Marcus Ian

I think that you won't really notice a difference (though it's possible there is a split second difference in focus speed), this isn't a Tamron (or Sigma) of yesteryear, or one of their DC motor offerings. Both Tamron and Sigma have versions of USM focusing (USD and HSM respectively) - IME, they perform on par with the best (fastest) AF systems Canon offers. ie, I cant generally perceive a difference in AF speed - though I haven't used this lens. Of course the actual focus speed is also determined by the complexity/weight/gearing of the focusing element(s) - not just the driving technology - so a significantly heavier focusing group would predictably be slower. That said, the Tamron is (overall) lighter than the 400/5.6L. The Tamron is a lens which was new this year, and equipped with the latest greatest USD and VC (mode 1 & 2). In a nutshell, I would be surprised if there was a perceptible difference in AF speed with this lens - though in all honesty I can't say that from personal experience. Another thing to consider (which is in the same class, but with better optical performance) is the Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 OS HSM C It weighs in at about the same as the other two (400/5.6L : 1250g, Tamron 100-400 : 1135g, Sigma 100-400 C : 1160g), and also has OS (optical stabilization) and HSM focusing... It is of course your decision, but I would at least handle something @ 400mm (640mm on your 7D2) w/ and w/o IS/VC/OS (or at least turned on and off) before you make a purchase. I'm serious when I suggest that a lack of it may significantly decrease your keeper rate. I *don't* have arthritis, or any other conditions which affect the steadiness of my hands, but when I'm shooting at 400mm+, especially at marginal shutter speeds, IS/VC/OS is a huge feature...

You are not wrong. @400mm, the 400/5.6 looks like it optically outperforms the Tamron 100-400 @ 400mm (f6.3 - WO). I haven't used the Tamron, so I can't contribute helpfully other than to look at the digital picture's comparison chart... which is fine... and, if you take pictures of test charts all day @ 400mm, you will def be served best by the 400/5.6L. However, as you are taking pictures of birds, not test charts, the Tamron honestly may be a better choice. It has VC, which, if you are working in marginal light is going to make a helluva difference. Keep in mind that 1/fl has you shooting at a minimum of 1/640 - 1/800 sec. For a lot of birding, that's a tall order. And in a forest, you'll be hard pressed to get ss that high without cranking your ISO all the way up. Given your physical challenges, I honestly think you may find that having a VC / IS lens is going to make a HUGE amount of difference, is going to be worth it's weight in gold for your keeper rate, and is going to be worth sacrificing a small amount of optical clarity/contrast/sharpness.

Like I said, I was underwhelmed. It was incredibly consistent (across the frame), which is likely why the ''sweet spot' theory doesn't really apply to this lens (in the same way it doesn't apply to quite a few other modern lenses), but it's crispness was substantially below what I was expecting from an L prime. In fairness though, that same consistency across the frame is possibly why the sharpness is a step below other lenses. The design is 25yrs+ old, and in those days (as in these days to a lesser degree ;) ), compromises had to be made.... especially at this price point. Given your description of the physical challenges you face though, it may be the best choice for you. Even if another significantly heavier lens has the potential to generate better IQ, you are the shooter, so a significantly lighter lens may very well give you better images.

It doesn't do that well on FF bodies either. I've only used it a few times, but I was less than impressed with the IQ of it's output. For a prime telephoto, while it was very consistent across the frame, it was consistently not great (IMO). Frankly, despite the advantages of weight and simplicity, the lens design dates back to 1993 which very well may be part of the problem. You'll likely get better images and output from one of the new 150-600s. I'm not saying you shouldn't pull the trigger, but set your expectations realistically.

That guy softens up a bit at the corners on FF cameras. That was my experience, but I just borrowed one, and it was crisper than my 16-35/2.8 II (so pretty much par for the course in my mind). My understanding is that the current king of UWA zoom corner crispness is the 16-35/2.8 III (which I've not used). MFA on your 5D2 likely won't make that much of a difference - not for this lens at least - but it's a way to check things off the list. The bottom line is that if you aren't happy with the IQ, you should send it back to Canon (preferably along with the camera) and let them see if they can't sweeten up the combo. You might be surprised at the results.

There are multiple modes within the multiple exposure. There is ADDITIVE, AVERAGE, LIGHT, & DARK. (there are 'descriptions' of the differences, plus instructions on use on pg177-183 of your manual) I've only used this mode a couple of times, so I can't exactly qualify what the differences are in the processing of these images, but ADDITIVE seems to behave as one would expect , while AVERAGE, LIGHT, or DARK? ...they don't (in my VERY limited experience) behave intuitively... but might do more of what you want. Since you can change exposure settings between exposures, one of the alternative modes may very well be usable for you? For something like this, the only way to see if it's going to work for YOU is going to be by setting up the tripod and get shooting. Luckily the film is virtually free!

If expense is of critical importance and you want to retain use of EX wireless ettl, you have two or three choices. 1) buy a used 550EX / 580EX (~$60 - $90) - either will work as a master for your 430EX II 2) a new Yongnuo YN568EX II / YN600EX-RT II . ~$95 - $115, they will act as a master for your 430EXII, and is compatible with the EX system. 3) a Yongnuo YN-622C-TX for ~$41. The downside is that it's not a flash, just a 'master' controller for your 430 EX II...

