bjscharp

I can imagine the metering not working properly with an adapted lens, but the difference between the 400D and the 40D is weird. Other layout of the TTL-zones maybe? Have you tried setting the camera to another metering mode?

<quote>>>Actually, I amïﾾ… :-)</quote>

<p>Bought yourself a noctilux yet? :-) </p>

 

<quote>>>Yes, but isn't it a pity it doesn't work for upright bird shots? :-)</quote>

<p>Never heard of jumping? I heard it works <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Philippe-Halsmans-Jump-Book-Halsman/dp/0810923386">very well</a> with photography ;-)</p>

 

Cheers!

<quote>>> Isn't this a third of a stop?</quote>

 

<p>Actually, it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#Typical_one-third-stop_f-number_scale">two-thirds</a></p>

 

<quote>>> Is it meaningful? </quote>

 

<p>I really doubt it, unless you're an enormous fan of limited dof...</p>

 

<quote>>> Which is (1) absolutely negligible and (2) can be corrected with half a step forward or backwards.</quote>

 

<p>I agree on both points. Moving the photographer, the best zoom-lens ever...</p>

 

<quote>>> Yes, though it's corner sharpness means you would not want to use of FF.... :-(</quote>

 

<p>However, on a crop this wouldn't really matter, while the Sigma doesn't really excel at corner sharpness either... </p>

 

<p>Isn't choice a wonderful thing? :-)</p>

 

<p>Happy shooting to you too!</p>

Good point. However, it's just as expensive as the Sigma, is half a stop darker wide open, and it's more like 45mm than 50mm.

 

As I'm not planning on selling this lens as long as I have a crop-factor camera, the lower resale value doesn't really bother me, and the Sigma handles very nice (good MF ring) and is build like a tank... :-)

 

The 28 does have the advantage of working on FF cameras though.

 

It's up to personal preference I guess :-) (isn't everything in photography?)

Bob, Canon doesn't make a better equivalent to the Sigma. It has the `fast standard prime for aps-c' category all to itself...

A simple tip, which applies to most big cities, but especially, to amsterdam: Try to bring a bag that doesn't look too much like a camera bag. Otherwise it just screams out to a certain part of the population `steal me! steal me!'.

 

Amsterdam can be a great city for tourists, but watch your stuff...

Just a quick thing I was wondering about.

 

I'm sure we've all looked around at second hand lenses at one time or another, but

I've noticed that quite often, these lenses go out for nearly as much as a new lens

would do. Now, this is of course a very good thing if you plan to sell lenses, and

not a big deal, since indeed most of these lenses are just as good as a new one

would be. Being a Canon user, I know that most L-series lensen are tough enough

that I'd have few problems buying it second hand.

 

One thing you'll always miss when buying second-hand though, is manufacturer

warranty. However, most brands only offer one year warranty anyway, so you can

wonder how important that is in the first place.

 

So, the question (at last):

If you had to choose between a well treated second-hand lens without warranty, or

a new one with, how big would you need the price-difference to be before going

either way. Let's assume you know the lens is good and comes with all important

accessories.

 

Personally, even though the warranty is only a year, I think I'd still need something

like 10-15% of difference in price before going second-hand.

 

Your thoughts?

If you connect the camera to a computer and open the EOS utility, there's an option `Camera settings/Remote shooting'

 

That gives you pretty much unlimited options for periodic, repeated shots.

 

I would get an AC adapter first though.

Though I must say, I've never gotten that much of action-stopping from the kit lens on my 400D... :-)

Sigma 30mm f1.4 (though the EF 135mm f2 is a very close second)

 

Currently don't have any zooms (aside from the kit)...

I have a 400D and a 30 (not D), and I'll be using the lens mostly on the film body.

 

I think backpacking (which is when I'll be shooting the landscapes) is still more practical with an `old fashioned' camera, as I don't have to lug around a charger for that one time a week when I'm even in the vincinity of electricity. Otherwise, i would indeed have had a serious look at the 10-22...

