stillbound

<p>i used the older 16-35 when i had a 1D2 (not a full frame by the way to the guys above) and it was great - maybe not super wide but i got very proficent at stitching when i really wanted to add extra breadth to my images...<br>

The 17-40 would be my choice now though as I also use the 35 1.4 on a 5D2 and don't shoot that much landscape...<br>

From what i've seen out of the lens it is an excellent value...</p>

<p>Stark-Arts</p>

<p>not sure but like every other Canon lens right now it's out of stock at...<br>

not sure what is going on but it seems nearly every prime is missing from the big stores right now...<br>

200, 135, 35, 24, 35 (both of em) etc etc</p>

<p>does the slight softness in the corners go away at f/8?<br>

that would be my only concern - i know that wide open the 2.8 lens is better in corners - right?<br>

JC</p>

<p>from what i've seen and gettign to play with both lenses (in a store unfortunately) the prime (as usual) is the better lens<br>

The 100-400 is definitely more flexible but the prime to me is sharper with better colors...<br>

Not to turn this into a wish thing but if they'd just add IS to it then it would truly be a no brainer<br>

Stark-Arts</p>

<p>the 35's - 35 1.4 and 135 2 are two of canons greatest lenses especially if value is considered. They are both amazingly sharp with beutiful bokeh and are amazing in value (i know it's hard to consider 1000 dollars value) compared to their glamour sisters the 50 1.2 and 85 1.2<br>

The 35 is the lens that spends the most time on my 5d2...<br>

If you are not offended by naked girls you can check out my last months work - most of which is shot with the 35.</p>

<p>if you already had your heart set on the 5d2 then buy it and have two cameras...<br>

Aside from that - the 5D2 is the best camera out there right now under 7000 for most uses...<br>

sell the 50D (don't trade it in unless they are giving you full value) and get the 5D2 with some nice glass...<br>

Stark-Arts</p>

<p>you can't buy the d40 without an 18-55 so everyone drop that comment please...<br>

she got a good little camera with two nice lenses. I also would have waited on the 35 1.8 nikon based on price/wieght and probable quality though the sigma is great when you get one that focuses spot on...<br>

overall - nice set up<br>

Now shoot...shoot...shoot...</p>

<p>The answer to the question that you asked is yes - you just keep checking in. B/H chooses to use a "sell what you have" policy rather than making lists and giving people hope that they will be getting something soon when they could be months behind...<br>

I personally like this policy</p>

 

<p>you hit it on the head in your post - the camera thinks you are using a tripod. Canon has long said to not use IS when you are on a tripod so it is automatically turning off the IS. It is an older camera and is living by the rules that were set when it was new and IS was also relatively new...<br>

Stark-Arts</p>

<p>I agree with the above 135/2 vote - it's a better lens. The 200 2.8 is nice but not that much nicer than the 70-200 2.8 IS which is much more practical for wedding work (though heavier and more money)<br>

It in my experience doesn't have the "wow" factor of the 135...<br>

JC</p>

<p>many shoot raw because in the future they MAY need that material - the color space issue is the same. Printers and monitors are finally catching up with the cameras and adobe is capable of more shades...<br>

better overall for the future<br>

JC</p>

<p>There are ten lenses that will be updated before the 24-105...<br>

JC</p>

<p>Canon will not repair it under warranty since you dropped it...<br>

Did you purchase one of the protection plans when you bought it? Some of them cover accidental damage..<br>

Do you have another lens? If so try it to make sure the actual body is not also damaged...<br>

If not find your closest camera shop and ask to try a lens on display with your body and make sure it focuses still...<br>

You didn't mention what body or lens you have - if it is a 18-55 it will be about 170 to replace and probably 100 or so to fix - get a new one if that is the case....</p>

 

<p>if there ever was a black dot issue it was not nearly as abundant as you would think if you spend your time in front of a computer and it only happened when pictures were poorly exposed...<br>

but there was a firmware update...</p>

 

<p>the bigger question is why would someone buy and xti at this point - the xs is a better camera in just about every single way i can think of as well as being a a year and a half newer..(at least)<br>

b/h has them for 480ish...with an IS lens rather than the old crappy kit lens</p>

<p>there is just no way you can get decent results with anything less than 24mp -<br>

kidding - as the others have said the 10 is more than enough for everything up to 13 by 19 and sensor on the 1dIII is a degree better in every way than even the other cams that came at the same time such as the similar 40d 10MP sensor...<br>

I printed 11 by 14 for two years with my 1d (mark I) without ever seeing an issue - of course I like having extra but the truth is that unless you are going to poster sizes you won't notice much difference between 10 and 15 or so...</p>

 

<p>check another for in body sucking - especially when you realize that sony charges 1700 for their non IS 24-70 and 1900 for their non is 70-200. not really the savings that the in body people would have you believe</p>

<p>the last question is the most important depending on your needs and that one is a NO<br>

between the other two sigma has a new one coming out that none of us have seen with a higher price (list at least). Based on the older ones I'd take the Tamron but with the qualifier of the above answer...<br>

I'm a canon shooter that shot a d700 with a 24-70 2.8 for three months while I waited for my 5DII to come in and I can't say enough good things about that lens. It is one of the few things about Nikon that I will truly miss. It was simply amazing...<br>

JC</p>

<p>it's not odd - the average "pro" shooter uses a lens that is 2.8 or faster (primes for the faster) and while I may like to see a 24-70 2.8 (I'd really like to see a 20 - 70 or 24 - 85 2.8) with IS I DO NOT want to pay the extra 400 - 500 dollars that canon has tacked on to the other L zooms with IS<br>

The 2.8 and faster glass at the range simly doesnt <em>NEED</em> the IS - it justs wants it...lol<br>

JC</p>

 

<p>yes</p>

<p>I agree with the "a thief is a thief" but the people I know that do it don't do it to avoid theft. They do it for the same reason that I won't wear clothes with big logos on them. They don't get paid to advertise. Canon has shooters that they sponsor much the same wake nike and other big sporting good companies do. They get free (or very cheap) gear and they get it first and these pro's that are not company sponsored figure they don't need to advertise who they are using unless THEY are getting paid...<br>

that has been the answer I have gotten from 100 percent of the pro's that I have asked that do this (it's still a very small number of people)</p>

<p>coming from someone that deals with this every day - I'd take the XSI - best images quality vs. feature set in it's class. The 200 saved vs. a 40D could be spent on some decent glass or a flash. This is all assuming that he doesn't NEED the 2 extra frames a 40D would give...<br>

JC</p>

<p><img src="http://fetlife.com/users/10073/pictures/19857" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://fetlife.com/users/10073/pictures/19857" alt="" /><br>

this is with a 1d Mk 2 - 1.3 crop....</p>

<p>that last two won't mount at all...<br>

the others will be Ok with the 100 macro being the best...<br>

NEED is a strong word - the real issue is that the mark II especially will showcase any deficiencies in your non L glass (and again I'd say that 100 macro is near L quality)</p>

<p>what are you aiming at in the second one? at 2.8 only one small area is going to be in focus...<br>

the other look pretty good...<br>

JC</p>