andreasb

<p>I use the 100-400mm L IS lens all the time for wildlife shooting. Dust has never been a problem but cold weather can be a small issue below 20 degrees F or -7 degrees C. It takes about 10 minutes for the lens to adjust to the outside temperature when coming from indoors or a warm car. If I do not wait long enough, the lens will fog up on the inside when it is extended because it sucks air into itself. This clears up quickly once the lens cools down to the outside temperature. There has never been any kind of long term effect from this issue as far as I can tell. My copy of the 100-400mm lens has always taken fantastic photos and I have used it very frequently over the lest three years.</p>

<p>I have a 7D and have had focusing problems using the far right and far left focal points (landscape orientation) with some lenses. After asking about it here on this forum, I found out this is a known issue with some but not all lenses. Since that time, I have avoided these two focal points with the lenses they do not work well with and have been able to work around the issue with much better results.</p>

<p>Since the 7D and the 5DII have different focusing systems this might not apply but I thought I would contribute this comment in case it is helpful since I did not see other comments that mentioned it. Maybe it is not relevant with the 5DII.</p>

<p>I use the 28mm, 50mm and 85mm (all f/1.8) all the time right now because the results are so much better than any zoom I have in a similar range. I think your idea of adding a macro lens of some sort is interesting and something I have been considering as well. Personally, I was leaning towards the 60mm f/2.8. The reason for this is not because I want to do true macro photography but because the minimum focus distance on the 28mm, 50mm and 85mm is still pretty far away from the front of the lens for my purposes. Sometimes when I want to make a detail shot of something, I cannot get quite close enough and have to crop the photo with software. This is not too bad but I would prefer to do this with a more appropriate lens instead and learn to do it right before I have to resort to software. I have not yet discussed my idea with someone more knowledgeable so I may be heading in the wrong direction. I am still working on a good solution with what I have and maybe I just need to use the 85mm instead of the 28mm or 50mm to "zoom" in closer while shooting from within its focal range.</p>

<p>Most of my photography is somewhat photojournalistic in nature and done in low light.</p>

<p>I hope this is helpful and I am curious what the more experienced folks around here have to say about my crazy scheme.</p>

<p>Careful or you will make other prominent Hepburns jealous.</p>

<p>You are correct, Alan. It is the Sigma 20mm f/1.8. My mistake - I'm sorry.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for all the input. This turned out more complicated than I thought it was going to be. I will stick whith what I have.</p>

<p>I have a refurbished 7D and a 40D - No problems with either. The 40D lasted for over twice as many shutter activations as it was rated for in the specifications.</p>

<p>Thank you very much for your comments!</p>

<p>Larry, the link you sent me sounds like a reasonable explanation. I do have a Tamron 17-50mm lens but have not used it much in the last few months. Since most of my shooting was in very low light, I though I would try a Sigma 17-50mm with OS to see if it would help even a little bit. I have essentially replaced the Tamron with it. I also have a Canon 17-40mm lens that I inherited a short while ago. All three of my lenses have the same problem on the outside two focal points. I also have a few primes that behave similarly.</p>

<p>I thought all the focal points on the 7D were identical. Thanks for educating me. Most of my problems in life seem to end up ignorance related. At least I understand now and can find a way to work with it.</p>

<p>John, I am not unhappy with the two 17-50mm lenses or the Canon 17-40mm lenses and use them often. Two of the three zooms will be traded in next time I have a need.</p>

<p>Much of my shooting is at high ISO so the primes help me in the large aperture department. The interesting thing I keep noticing is that my photos are less noisy looking with the primes than the zooms. Since I can use lower ISO settings with the primes than the zooms, this is probably a good explanation for it. I get great results around f/2.0-f/2.2 with all three of my primes.</p>

<p>When all settings are equal, however, I still notice the results are reliably better with the primes than the zoom lenses. I am not looking at my photos at 100%. I am looking at the full photo that fits in my monitor. The image quality is still noticeably better with the primes than the zooms.</p>

<p>Since it would be nice to have something wider than the 28mm f/1.8 on my crop sensor camera, I thought I would get some feedback on the affordable Canon and Sigma 20mm lenses. As I do often rely on auto focus, it sounds like there is no good, practical, affordable solution here. I will have to stick with my zooms for wide angle shots.</p>

<p>I really appreciate all the feedback!</p>

<p>Thank you all very much for your input!<br>

I am surprised at what you have told me about the Canon 20mm lens. My cheap, $90, plastic 50mm f/1.8 does a really good job and the 28mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 do even better. I had really hoped the 20mm f/2.8 would be similar.<br>

According to the link that Philip posted above, the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 does significantly better than the Canon lens. Has anyone had any experience with the Sigma lens?</p>

<p>I use a Canon 7D and generally love the new focusing system is has. When shooting, I try to get a focal point right on the spot I want to have in focus so I have gotten used to flipping through my focal points in a hurry rather than focusing with the center point and then recomposing. Most of my subjects are moving to some degree (general photojournalism stuff) and I frequently switch between one shot and servo mode, usually with good results with two exceptions and those are the outside two focal points. I am talking about the extreme right and extreme left focal points when looking through the viewfinder, holding the camera in landscape mode. The other focal points work great but these two seem to give me softer, maybe even stranger, results. The quality of the entire image seems different. The color brilliance and contrast seem slightly reduced but this could be the result of the softness also. This situation seems independent of any lens I use.<br>

I doubt my equipment is malfunctioning since everything else seems to be working great. I am really just looking for a better understanding of what is going on here. If anyone has some insight, I would greatly appreciate it.<br>

