anukul

If we're in a wondrous world of small sensors and special lens mounts, I want an EF-S 15

-45/2.0L.

I'd spend $220 for the 35/2.0 lens or go for the cheaper 50/1.8. I'd use the rest on a good camera bag or some travel opportunity.

When it comes to lenses, it's easy to think you're missing out on longer or shorter focal lengths or some over the top filter effect, but there is a tremendous amount of great photography to be had in that same 28-90 range. Don't mind some redundancy in your lens lineup. Most of the situations you mention could benefit from the faster (larger aperture) lenses. Furthermore the shallow depth of field at f/1.8 or f/2.0 adds a whole new dimension to controlling emphasis in a photo. It's really a lot of fun to play with. Plus since so much of the everyday non-commercial-or-enthusiast photography we see doesn't use shallow depth of field for effect, I think it makes your photographs stand out a bit more.

I have a 10d and an s30 which makes a nice complement. The Sx0 series is pretty

portable but still has reasonable manual controls and overall flexibility. The Gx series has

bigger batteries (same as the 10d), takes external flash, and has a faster lens (f/2.0-3.0).

I think it might have some kind of optional lens mount bayonet that lets you do something

that no one ever does (closeup lens? wide/tele converters?).

They both tend to have the same sensors so image quality is pretty comparable betwee the

series module the lens differences.

Since Canon introduced the 12 and 24mm extension tubes when the Digital Rebel came

out and now have 3 lenses, I think they're serious about this EF-S thing. Then there is the

fact that Nikon with their APS-C system and Olympus and those 4/3 people are all

gambling on the investment in a smaller format. I don't see anyone out there betting the

farm on cheap 24x36mm sensors in the near future. If you think about it, anything that

makes 24x36mm cheaper will make APS-C sensors even more cheaper (since chip yields

of a bigger area are exponentially lower); full frame cameras for $1500 would probably

mean APS-C cameras for $300.

Stepping back though, you have to take a gamble. There is no 100% guaranteed regret-

proof choice! Even Canon must be prepared for changing market conditions, new

manufacturing possibilities, and their competition's advancements to shape what the

future looks like. I don't think anyone is sure whether full frame or 35mm or 4/3 or small

digicams will ever "win out".

But as a fellow photographer I'm here to say don't worry about trying to optimize your

long term strategy. If you can do creative work with the 17-40 range on your current

cameras (and I suspect you can), get it! If you want to travel with one lens that has more

range and can afford it, get a rebel or 20d & 17-85. APS-C sensors are good enough

to do fabulous photography and make gorgeous prints; no new camera that comes out is

going to take that away (even if it feels like it). We have to remind ourselves that making

good photographs is more important than avoiding bad choices.

The photo equipment enthusiast culuture is too obsessed with not getting burned. It's not

that big a deal. We have so many more options today than we had 5 years ago, we should

be reveling the the possibilities not angsting about potential regret.

Is the quality of APS-C/1.6 sensors good enough? Is the only thing missing a good

selection of wide angle options? Can you get by creatively with less background blur? I'll

bet there are a lot of folks who say yes.

Was the 24x36 size given to us by divine providence (not just surplus film stock in the

30s) and the only size good enough for a certified Leica (or Canon L) Glow? Is using my

family heirloom 20-35/2.8 L lens in all its wide angle glory something I should demand

from a $1500 digital camera before I buy in? Quite possibly...

Is reusing 35mm equipment for digital a total hack and we should start a system from

scratch built for the digital age (4/3 Olympus E-1)? Hmm.. maybe.

Are interchangeable lenses overrated and the quality and flexibility of a 8mpixel digiam

with a fast 28-200mm lens good enough? Huh. possibly.

I don't know which will win. I have to remind myself not to care too much. If I'm looking

for some kind of abstract competition to read up on and emotionally invest in, I should

probably stick to watching professional sports (oh, my miserable Mets...).

I'm in a similar boat. I'm in these darn equipment forums contemplating whether I want to

buy a 17-40L for my 10d or save that money away for a rebel and 17-85, or the 30d, or

the 3dSII. But when I catch myself trying to optimize, I realize I've been distracted from

my goal. I want a wide angle lens to take compelling wide angle photographs and I

haven't had that in the 16 months I've had my 10d.

I said up above that there is no regret proof strategy. I was wong. Make good

photographs! I think if a $500 lens gets you 1 good photo, it was worth it.

Puppy face: I'm curious about the technique you discuss.

Is it necessary to create separate "digital exposures" and have to recombine them as

discreet layers? Shouldn't it be possible given a RAW file to process it (using exposure

and tone control tools in the conversion software) into one maximally flexible 12 bit

image?

Then presumably you'd be able to do selective tone adjustment on different parts of

the image. I think you can do this, but I'm not sure if it is the same or better.

I'm using an EOS 10d and recently upgraded to Photoshop CS. Using the Adobe

Camera Raw (ACR) plugin has me confused.

What operations are suited to the flexibility of standard photoshop manipulations

(Levels/Curves/USM/etc.,) vs. functionality best done in ACR due to special

information present in the RAW sensor data? I understand this is probably a matter

of opinion and there is no 100% right solution for all images; but I'm hoping the

experienced amongst us can shed some light.

In particular, the digital exposure compensation & tonal manipulation tools (Shadows/

Highlights/Brightness/Contrast) get me a little. Should I be able to use them to get all

the information out of the file into a 16 bit image that I can then expand/compress/

manipulate in photoshop? Would I ever need to combine two separate "exposures"

from the RAW plugin (e.g. one for the highlights, one for the shadow) or are the

Exposure/Shadow/Highlights/Brightness/Contrast tools general enough that I should

get a balanced image with them?

As for the other tools, I've read that sharpening is best left to standard USM or one of

the custom-homebrew-sharpening-actions. I don't really have a detailed sensitivity

for color correction so I wind up just using the Auto/Cloudy/Tungsten/etc., pull down

menu. The chromatic abberation correction can be very useful sometimes. Is this

stuff in ACR just a convenience or is it the right place to do this?

Thanks.

For about the price of the Canon 75-300 IS, you can find a used

200/2.8L. This is sharp, contrasty, and fast L glass that weighs the

same 1.5lbs as the zoom. The difference between the 85mm of the zoom,

and 200 isn't as wide a gap as the numbers suggest. Adding a canon or

off-brand teleconverter will give you reach with more quality than

you'd have with the zoom.<p>

I know you said you'd prefer a zoom, but I'd like to offer a

suggestion you might not have considered. Hmm, if you do own the

180/3.5L however, owning the 200/2.8 probably doesn't make too much