matthias_meixner2

<p>Your lenses cost less than either body. Therefore, I would not solely base the decision which camera to take on the lenses you already have.</p>

<p>Just remeber that when trying to get the same amount of DOF you have to compare the 7D with 35mm at f/1.4 with a 5D with 50mm stopped down to around f/2. With this in mind the 5D with 50/1.4 wins in the center of the image but loses when it comes to the corner:<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3</p>

 

<p>With a close up lens you add another optical element that introduces all kinds of optical errors. With extension tubes you leave the range the lens was calculated for. So which one is better all depends on the exact combination of lens and close up lens resp. extension tube. Therefore, there is no real answer to the question which is better close up lens or extension tubes.</p>

<p>Looks like your zoom is sharper than the prime and has less CA:<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=245&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0</p>

<p>Mirrorless is not limited to 4/3. You could also build a system based on APS-C or full frame sensors. And if there is a real advantage to have an electronic viewfinder this will happen and you will be able to purchase those cameras from all big camera makers including Canon. However, right now the situation is not that clear. Each system has its advantages and problems. Besides the size for me the optical viewfinder still has more advantages than disadvantages.</p>

<p>A negative ISO would mean that the sensor emits light. So this would be true for the LCD display on the back of the camera. The more negative the brighter the display ... ;-)</p>

<p>In the neighboring thread "regret lenses" cheap mirror lenses get some bashing. Therefore, I wonder are there any current mirror lenses around that deliver a usable image quality (besides of the "strange" bokeh)?</p>

<p>The crop factor not only affects focal length but also the other parameters. The following two systems will deliver exactly the same image with respect to DOF, FOV and exposure (assuming a crop factor of 1.4 instead of 1.6 for simpler maths):<br>

FF: 70mm f/4, ISO 200<br>

Crop: 50mm f/2.8, ISO 100<br>

Therefore, you will get the same effect with respect to speed and DOF by switching the body or by switching to a 24-70 f/2.8. From this point of view adding a 5D MkII makes more sense as it fulfills two of your wishes: Higher speed / better DOF and it brings you a second body.</p>

<p>Do you already have a TC? Adding an 1.4x TC gives you about the same level of reach as switching to a crop camera at a much lower price.</p>

<p>Get the EF 85 f/<strong>1.8</strong> and see what you miss, larger aperture or more flexibility in focal distance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>.... allowing auto focus, TTL metering ....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suspect that TTL metering will not work as a DSLR normally has distinct sensors for this task that are not behind the infrared filter that you wish to remove. Therefore, you should double check that it will work the way you think before doing such a surgery to your camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I'm looking for is a lens in the 12 to 16 mm range that's small, affordable and has a pretty o.k. image quality. It doesn't have to be fast.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds like the EF-S 10-22 taped to a fixed focal length :-)</p>

<p>The plexiglass will act like an optical element of very bad quality. Therefore, you should stop down several stops to limit the bad effects caused by this.</p>

<p>If it is infectious, then two reasons come to mind:</p>

<ol>

<li>User error: You do something wrong to the camera / lenses. Therefore, all are affected sooner or later.</li>

<li>Dirty contacts: With each lens change you transfer some dirt from one lens to the other until it also fails.</li>

</ol>

<p>For travelling I would second the 70-200 f/4 L IS + 1.4x TC: This set is much lighter and, therefore, easier to carry around all day long. Just to remember: The best lenses are the ones found in your camera bag and not those sitting around at home.</p>

 

<p>Simple experiment: Tape your 70-200 to 135mm and see if you like the field of view.</p>

<p>For landscape and shooting in tight spaces you might be better off with the EF-S 10-22, though.</p>

<p>The optical quality of the 28-105 and the 28-135 is in the same league. If you expect a real improvement and you want to have a zoom, then you should consider the 24-70L or 24-105L. However, those are much more expensive. Therefore, if you are on a budget, you probably should try the 50/1.8 first and see if it delivers the sharpness you need.</p>

<p>Now you can actually start taking photos ....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is a substitute for IS, a tripod or monopod.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Try to use a tripod when you are in a moving crowd of people. In some special cases you can substitute IS with a tripod but not in the general case.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is no substitute for a fast aperture</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The same applies to IS. If you need large DOF at low light, then a larger aperture does not help but IS does.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I really want a lens which can be good in low light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the wrong starting point: You want a <strong>system</strong> which can be good in low light. Due to better high ISO performance a 5DMk2 + ef 50/1.4 should outperform the T2i + EF 35/1.4L.</p>

<p>Just to clear things up - what do you want to do: Use EF lenses on an FD camera or FD lenses on an EOS camera?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How do yo know if IS is still working?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's simple: Just switch it off and you will see the difference. Especially at the long end.</p>

<p>Why not start with an FD teleconverter. Those do not have any AF-electronics.<br>

BTW.: How do you want to control aperture? Some external electronics? Somewhere on the net there is a description of the protocol that is used by EF-lenses. I think it was released by a company that adapts (or has an adaptor) to use EF lenses on (non-Canon) film bodies.</p>