mark_pierlot

<p>I'd like to agree and (respectfully) disagree with William. I do a lot of photography of my children, both indoors and out, and in most circumstances the combination of the 24-70/2.8 L II and 70-200/4 L IS is optimal. In some situations, such as my daughter's piano recitals in dimly lit churches, I use a fast prime such as the 85/1.2 L II, but the aforementioned zooms cover 95% of my shooting needs.</p> <p>(By the way, I concur with William's endorsements of the 35/1.4 L and 135/2 L, which are two of Canon's finest primes.)</p>

<blockquote> <p>the canon 50mm was rubbish for unreliability</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> I got my 50/1.4 way back when I first adopted the EOS system, and have had no issues with it. Perhaps its reputation for unreliability is the result the "internet effect." People tend to complain loudly online when their gear gives them problems, but are less inclined to praise their gear when it's working well. I bet there are many, many more people who are satisfied with their 50/1.4's than are not.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I'm not sure which one of those fancy lenses is best for all that, but since lenses used by professionals don't fit the rebel body I think, is there a lens recommendation that can reproduce somewhat something similar in a rebel?</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> All Canon EF and EF-S lenses will fit on your Rebel. If by "lenses used by professionals" you mean L-series lenses, they'll fit as well.<br> <br> As for replicating the work of professionals, I'm afraid that simply getting better lenses alone won't achieve this. For that, you need photographic skill, and all the practice and hard work that entails. And I should know, since I'm a rank amateur myself. :-)<br> </p>

<p>Kathlyn, don't rule out the 5DII if you can find one for a good price. It has slightly higher resolution than the 6D, and is very good in low light if you nail the exposure (though I realize the 6D is better in this regard). </p>

<p>I use an Eg-S screen in my 5DII, and haven't had an issue with darkening with my <f/2.8 zoom, perhaps because I use that lens exclusively outdoors.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Can you give an example of that non-newness for <a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/392580/slide_392580_4789160_free.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this photo</a> from that page.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> It looks very much like any number of the surrealist collage pieces that my grade 5-7 students have done.<br> <br> Jeff, would you ever be impressed with some of the artwork my students do. I should scan some of it, and send it to you.</p>

<p>As the others have said, if you need 300mm, obviously get the 70-300 L. And if you think you need more than 300m, the new 100-400 L would fit the bill. Otherwise, get the 70-200/4 L IS. It's a terrific lens </p>

<blockquote> <p>That begs the question- why not reinvest in AF FF Pentax lenses...</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> Or in Canon or Nikon FF AF lenses, for that matter. To me, it makes little sense to build a system around a few older MF lenses. Not that I'm knocking MF lenses. I occasionally use them on my FF DSLR myself, but the mainstay of my lens use is AF.<br /> <br /> If you were to acquire a non-Pentax FF DSLR, you could get an adapter to use your MF lenses, and later pick up fully compatible AF lenses. In the meantime, you'd be able to shoot in manual exposure or aperture priority without having to resort to stop-down metering.</p> <p>Late 2015 is a year away, the rumoured FF Pentax may not materialize, and your son is rapidly growing in the meantime...</p>

<p>Lovely image, Bill.</p> <p>Over the past several years, I've been paring down my FD collection, but I have kept most of my favourite lenses. I'm glad I hung onto one of my FD 300/4 L's (I had two, as well as a 300/2.8 L). In your hands, at least, it's a gem.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Used to use Kodak Lens Cleaner and Kodak lens cleaning paper but [not] sure if they still make them.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Kodak lens paper is now made by Tiffen. I use it regularly. As for cleaning solution, I don't think the Kodak formula is still available, but solutions for eyeglasses that are safe for coated optics work just fine.<br> <br> I would <em>never</em> dry wipe a lens dry with any material without at least fogging it with your breath first.</p>

<p>Thanks for the information, Steve.</p> <p>It's good to see that both of my older bodies (the 5DII and 7D) are supported, as well as my daughter's SL1.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I am not hearing great endorsements for the 50/1.4...</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> The EF 50/1.4 is a great lens optically, though some claim that it's a little soft wide open. This perception is largely due to it's reduced contrast at f/1.4. But by f/2, only a fool would claim it's not sharp. And every report I've ever read says it outperforms the 50/1.8 by a considerable margin.</p> <p>It's also claimed that there are durability issues with the 50/1.4. I think this is a result of there being a lot of them out there, compounded by the fact that the owners of those relatively few that fail tend to complain loudly online, while the owners of the many more that don't fail are out happily shooting with them.</p> <p>:-)</p>