That was my first thought, that it was shot wide open. It has that look. (you can see the 'in focus' line across the background hill). For a group this size, at 28mm, at that subject distance (I estimate 20-25'), you would would probably need a minimum of f5.6-6.3 to reliably get all group members in focus. I would shoot at f8ish personally in this circumstance. The focusing mode was also set to AI servo (using single point). ...and focused far beyond the group. *facepalm* This often happens with AI servo in single point. if you are moving the camera, it is even handheld, or the subject moves, that single point can shift off the subject (often without me or you even noticing), and the camera automatically focuses on what is currently in front of that focus point. Keep in mind that in this mode, there is no 'locking on' - focusing is continuous as long as you have the button halfway down. - this shouldn't be a surprise, as this mode is designed for fast action subjects whose position, movement, and direction, is constantly changing rapidly relative to the camera. For this type of shooting 'one shot' focusing is your best best. You can focus on a face, then recompose (without lifting your finger) however you want, and then take the shot. The camera has confirmed that your subject is the focal point, and you can move it around without worrying about it continuing to adjust focus (as it does in AI servo). You have been using the central focus point, which is good (for this), but using AI Servo (as focusing mode) defeated you here. Don't get me wrong, it's an excellent lesson (and not necessarily an intuitive one), I learned this one some decades ago ;) As to why the 70-200 doesn't do it? likely, even in the same modes, you'd have a vastly higher keeper rate because you are focused on 1 (or at most 2) subjects. Not only is that center focus point much more likely to stay on the subject, but, you'd immediately notice a shift of focus, and recompose. w/ a 24-70 (especially at the wide end), there is no way to do that reliably. In a nutshell, this image does not directly express any fault with the camera or lens. It appears to be a result of operator error in mode/setting selection (f2.8 and AI Servo) for this type of shooting. Sorry :(

It cannot. The T6 does not have either the hardware or software to do this. You need a 550EX + (580,580 2, 600), an ST-e2, or a third party 'master' transmitter to control the 430EX 2 as a 'slave'. Canon's Master/Slave setup (for these generations of flashes) use IR. The t6 doesn't not have an IR transmitter (as far as I'm aware), most EOS cameras do not - so physically cannot send ETTL control data to the flash. Further, Canon's EX line of flashes don't even have optical slave trigger capability anymore (so you cannot use the flash as a trigger at a manually set output level). That one is kind of frustrating to me (personally).

To be clear, The Vultee BT-13's name is "Valiant", and it was, among other aircraft, proceeding down the coast providing (or in my mind easily could have been ;) ) 'overwatch'. In reality, the Valiant was a trainer aircraft ONLY (and, as far as I am aware NEVER participated in actual combat - even in an overwatch or supporting role), during WW2, and had been retired long before common use of the term 'overwatch' was adopted in the 50s... please see Overwatch (military tactic) - Wikipedia (when I served, the term 'overwatch, or 'overwatching' unit were both used frequently) .... so, yes, that is a reference to a normal wartime role in it's altitude and flightpath In a nutshell, I thought the term 'Valiantly Overwatching' was a reasonable title for the photo given both the subject, and the subject's behavior, and was a decent play on words ;) .

What aperture did you use for the above image?

Valiantly Overwatching (Vultee BT-13) 5D3 - 70-200/2.8 - 200mm f8 1/1250s ISO100

Inspecting the Catch 5D3 - 70-200/2.8 - --- 200mm - f6.3 - 1/1600s - ISO200

Wave Action Murrell's Inlet, SC 5D3 - 70-200/2.8 (w/ 2x TC) - 400mm - f8 - 1/1600s - ISO 400

If I had to guess, I'd guess that some debris that has a) either worked it's way in over the years, or b) broken off inside, and has wedged it's way into the focal track. I've certainly had that happen to other lenses in the past. Regardless of the source though, at least the disassembly and diagnosis will be fun! ... just make sure to get yourself some JIS screwdrivers (they are NOT phillips) before you dig in, else you'll likely have stripped screws to deal with too.

Murrell's Inlet, SC 5D3 - 24-70/2.8 - 42mm - f7.1 - 10s - ISO200 Shooting down the beach in windy conditions is a bit more challenging than shooting a 'regular' fireworks show. Longer exposures, unpredictable 'bloom' regions (as in some right on top of you), and FIRM footing in the sand are some challenges to take into account.

LOL, well, obviously up to 29 yrs ;) I'd probably happily go for a $150-200 repair for this though. Nice to know they still have replacement parts available...

