derek_linney

The 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM which is available second hand is a far better lens (ring USM, better construction, metal mount, FTM etc) than the 28-105 f4-5.6 USM. The other great used bargain (for film EOS cameras its a really useful focal length range) is the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 USM lens; this was my mainstay lens when I had an EOS 50E and is now very undervalued. Also you may want to get a cheap extension tibe to give you close up capability. Avoid the 28-200mm lens its not in the same class as the others.

Michael,

Before assuming you need faster than f2.8 consider what ISO you currently shoot at when using wider apertures (f2, f1.4) with your current lens. The Canon 400D is very good up to 4ooISO and not bad at 800. You may therefore be able to eke out the equivalent of a stop or two by using higher ISO. If you already use the higher ISO then what shutter speeds are you using when shooting wide open with your 35mm? As suggested, you may be able to use IS to compensate for slower shutter speeds with f2.8 (but only if you are shooting static subjects rather than moving ones). Personally I find it hard to believe that you couldn't get a better all round capability for travelling with the 17-85 f4-5.6 IS. I used that on my 20D and when I switched to 5D went with a 24-105 f4 L IS. If you really need a low light capability then carry a light prime (such as the 24mm f2.8 or 28mm f2.8) with you rather than heavy glass.

<p>

By the way I am not against fast primes - I love using my 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2 but they are not lenses I take on holiday with me - for that I take my 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4.

Further to my post some sample images from the 60mm when I was testing it:

<a href="http://www.gallery1.co.uk/canonimages.htm">http://www.gallery1.co.uk/canonimages.htm</a>

For what its worth my 2cents worth: I have had the 100mm USM for some years (film and then digital). Used it a lot on film but then found it too long a focal length a lot of the time on the 1.6x DSLR (20D)- fine for 1:1 but I also wanted to take produst shots (e.g. of a lens or camera) and found that I was having to back too far away with an effective 160mm focal length. So I bought a 60mm EF-s and didn't look back: great little lens for macro and general work.

<p>

But then I lost my 20D (long story) but with the insurance was able to move up to a 5D and my 100mm came back into its own. I sold the 60mm as I couldn't use it on the 5D.

<p>

My conclusion: if you are shooting live insects then if you can afford it then go for the 180mm or else the 100mm. BUT if you want a compact lens that doubles as a nice prime as well as a very good macro lens (albeit without the working distance for live insets) then for an 1.6x DSLR I would go for the 60mm.

<p>

Regarding handholding technique: I always roughly focus first (maybe using AF - with CF4 = 1, maybe manual focus) and then rock very slightly backwards and forwards until I get the focus where I want it and then shoot.

<p>

Incidenatlly on the 5D I use the alternative matt focussing screen that is much, much better for judging accurate focus.

I really liked the 24-70 f2.8 when I used film cameras but found the effective field of view (equivalent to 38-120mm) on a 1.6 crop camera inconvenient - its not wide enough as a general purpose walkabout lens / landscape lens. I would, however, quite like to have one again for my 5D but instead use the 24-120mm f4 IS - as I find the IS more than compensates for the loss of one stop. [And I use a fast prime when I need really shallow DoF]

<p>

So on a crop camera such as the XTi I would go for the 17-55mm which gives you an effective 28-88mm lens (on FF/Film) - a useful range and gives you IS.

While I applaud Nikon for competing with Canon in the FF stakes and against the

1D Mk III and agree that it is generally good for us all that they are

competing, I do wonder how real that competition is. Sure there is some

flip-flop of one vs. the other but are they simply doing just enough to keep

each other honest. What would really stir things up is for a third player such

as Sony to mount a serious challenge the professional marketplace. I thought

Olympus might have stood up to this challenge but they appear, with the 4/3

system, to have settled for the pro-sumer market.

 

Duopolies can be just as cosy as monopolies. Lets see some real competition.

