mark_pierlot

<p>Eric, you're <em>Out to Lunch!</em></p> <p>Seriously, it's great to see another lover of jazz here on photo.net. Welcome!</p>

<p>So does that mean that if I were to publish an article arguing that raising livestock for food is unsustainable in one of the states that had these so-called "food libel laws," I'd be running afoul of the law? Or would I have to target specific producers?</p>

<p>While I have no experience with the lens in question (although I did recently acquire the new 100-400, which I'm enjoying), I do have a comment. If you use the 1.4x teleconverter a lot, and if there is a demonstrable difference in IQ between versions I and III, it would make sense to upgrade. After all, you're spending $9000 on the lens, so an additional $450 hardly seems worth worrying about.</p> <p>And won't the 7D2 give you the greater effective reach that you're needing, anyway, or do you require even more reach?</p>

<p>Yes, the 35-105/3.5 is a fine zoom. But the 80-200/4 L is even finer, and probably the least expensive L zoom Canon has ever made. Clean copies of it can be had for $200.</p>

<p>Another vote for the FD 50/1.4. There are many great FD lenses, but this one probably has the best IQ to cost ratio.</p>

<p>I have had both the 24-105/4 L and the 24-70/2.8 L, and have to say that the image quality of the 24-70/2.8 L II exceeds that of those zooms by a considerable margin. It really does deliver the resolution and contrast of prime lenses. I realize it's expensive, but really can't praise it enough. </p>

<p>The lens tested very well on an APS-C body, with <em>excellent </em>center resolution throughout its zoom range (see <a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/182-canon-ef-20-35mm-f28l-lab-test-report--review">photozone's review)</a>.</p> <p>And if it performs comparably to the FD 20-35/3.5 L, which was one of the very best FD zooms made, it will serve you very well.</p>

<p>I like the ECF feature of the 3, but prefer the 1V in every other respect. They are the only EOS film bodies I have used. (I plan on shooting some Ektar 100 with the 1V this spring).</p>

<p>I was always a little underwhelmed by the image quality of the 24-105, but it is a versatile lens and I'm sure it will be missed by many photographers when it is discontinued. It's also one of the few L lenses that's relatively affordable.</p>

<p>The 70-200/4 L IS has been my workhorse outdoor lens for years. When the 70-200/2.8 L IS II came out, I briefly considered getting it, but I just couldn't justify the added cost, weight, and bulk of it over the f/4 zoom, all for a mere extra stop.</p> <p>As for the IS feature, I'll echo Robin's advice that it's invaluable for all but fast moving subjects, where high shutter speeds are needed. Nowadays, I wouldn't consider buying a longer lens without IS. Being able to shoot handheld in most lighting conditions is more than worth the additional cost to me.</p>

<p>As some others have said, the 105/2.5 would ideal for tight portraiture, though it's a little long for that application on DX. </p>

<p>If you have much invested in lenses, obviously you should stick with Canon. And with the current state of sensor technology, lenses make more difference to image quality than bodies, anyway.</p>

<p>It's far to uniform to be flare, and looks more like a sensor issue to me.</p>

<p>Thanks, Bill. I've decided to go with a local service (I'm in Vancouver, BC).</p>

<p>Great work as usual, Bill. I have a few hundred Kodachrome slides of my father's that I'd like to have digitized. If you don't mind me asking, how much did the service cost per slide for you? I'd just like to have an idea about what I'm getting into.</p>

<p>Since you already have an APS-C body, I would get a full frame body, particularly since you are intending on shooting weddings. I recommend the 5DII over the 5D for its higher resolution and better high ISO performance. 5DII prices have really dropped lately. And the 7D has pretty much the same sensor as the 600D, so there'd be no gain in resolution with it.</p> <p>Having a dual format kit gives you the best of both worlds: better IQ and low light performance with the full frame body, and more effective reach with the crop body.</p> <p>As for lenses, I think you'll need a faster zoom, such as the 24-70, for weddings, though I'm sure you could get by for now with your 24-105. Perhaps a faster normal prime would suffice at present.</p>

<p>To avoid the potential problem, just use rechargeable NiMH batteries.</p>

<p>Gorgeous shots, Bill.</p>

<p>Great shot, Philippe. Thanks for posting the link.</p> <p>I'm going to show it to my friend, who's both a Beatlemaniac and an amateur photographer.</p>

<p>Raid, have you tried the FDn 80-200/4 L? It's obviously a stop slower than the 200/2.8, but is surprisingly sharper.</p>

<p>For fine art portraiture and weddings, a full frame camera would be give you the greatest improvement in image quality over your current body. You should be able to find a used 5DII, and another prime such as the 85/1.8 or 135/2, and stay close to your budget. Do bear in mind, however, that for paid wedding work, you'll need a backup body in case your primary one fails.</p>

<p>Its lack of GPS and WiFi capability doesn't bother me in the least, but like many, many EOS users, I'd like a sensor with greater dynamic range. With two young children, I often find myself shooting in the midday sun, and long for a digital sensor that gives me the DR of the Kodak Ektar 100 film that I use (all too rarely these days).</p> <p>Are there any online specs of the DR of the 5Ds yet?</p>

<blockquote> <p>Yes, agree with JDM: why not consider the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm? It gets rave reviews from many (not all) and is really cheap - not a lot to lose really, if 14mm appeals.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Another vote for the Samyang 14/2.8. It's stunningly sharp (more so than the mightily expensive EF 14/2.8), and very well built.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Personally, better low DR at low ISO is a non-issue for me...</p> </blockquote> <p>It's interesting how personal needs are so widely variant. Since I most often find myself shooting in the midday sun, when DR demands are at their highest, low DR at low ISO is pretty much the <em>only</em> issue I have with either my 5DII or 7D.</p> <p>I'm waiting for an EOS sensor that gives me the same DR as that of Kodak Ektar 100 film, but I daresay I may be waiting for a long, long time...</p>

<p>My daughter was six when I got her a used Canon XSi, which I later replaced with an SL1 (she's almost eight now). The SL1 is, I believe, the smallest and lightest DSLR ever made. She enjoys photography, but uses only a small fraction of her camera's features. I got her an EOS body so we can share EF lenses, since I also use EOS.</p>