<p>Jamie +2</p> <p>If I were you, I would definitely get my 24-105 fixed and pick up another 50mm, such as the Sigma 50/1.4 ART. The 24-70/4 L IS is pretty underwhelming, from all I've read and heard, so if you can't afford 24-70/2.8 L II (which is a stellar lens, by the way), you might as well stick with the standard zoom already you have, and augment it with a stellar fast prime.</p>

<p>I agree with Mark. The FD 50/1.4, in any of its incarnations, is a superb lens, with great resolution and contrast. I have a 50/1.2 L and used to have a 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical, and would say that unless you need f/1.2, the 50/1.4 would be more than adequate for you.</p>

<p>When I decided to augment my full frame 5DII with an APS-C body, my choice was between the 40D and 50D. I opted for the latter (though I have since replaced it with a 7D), and also bought one for my brother, which he's happily used for several years.</p> <p>I found the 50D to be a very robust, capable body. I think the claim that it has high ISO performance is overblown. I obtained very clean images with it at 1600, though of course they had to be properly exposed. Of course the newer bodies are better in this regard, but that doesn't mean the 50D is terrible.</p> <p>If I were you, Harry, I'd go with the newer body.</p>

<p>The 70-200/4 L IS has been my most used lens since I got it (used!) a half dozen years ago; it's robustly built, and has performed flawlessly. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I would be very surprised if going from version one to version two on either of these lenses [24-70] would make any appreciable difference.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> I have found that version two to be significantly sharper than version one, with which I was always a little disappointed. But I'm not sure that the upgrade would be worth doing in your case, Delanza.</p>

<p>I agree with Gil that you should stick with Canon. They really hit the mark with their 70-200's, which are the finest lenses in their class.</p> <p>However, unlike Gil, I picked up my 70-200/4 L IS (slightly) used about a half dozen years ago, and it's been my most used and most reliable lens since. I bought my lens in a private sale, without warranty. Presumably, the retailer you're looking at offers some kind of warranty, so the sale would be relatively risk free.</p>

<p>When I last checked the metering of one of my F-1N's (w/ AE screen) with that of one of my EOS digital bodies, the readings were virtually identical. Perhaps the meter of your problematic F-1N needs to be calibrated.</p>

<p>Snapshots?</p>

<blockquote> <p>The 85 L looks like it might be a more reasonable alternative. Since have and use both what do you find the differences are between them? Is the aspherical worth the additional money?</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> In my opinion, it's not. As far as I know, they share the same (or almost the same) optical formula. For example, both lenses have an aspherical element. <br> <br> Some argue that the 9-bladed aperture of the aspherical is superior to the 8-bladed aperture of the L, but the latter has gorgeous bokeh regardless. And the earlier lens doesn't have a dedicated hood, while the newer one does.<br> <br> I actually paid quite a bit less for my aspherical than I did for my L, but that was because the seller wasn't aware of its market value. I would say that you find the best specimen of either lens that you can, and buy it if you can afford it. Whichever one you end up getting, you won't be disappointed.<br> </p>

<p>I've had dozens of FD lenses, and there are very few that have been disappointing. A few, however, do stand out:</p> <p>135/2<br /> 85/1.2 L<br /> 85/1.2 SSC Aspherical<br /> 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical<br /> 50/1.2 L<br /> 50/1.4<br /> 35/2 SSC concave<br /> 24/2<br /> 80-200/4 L<br /> 35-105/3.5<br /> 20-35/3.5 L</p> <p>My most-used FD lenses are the 50/1.4 and 80-200/4 L, but my favourite would have to be either variant of the 85/1.2 (I also have the EF 85/1.2 L II, which is my go-to lens for my daughter's music recitals and the like). There is something about its combination of razor sharpness and velvety smooth bokeh that makes it unique.</p>

<p>David, could you please let us know how the low ISO dynamic range of the 7DII compares to that of the 7D? The reason I'm asking is that I often find myself shooting outdoors around midday, when DR demands are high.</p> <p>Since I have a 5DII (in addition to a 7D), which serves me well for low light situations, I won't be upgrading to a 7DII for its high ISO performance alone (nor am I terribly interested in the superior AF system of the newer body, since I almost always shoot static or slow moving subjects).</p>

<p>I can't wait to see the results, Tim.</p>

<p>That's a gorgeous specimen of the 28/2 SSC, Tim. I would've bought it in a heartbeat had it been available to me.</p>