Thanks for all the responses! Especially the link posted by Chris JB answered a lot of my questions (if the mk1 of the 16-35 was significantly different from the mk 2 one, judging from that review and the reviews I've seen of the mk2, looks like it's noticably less sharp at the wide end)

 

Also glad to hear that a lot of people are happy with the 17-40 as a landscape lens. The bidding has by now passed over the price of a new 17-40, so unless I see a good 2nd hand one anytime soon, I think I'll indeed be hopping on the rebate-bandwagon soon.

 

Thanks again for al the replies!

For shooting sport indoors with a crop body, the 135mm f2.0 together with a 1.4 extender is a killer combo. In effect, it gives you a 200mm and a 300mm lens with 2.0 and 2.8 max apertures, respectively, and the crop factor means that any loss in corner sharpness (if any, I've never seen it) caused by the extender is lost outside the sensor.

 

I use it a lot for shooting in swimming pools. See here for an example:

http://www.photo.net/photo/7088553

Another vote for the Sigma 30mm here. As a leave-on-your-camera lens it's ideal for APS-C sensor camera's, just like 50mm is for film and FF.

 

If you want a portrait lens, the 50mm might be better (and certainly cheaper), but it's a lot less `all purpose'.

I have a PEN-FT, and four or five lenses and accessories (2x teleconverter, macro-ring set). They haven't been used for years though, and are probably going to end up for sale anytime soon.

My walk around with my 400D (XTi) is a Sigma 30mm f1.4.

 

Call me old-fashioned, but give me a wide-aperture standard prime over a standard zoom anyday.

 

It comes down to personal preference of course, but I thought someone should point out the `other' option... :-)

A question.

 

I'm currently shopping around for a wide-angle zoom for use on an EOS 30. I'll be

using it primarily for landscapes.

 

I had pretty much decided on the 17-40L, as I don't need the 2 extra stops the

16-35 offers (Most shooting will be done at f11 or smaller).

 

However, when looking around for second hand opportunities, I came across a

mark 1 16-35L f2.8, which was then well below the price for a new (or even second

hand) 17-40. I placed a bid, but the price is rising now (more takers), and getting

close

to the price of a new 17-40.

 

So now I'm wondering how far I'm willing to go. Like I said, I don't really need the

wide aperture, though it would (of course) be nice to have (The lens could see

some second action as an indoor lens on my 400D).

 

Thus, my question is twofold:

- How does the 16-35 mk1 perform in comparison to the 17-40? I've read that barrel

distortion is worse on the 16-35 compared to both the mk2 and the 17-40.

- If the 16-35 mk1 would be a good buy, what price would be acceptable? What did

these lenses cost new? A new 16-35 mk2 goes here for about 1350 euros, a new

17-40 for 650 euros.

 

Any advice will be appreciated!

 

Regards,

Bernard

I just purchased a `new' EOS 30 (second hand), for Landscape use. Until the 5D family becomes a lot cheaper, film is still the easy way to go for extreme wide angle, especially for Nikon users (who don't have a `5D' yet...

You might hang on to one or two of your best bodies for that, and try to sell the rest.

 

Just don't sell it for less than it's worth to you, otherwise you're losing out on the deal. I have one film body I'll probably never sell. It's an `old' Miranda MS-2. Worth maybe 20 bucks to someone else, but it was my grandfather's, and you can't put a price on that.

Nikon Coolscan V ED here. Unless you plan to do extreme crops, everything to 400 ASA will be perfectly useable.

 

400 ASA at full resolution will look a bit grainy, but so will an enlargement from the same negative.

 

I've had great experiences with Kodak 200 HD film, myself.

 

On the whole, if you're dedicated to film, any of the Nikon scanners is well worth the investment.

Whether you should buy it or not depends on your camera and what you use it for.

 

If you have a crop factor camera and do landscapes, it's pointless.

 

If you have a FF camera and want a fast, light and disposable standard lens, it's excellent.

 

 

I have it, and use it a lot (the Mk I version, but I have both, and optically they're identical). I use it on my crop body for short range sports photography.

 

See the attached image for an example. I'd rather do that with a 100 buck lens where I don't care if it gets soaked, than with a lens 5 times as expensive that'll be just as dead if it gets soaked, and I'll keep using that lens for this until Canon make an L-series (sealed) 50mm prime that's not as expensive as the f1.2<div></div>

You go boy! :-)

 

If photography isn't fun, you're doing it wrong.

<div></div>