james_lee25

Hey Alan. I must concur with you about the finesse of the 40D's shutter sound. My old camera is the 20D and it has a loud CLACK that will turn any and every head in the vicinity. The 40D's shutter is much more subtle and non-offensive.

I'm the same guy. Lee's my middle name I sometimes go by. I registered twice accidentally and can't remember the login anymore to my other login - was written on a different computer.

 

Anyway, I would typically agree that lenses have alot to do with colors - but the lenses I were using, color-wise, were not that far off.

 

I had the 28-135 on 40D and 70-200 f/2.8L IS on 20D.

I forgot to mention, I was using an L lens on the 20D most of the day and a non-L lens on the 40D. It was strange that the non-L lens on the 40D gave me better colors than the L on the 20D.

 

-JLH

I did indeed notice a drastically quieter shutter than the 20D. The 20D has a very annoying "clack" sound, whereas the 40D's sound is much more tame.

 

I shot RAW for the entirety of the day - noise reduction does work for RAW files on the 40D. Colors were better.

 

That's odd, Bob, my 20D overexposes more than my 40D, and I have to leave mine set at -1/3 outdoors usually.

Thanks for the reply Pete. I didn't really play with the white balance, but I can certainly do that. It does look a little yellow.

 

Adjusted it a little. How's this?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhophoto/1090475964/

BTW, please respond/comment/critique here, not as a comment to previous link. Thanks!

I'm fairly new at this so be easy on me. I tried to do some home lighting

techniques with what I got (just normal house lights), since I don't have any

studio strobes.

 

Please tell me how this photo looks. Nevermind my cat, I was making all sorts

of wierd noises so he just gave me that "look".

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhophoto/1088612153/

Hi folks,

 

I have the following 3 lenses now and would like to add at least 1 or 2 more to

the lineup. I use a Canon 20D, 580 EX II, and a Lightsphere II with

cloud/amber domes. I primarily want a better lens to photograph larger groups

of people (8-30 persons) and indoor photography (small rooms studio rooms and

large church halls).

 

Current lenses:

 

1. 18-55 EF-S f/3.5-5.6 kit lens - Good focal ranges for me, but I feel as

though this lens is lacking. It's slow but clear in the center and when

stopped down, but not so great at detail on the edges. As this is the only

wide-angle lens I have at the moment, I don't feel too comfortable using if I

were to be paid for it.

 

2. 50mm f/1.4 - Love it. Great focal length for normal/wider portraits on my

20D

 

3. 70-200 f/2.8L IS - Love it. Great focal lengths tighter portraits/PJ/action

shooting from a distance.

 

 

I realize that the kit lens I own doesn't even compare to the other two

lenses. After reading some negative reviews of it, I decided to test it for

myself. I was decently surprised that it wasn't quite as bad as everyone made

it out to be. It was, however, still noticibly lacking compared to the other

two lenses - mainly due to lack of detail.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'd like some advise on what lens to purchase next. Ideally, I'd like

something to either replace the kit lense (18-55) or compliments it.

 

Some suggestions I've heard before are as follows:

 

1. 17-55 EF-S 2.8 - Searching through some older posts, it seems many of you

like this lens. I'm not sure if I'll be moving up to full frame in the next

year or not (it's possible), so I wasn't sure if I should invest in this if I'd

just have to sell it later. I absolutely love the IS on my 70-200mm however,

and can see it as a very useful tool to drag the shutter if a tripod is not

available. Very useful focal length range. I've read complaints of dust

specks inside (not sealed like a L lens) and IS failing (from only 1 person)

after a year, but not sure how much to believe those comments. This seems to

be the most usable lens to purchase for use currently.

 

2. 24-70 f/2.8L - I've heard great things about this lens. Seems like it

covers a good focal length range, but some ppl state that it's just too long

for a 1.6x body. Then there's the IS issue - there is none, and Canon may or

may not make one in the future. I'd hate to have to buy this now for $1100 if

Canon will just introduce one with IS a few months later for $1600 - 1700. I'd

surely rather wait for the IS version. I know, I can always use a tripod or

steady my camera on an object/chair/top of a church pew, but let me tell you -

IS is just too nice of a feature to have to not use it. Having used the IS on

my 70-200, it's nothing short of miraculous when a tripod is not available. No

IS unfortunately, but still usable if I step up to full frame in the next year.

 

3. 17-40 f/4L - Useful Wide-angle to use in lieu of my 18-55 kit lens. Less

expensive than previous two lenses. Only f/4, but since I'd be using this

mainly for photographing large groups of people with flash, I wouldn't ideally

shoot with a larger aperture anyway. I'd use anywhere from f/5.6 to f/11

probably, depending on size of group and indoor vs. outdoor location. No IS

unfortunately, but still usable if I step up to full frame in the next year.

 

4. A prime lens or two - Another option I've been considering is to replace my

18-55 kit lense with a wider prime lens or two to cover what I need it to

cover. This thinking stems fromt he concept that even if I were to purchase a

f/2.8 wide angle zoom, I could still use the wide angle primes if I needed the

speed. I wouldn't want to spend too much on prime L lenses, since I'd want to

purchase a zoom eventually for event work. After using my 50mm f/1.4, I've

really come to enjoy the quality of photos I've taken with it. They are very

crisp, contrasty, and very sharp. What focal lenths/wide-angle and

specifically what prime lenses would you folks suggest?

 

5. Keep what I've got and wait for a 18/24-xx f/2.8L IS full frame lens - Last

option for me, is to just keep my 18-55 kit lens, knowing that if I use it, I

need to stop the aperture down to f/8-f/11 for best detail and stay away from

the extremes of the focal lengths (18-20, 45-55).

 

Any words of wisdom from you fine folks? Please help me make a decision here.

