bkris

I think Richard Hatch has the best all-around setup with the 10-22, 24-70L and 100-400L. That covers the equivelent of

16-640mm range, and leaves you just enough cash for your accessories. And those are 3 spectacular lenses. Good call

Richard.

I love both film and digital. But for the purposes of entering the fray I offer the following...

Assuming effective technique, quality equipment, and the fact that many of us digitize our film for editing/printing:

To maximize the resolution of digital cameras, one needs to take a picture on the largest file setting, ie RAW. Thus, a 21

MP camera will give you a roughly 21MP digital image.

To maximize the resolution of larger film, one needs to pay for expensive drum scans, or buy extremely expensive drum

scanners. So while a large format negative may hold the equivelant of hundreds of MPs, only a drum scanner will give you

all/most of that resolution as a digital image.

 

From everything I've read and experienced, consumer scanners severely limit the common man's ability to take full

advantage of much of the larger size films. Using these scanners would be like taking a 21 MP digital and shooting it at

small jpeg quality. You are not taking full advantage of that camera or system's resolution capabilities.

So does film capture more resolution than digital? In the cases of medium to large format, the answer seems

unquestionably to be 'yes.'. Can most of us take routine advantage of all of that resolution in the same way that we can with our digital cameras? For many of us, the answer is probably 'no.' All that being said, I love both mediums and the fact that we are free to work with both whenever we like.

<p>Thank you all for your input on this. I found the 16-9 tests to be very interesting and useful. What do you guys think of the Sigma 15-30mm? This is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than the rest of the lenses I was considering, but 16-9 seemed to have alot of positive feedback on it. I have found alot of other reviews as well saying this lens performs much better than the 17-40L, which is the super wide zoom I was also considering. Thanks again.</p>

<p>I have recently upgraded from the 5D to the 5D Mark II, and am currently using the 24-70mm f/2.8L and 300mm f/4L. I find that the 24mm is not wide enough for the landscape photography I like to shoot, and wonder if you all could share your thoughts on the range of options for wide/super-wide angle (18mm and wider) prime lenses, to include Canon and non-Canons that will work with an adapter, to get the best possible use of the huge sensor on the Mark II. I know this question gets asked alot, and I have read extensively through other postings on similar issues, but most of what I find are conversations on landscape lenses in general, including recommendations for the 17-40L, 16-35L, 12-24 Nikon, and other offerings from Olympus, Tamron, Zeiss, etc. I am considering getting a refurbished 14mm f/2.8L for $1,500, but if there is a better lens out there, at or below that price, from Canon or another manufacturer that will maximize the Mark II sensor, then I'm all for it! Also, reason I ask about primes specifically is from my experience with my two current lenses--I have been blown away by how sharp the 300mm F/4L is, even when compared to the very-good 24-70L, and would love to translate that into wide-angle landscape shots. I also am happy to move myself versus the lens, so don't need a zoom. Your thoughts on this are much appreciated, thank you in advance.</p>