Thanks for your help!</p>

<p>I am not a pro but have been taking classes with demanding instructors who have pushed me very hard and have made a dramatic improvement in my skills. As a result, I am much more demanding of myself, my results and my gear. This brought up some issues I have been working on solving for the last year. Here is the gear I am using:<br>

Canon 7D<br />Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS<br />Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non-OS<br />Canon 17-40mm f/4<br />Canon Primes: 28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8<br>

I started using primes because the results for my cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens were so much better than any of the zooms that I frequently find myself unsatisfied with the results of the zooms and have switched more and more to primes as much as is practical.<br>

I am considering a Canon 20mm f/2.8 or a Sigma 20mm f/1.4 because I need something fairly wide at a reasonable price. Both of these lenses have mixed reviews and I find myself hesitating to buy one. The rest of the primes I have listed were relatively highly recommended and have worked out great for me. I shoot mostly in a photojournalistic style and am curious if the problems discussed are the result of people's desire for absolute perfection, or if they are, from a practical standpoint, just not that significant. Here is what I have read about these lenses online:<br>

Canon 20mm f/2.8<br />Soft around the edges<br />Lifeless colors<br />Bad detail<br>

Sigma 20mm f/1.4<br />Soft (Isn't this to be expected at f/1.4? Should it not improve stopped down?)<br />Inaccurate focus<br />Bad detail<br />Bad contrast<br>

These are, of course, just the complaints. There are many more good reviews also. Are most of the issues listed the result of not understanding the nature of the lenses and how to use them or are there inherent challenges in making this kind of lens work well?</p>

 

<p>My guess is that your problem may be Windows related rather than camera related. Maybe you have accidentally clicked on a column heading in your folder that sorts your files to something strange like file size. Try clicking on the "Name" column heading in your folder and see if it sorts the files by name. If it works, you can click on the column heading again to reverse the order or any other column heading you might want to sort by.<br>

JDM's post above discusses a similar solution.<br>

If you are already aware of this, I apologize.</p>

<p>The technique described on the Strobist site takes a bit of getting used to but is generally very easy, straight forward and uses the least expensive gear available. I think it is also a great lesson in just how light works and improved my non-flash photography as well. Before you buy anything, I would seriously check it out because it may change your entire approach as sometimes Canon's offerings lend themselves less well to their technique than some of the cheapest used flashes you can find on ebay. I ended up buying a 580EXII and a 430EXII with remotes anyway but I could have done the same job with 1/4 of the budget, but I also wanted to be able to use Canon's approach as well as the Strobist's and now I can do both. However, I use the Strobist's techniques at least 90% of the time and could do everything that way but sometimes I get lazy and just use the ETTL settings.</p>

<p>Congratulations on your newborn and Happy New Year!</p>

<p>I have the Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 both non-IS) and use them both with my 7D. Great lenses at a fair price. Canon's prices are crazy and have only become worse.</p>

<p>I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the Canon 85mm f/1.8. All three are great lenses and I do not leave home without them. They each have different applications as has been pointed out and their differences are what make each of them unique. It sounds like you are well on your way to a nice kit. I'd rather be out there shooting than working overtime for all of the more expensive alternatives no matter how much better they might be. And I cannot imagine the differences are that great.</p>

<p>By the way, I shoot with a 40D and a 7D in case this information is useful.</p>

<p>It might be important to mention that the in-camera sharpness setting (and related settings) only effect jpg images and do not apply to RAW files at all. If you are shooting RAW files, increasing the sharpness from 3 to 7 would not make any difference at all. The pros around here can explain this better than I can in case there are any questions or I have not explained this properly.</p>

<p>A similar thing happened to me and I took it to a local guy who charged me about $200 for the repair. But he also cleaned the whole thing. He is a well respected former Nikon employee in our area.</p>

<p> Ok, I'll give this a shot to challenge the Nikon folks</p><div></div>

<p>Canon 7D with 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L Lens</p>

<p>Have you considered the similar Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8? It works fantastically with my cameras and is incredibly sharp. The image quality has never left me with anything to complain about and it is fairly light weight and reliable. The price is also great in comparison to the alternatives.</p>

<p>Make sure your exposures are not longer than the flash can handle. I think 1/200 or 1/250 is all the faster Canon flashes can go. I do not own the 220 EX but that it the way it works with my 580 EX II. I hope this helps. Good luck!</p>

<p>"Out of focus, in focus, out of focus..."<br />"Circles of Confusion..."<br />"Clint and Brynner together..."</p>

<p>Perhaps these lofty questions should best be left to a good psychiatrist? They are starting to sound more like a life style problem than lens issues.</p>

<p>Sorry Michael, nothing personal but you left me too big an opening and I could not resist. I hope you are smiling at my little pot shot also! No harm intended.</p>

<p>Have a great day!</p>

<p>I have an 18-200mm optically stabilized Sigma for my Canon 40D. It is a great lens to learn with and I have taken lots of great photos with mine. Someday I'll even add some to my portfolio here on Photo.net. Eventually I got better lenses but I still use the 18-200mm lens for hiking around the forests in North Idaho because it is light weight and does a good job throughout its range. It even does a fairly good job a macro photography. I have never regretted buying this lens.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>I believe the 11x14 frame that Jim is talking about above are the same MCS plastic frames sold by Adorama through Amazon.com that I was talking about in my earlier comment above. Great cheap frames!</p>

<p>Have a 16x20 print made and take it in as a sample. For most hospital settings, this is probably big enough. I decorated my sister's entire clinic this way and she loved it even though we thought we would have to go bigger also.</p>

<p>Any 8MP camera has some room to crop and still make a decent 16x20. And it won't cost too much for the amateurs on a budget.</p>