 

-James

I did another test today, under exact same lighting conditions. I purposefully set this up to be a more realistic test. In previous testings with my 50mm f/1.4, I purposefully got right up in the face of my subject (my cat), being a little more than a foot away. This is a more "realistic" test, and I took it from at least a meter and a half away (approx closest focusing distance of the 70-200).

 

I didn't have access to a tripod, but I did the next best thing and stabilized my camera on my hardwood desk and used the self timer.

 

I shot two images, without moving any closer/further away to the subject.

 

1. 50mm f/1.4: Photo taken at 1/100 sec, 50mm@f/4.5, ISO 800. Very clear picture.

 

 

2. 70-200 f/2.8: Photo taken at 1/125 sec 70mm@f/4.5, ISO 800. Very clear picture.

 

I uploaded to Adobe Lightroom and compared both shots side by side. Here are my results:

 

- Both were EQUALLY as sharp at their normal typical perspectives without any magnification/zooming

 

- When zooming in on the image taken with the 50mm to obtain the 70mm perspective, the image was NOT as sharp as the image taken with the 70-200mm.

 

-The 70-200mm lens recorded a sharper and more detailed image in this test. Upon zooming in to 1:1 or greater ratio, the difference was night and day. The 50mm shot was blurred where my cat's eyelids connect, where as the 70-200mm was very sharp.

 

My next test may be to try to move in a little with the 50mm to obtain the same perspective as the 70mm. I'd imagine the quality to be more similiar than the images in this test.

 

However, at this point it doesn't matter to me anymore. My decision has been made. I'm keeping my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS as realistically speaking, I don't think I will have the opportunity to get "in the face" of my subject - "Hold right there folks, let me get in your face real quick with my prime so I can capture all the details of your facial blemishes" - don't think that would go over well. At realistic working distances, the 70-200 is simply sharper (especially when cropping/magnifying/zooming in post production)

 

So what have I learned thus far?

 

-My 50mm f/1.4 prime lens can capture a sharper image with more detail but only if used at a very short distance to the subject (less than 1.5 meters)

 

-My 70-200 f/2.8L IS zoom lens can capture a sharper image than my 50mm prime, with more detail but only when used at a distance equal to or greater than 1.5 meters.

 

For my purposes, that of an aspiring wedding/event/candid/baby photographer, I'm keeping my 70-200 for practical purposes. The quality and sharpness is simply better at realistic distances.

 

If I end up doing more studio work where I can work within 2-5 feet of my subject, then I'll be using my prime. Otherwise, the quality, practicality and sharpness of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is simply the best for me. (Did I mention it zooms and has IS?)

 

Thanks for reading this post folks. Feel free to comment as necessary (or suggest alternative testing)

I should add that in #3 the cat was backlit, so he had no sun in his eyes. Thus his eyes were a quite a bit "muddy" compared to the other two (although sharper due to the faster shutter speed).

I just went back and pulled up 3 RAW files that I shot of my cat's face. I wish there was someplace I could host these files so you guys could see the differences.

 

1. 50mm f/1.4: 50mm shot 1/50sec at f/4.5 ISO 800 Indoor with bright sunlight coming through the patio door. Amazing sharpness. You can see crystal clear watery reflection of the outside world from the cat's eyes - it's so clear it looks as if the cat's eye had a polish job done on it.

 

2. 70-200 f/2.8L IS: 200mm shot 1/50sec at f/4.5 ISO 800 Same as above, IS turned on. There was probably a tad bit of handshake here, so I'll write it off at that. Ok sharpness. Can see the reflection in cat's eyes but it's not crystal clear.

 

3. 70-200 f/2.8L IS: 110mm shot 1/200sec at f/4.5 ISO 800 Indoor, cat sitting on window ledge. IS is on. Very good sharpness. Can see the glare in cat's eyes but it's not crystal clear like the 50mm.

 

After reviewing these files a bit, I'm ruling out photo #2 since 1/50 of a second at 200mm is quite a stretch to compare to a prime. I'll have to reshoot this. #3 can also not be compared to either of the previous, as there just wasn't as much light in my cat's eye.

 

I'm going to see if i can reshoot these and will post my results.

Greetings folks,

 

I ordered a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Lens ($1700) from BH Photo 13 days ago. I've

tested this thing left and right, indoor/outdoor and have compared it to my

50mm f/1.4 ($300) and a few other lenses.

 

While the IS works quite nicely, I've got to admit that I am not very impressed

with the sharpness of this lens. Bokeh and Saturation are great however.

 

I'm wondering if anyone else has had the same issues with their 70-200mm f/2.8L

IS not being as tack-sharp as they wish it was?

Steve,

 

I have a lightsphere as well, and it does work nicely for softening the light. When shooting in horizontal mode, it works well - softening light and making shadows dissapear (because it's high enough above my camera). Vertical mode, however is an entirely different thing. If my subject is standing anywhere close to a wall, there will be anywhere from a mild to harsh shadow behind the subject to their left (my right), due to not being able to get the lightsphere higher up in Vertical mode.

 

This is the main reason I need a flash bracket! My next job will be to photograph people inside small rooms. There will be walls - lots of them.

Hi folks,

 

I just purchased one of these. It seems like the design is well thought ou and

is decently built. It also fits well with the L plate.

 

There is one problem I'm having however. My copy seems to have a bit of wobble

at the joints of the foldable arms. Every joint has a little "play", and while

it doesn't seem like very much, it adds up to a bit of sway when shooting

vertically. Does anyone know if this is normal or do I have a defective

bracket? Being a $150 bracket (not to mention having to purchase a $160 L

plate to use it), I expected better build quality.

 

If anyone has one of these brackets please respond let me know if yours has any

of the similiar wobble/play in the joints.

 

Thanks!

 

-James