purchase later, and I'll get my hands on one to really see whether it's going to be the better option based on my specific uses. Have no doubt it's a good lens.

Thanks again, much appreciated.

His primary reason behind the 24-105 reccomendation is because he sees me swap lenses so frequently between the 70-200 and the 17-40. He also knows (as I do) how good of a lens it is-- only thing I don't like is that it has an extendable barrel (probably a minor issue?). I have so much invested already, I just feel that this one might be a bit redundant, but I see that many others use it as a core lens--perhaps I could part ways with the 17-40....

My issue with the 10-22 is the obvious one-- doesn't work on full frame, which might be down the road shortly.

A current photographic "mentor" of mine suggests I'd be better off with a 24-

105 f4/L. My current line up on a 30D is a 70-200 f/2.8L USM IS, EF 17-40

f/4, 50 f/1.4, and 85 f/1.8. I shoot mostly landscapes, outdoor scenes...

often in low light conditions.

 

Does anyone have any advice given my current arrangement? (If $$$ were no

issue, I'd pick up every lense that struck my fancy--but I'm not under this

assumption).

 

Been obviously VERY happy with the 70-200 2.8 (not likely to give this one up

in my lifetime) and 17-40, and aside from not having to swap lenses as often,

I'm not entirely convinced the 24-105 is really going to be that much added

value.

In lower light, I really appreciate the faster 70-200, especially with the IS.

 

Thanks