I have updated my reference list of Canon lenses with the new EF / EFS

announcements. It is at:<p>

<a

href=http://www.gallery1.co.uk/canon.htm>http:http://www.gallery1.co.uk/canon.htm</a>

Another tip: take your camera off Automatic White Balance and put it into Daylight. That way it keeps the orange / redness. Otehrwise it tries to balance the redness it detects into a neutral gray.

The F1.2 is a much more substantial beast than the f1.4 - which means heavier but much more robust. The Ring USM is also superior to the USM on the f1.4. Optically, the main difference is that the f1.2 is more flare resistant giving better contrast in situations where flare could be an issue. BUT the f1.2 is really only worth the money is you like using lenses wide open for the special effects they can produce or because you shoot regularly in low light conditions (and here we can debate whether 1/2 stop or even 0.45 of a stop makes much real difference). If you rarely shoot below say f2 then save your money.

Tim,

What aperture were you shooting at? It looks like depth of field (which is independent of individual lens differences) and not lens sharpness that is the only difference between the images.

From all the posts in various forums, and from owning the EF 50mm f1.2 L myself, I can draw two very simple conclusions:<p>

a) Most people that own one, and write on forums, think its great and worth the cost<p>

b) Most people who don't own it, and write on forums, think it is pointless, poorly performing and/or not worth the money

<p>

Draw your own conclusions.

Scrape it on a few more rocks and leave it untouched up and it will then look like a well used warhorse and people will assume you are a real hot shot photographer. Think of those old Nikon F's of the pro's. The most impressive laptop I ever saw had most of the paint rubbed off the corners - this was in the days when they were built with solid metal body and black paint.

The points you say you AF'd on are either very small or of lowish contrast (wood knot). In this case the camera may easily sometimes lock onto something more significant and you will get inconsistency. If you want to do a test like this you really need a set up where the point you wish to focus on is distinct, of reasonable size and of good contrast.

Give the guy a break. He has some decent glass with which he is obviously happy so you cannot lay it on him as bad techique. He may well have a sample that needs adjustment / calibration. Just because your 135mm f2 is pin sharp don't assume he is an idiot.

The 135mm f2 should give sharper images than any of your other lenses. Have you tried manually focusing - to make sure its not an auto-focus calibration issue?

The other thing for good sunsets is to set White Balance to Daylight rather than Auto - that way you get the yellow of sunset rather than the camera trying to figure out that the light seems too yellow and adjusting the WB to make it less yellow.

Macro magnification factor is a linear measure - so, yes, with a 1:2 magnification an object 60mm long will fill a 30mm sensor. Similarly if you used extension tubes or a 2x convertor behind the lens to get to 2:1 magnification factor then an object 15mm long would fill the sensor.

Imran, I think its a great lens. BUT unless you regularly shoot at f1.2 either because of very low light or because you want the great bokeh then save your money and get an f1.4, f1.8 or f2.5 50mm lens. Don't look for absolute sharpness at f1.2 you won't get it but thats not what this lens is about. Its about great pictures using the very limited depth of field for creative effect.

I would disagree with the above posts. Don't buy the 50mm f1.4. Unless you really really need the speed of f1.4 then the 60mm f2.8 will fill the need for both a macro lens and an outstanding prime. Its also much smaller than the 100mm and makes a great walk around and portrait lens.

<p>

On a 1.6 factor DSLR the 100mm is just too long - its great on FF but on a 1.6 factor body the 60mm is far more versatile. I have used both and when I was shooting with my 20D hardly ever used the 100mm macro.

<p>

Then if you get hooked on macro you can use the money you saved on the 50mm to buy a ring-flash which is so valuable for macro use.

I have a definitive list of EF lens on my site:

<p>

<a href="http://www.gallery1.co.uk/canon.htm">http://www.gallery1.co.uk/canon.htm</a>

I agree it was a nice lens - I have owned two in the past. It was great as a mid-range standard zoom - especially as it went to 24mm when most stopped at 28mm that extra 4mm was great.

<p>

But the world has moved on - for the mid-range most users have a 1.6 crop factor DSLR and it just doen't make that much sense in this arena being the equivalent of 38mm-136mm - neither one thing or another. The 28-135mm f2.8 IS is more useful as a 45-215mm equivalent with IS.