No. It's not a 'digital lens', it was designed and built back when digital imagery was a pipe dream. The only thing 'digital' about it is the internal circuit board which closes the diaphragm and drives the AF. In case you weren't aware, this lens hit the market in 1989. It was produced until 2006 (when it was replaced w/ the II). That means that these lenses are between 12 and 29 years old. To be miffed about the paint degrading on a lens that is between (I'll say it again) 12 and 29 years old is some mighty fine whine - just because it's an L. No, it's NOT a defect, no, it's SHOULDN'T be covered by a warranty. It's a result of normal wear and tear in a severe environment. Modern bug sprays and even hand lotions have stuff in them that weren't even on the market back in the 80s and 90s. Expecting them to NOT potentially at least have an adverse impact on paints and plastics damn near 30yrs old is pure idiocy. Many complex plastics degrade over time especially in high heat environments. It's to be expected. We also have no idea what conditions it's been stored in/ kept in for the last decade or two. Maybe it got left in the trunk of a car for a year, maybe it was stored in an air conditioned bank vault for 5 yrs, maybe it got left on a window ledge for 6mo... As far as reading more into their honour (or the implied lack thereof)? Also pure absurdity. The warranty is for 1 year. Not 'lifetime', Not 10yrs, not 6yrs, hell, not even 3yrs. (And YES, that lack of warranty has been a reason for buying Sigma/Tamron lenses instead of Canon ones in the past IME) Being upset or even bothered by a potential refusal to cover this 12 to 29 year old lens under warranty is pretty much the same as expecting Acura to cover my NSX's paint warranty until what ... 2050? Absurd. (and no, I don't have a new NSX... just an example) I'm glad the OP was able to have the piece replaced cost effectively. While I might consider storing it in a more temperature regulated environment (given the environment), I might also consider putting a sleeve on it...

My advice would be to keep the negs. While I would ALSO scan them and include a digital copy with your final deliverables, but the following point seems to have been largely ignored: "This is my first wedding, though I've been a photographer for the last decade or so (since I was 15) and have been taking photos as my primary source of income for about a year now." In other words, you are at the beginning of your chosen career. You are also developing and printing yourself. It is ridiculous to think that you have already learned everything you will ever know, and that you are at the apex of your skills. In other words, I recommend you retain the negatives because as your skills (especially w/ printing) evolve, you may find yourself able to do things with them that you aren't currently able to do. In reprinting them, maybe years from now, you may see things you never saw at this point early in your professional life. Once you've sent them off, you'll never be able to experiment with printing them again. It will not be an option, no matter the love you have for the art, or what you see now in an old scan.

Since the lens in question hasn't been made for over a decade, you may be asking a bit much...

Wait... Are you talking about video? (???) If so, potentially, what you seem to be describing may be rolling shutter (depending on the speed of the movement of course) ? If so, while it is annoying, it's also how the unit reads out data from the sensor, so probably nothing 'wrong' with it...

Are we talking about the image through the viewfinder, or the image on the LCD display (while using Liveview)?

My original battery budget was about $350/yr. That was all OEM. After trying some el-cheapo 'Cannnon' batts (as in the 10 for $20 fleabay variety) - that did NOT work out very well, I went ahead and bought some branded decent quality 3rd party units. I was able to drop that budget from ~$350 to ~$100 per year with no real impact on shooting. In practical terms they performed identically (or near-enough-as-saw-no-difference) to OEM. $60 was NOT my actual budget - as I needed 6 batts per camera, and budgeted replacing them every second year. Regardless, I am curious about whether new batts solved the OP's problem?

BTDT. I took that $60, and bought 4 batts, so, instead of only being able to shoot 750 incredible images, I was able to shoot 3000. Guess I won that round? IMProfessionalE, decent quality (and no, we are not talking about the bottom of the barrel no name 'Cannon' ones) 3rd party batts perform identically (with IDENTICAL reliability) compared w/ OEM ones. The only difference is that, instead of 1 for $60, I can get 4 for $60. So, guess what! when a battery unexpectedly dies (and yes, genuine, OEM, units do it too) in the middle of a shoot, I can simply grab another, toss it in, and go back to shooting..... ... of course if my battery budget (because I run a business) was only $60, and I only had one, very nice, high quality, genuine, OEM batt, I would have to turn to my clients and *shrug* and be like 'Equipment failure' *sad face* sorry! I'm headed home!

LOL, all fair points! ...but largely more suitable for a different conversation. The OP already bought new batteries, and it's entirely possible that they will fix her problems... it's also possible that they won't. Let's put this in perspective. The problem description is (and I'm paraphrasing here): high amounts of noise in the imagery -even at lower ISOs- higher than imagery shot years prior w/ same settings... and her camera is shooting at higher ISOs than should be required. ...maybe the battery is the source of that problem... buuuuuut that's a pretty sketchy logical reasoning tree.... possible? sure. likely? mmmmmm TBH, I think that a battery that is leaking enough over current to result in this effect on the imagery a) is going to last long enough to shoot for about 5min before the camera shuts off due to marginal power, and b) may have already done significant damage to the camera's voltage regulated power systems. As should be obvious, the sensor does NOT operate at B+ voltage. The camera regulates the voltage sent to all the digital and analog subsystems. This should isolate the sensor from all overcurrent as long as the battery's power delivery stays above the minimum required to supply the voltage regulators (which is also well beyond the point where a blinking battery is all you see on the display when you turn the camera on). Unless there is damage or failures in the camera's power distribution systems, no failing battery should ever have an effect on sensor noise. The camera is designed specifically to avoid that - else I'd be getting noisier and noisier images every time I shot through a battery.