<p>

Most people who can afford a 5D or a 1Dxx would be looking to L glass such as the 24-105mm f4L IS or 24-70 f2.8L.

<p>

I do keep getting tempted though when I see how cheaply they seem to go for now!

Could someone who has the Mark II version of the 85mm f1.2L lens confirm to me

whether it is mechanical FTM focus or whether like the Mark I it is Electronic

Manual focus.

 

Canon's own literature / websites are contradictory on this and I have just

published an update to my Canon lens reference data website [<a

href="http://www.gallery1.co.uk/canon.htm">Canon Lens Data</a>] and would like

to get this right.

 

Regards

Derek

Scott, I am not sure I agree that "most" people are reporting problems. On dpreview forums there are a couple that have reported issues but a lot of very happy users. Derek

Have just sold my 50mm f1.4 having purchased a 50mm f1.2 L.

<p>

First up, the new f1.2 is vastly superior in terms of construction; feels much more solid and workmanlike.

<p>

I love the effects of shooting at f1.2 and to my mind unless one is shooting a lot of the time wide open then there is no point buying such a fast lens.

<p>

General image comparison of f1.2 to f1.4 shooting on my 5D is that the f1.2 shows higher contrast and less flare which give a "sharper" picture (compared at f1.4 and f2) but whether this is true in absolute resolution terms I cannot really say, but visually (which is what counts for me) the images are crisper and cleaner. Also, vignetting (corner light fall-off) is minimal - I really had to look hard for it. And Bokeh is just great - like on the 85mm f1.2.

<p>

Both lens are so good in the mid-aperture range that I really couldn't care about comparisons.

<p>

Note: I shot one dull day outdoors and was delighted with the results at f1.2. So next day, sunny, thought I would put a polariser on to a) increase saturation but b) allow me to shoot wide open [Even at ISO 100 one sometimes needs faster than 1/8000 sec in bright light]; results were very disappointing - it was a cheapish circular polariser (Hoya, not HMC). I hadn't noticed problems with this filter before, so it might just be that the f1.2 is more demanding of filter quality - have ordered a 72mm B+W filter so will be interested in results.

<p>

Focus is not that fast but is adequate and is very accurate and positive - certainly gave more confidence than the f1.4. There is a lot of glass to move and also the focusing ring "movement" is quite large compared with most USM lenses; its half way between a normal USM lens and a macro lens - which is good news in that it makes manual focusing much more precise as well.

<p>

Bottom line: in test chart shots there is probably little real difference between the lenses. In practical use the f1.2 gives me images I consider superior when shot wide open (or nearly wide open).

Like all very fast lenses it is unforgiving of poor technique - exploiting very shallow depth of field gives great results but needs practice. I really don't know about edge sharpness in that this is rarely a criteria for me in real world shots - even with an offset subject I really don't need the extreme corners sharp and they are nearly always out of focus anyway.

<p>

Is it worth the extra money? It's a matter of opinion. I like using 50mm lenses on FF; I was never totally confident in the build of the f1.4; I loved the f2.5 Macro but the reason I have primes to supplement my zooms is for low light work and shallow DoF so wanted something faster. I am very happy with the f1.2 and provided I use it to shoot real pictures rather than test charts I am sure I will stay happy. It really is one of those lenses that is really nice to use.

<p>

Could it be better? Yes, focus could be faster, but I wouldn't want sacrifice accuracy of AF or fine control of Manual Focus to achieve greater speed.

In Av mode the camera will exposure for ambient light and the flash will provide fill flash. Because the room is relatively dark you get the 1/5 second shutter speed.

<p>

Set the camera to M and then you can set aperture to f4 and shutter speed to 1/60 or 1/125 or 1/250 and the flash will automatically give correct exposure for flash as the primary light source - this is what Portrait mode is doing.

<p>

Also, f4 is fine for a single person portrait with the background out of focus but if you have several people in the shot use say f11 to get more depth of field. As long as the distance isn't too great the flash will adjust.