robmilton

<p>David and John: I just snorted my drink through my nose TWICE. Awesome.</p>

<p>I have to credit Tommy DiGiovanni for talking me into this lens some time ago. I love it! It's certainly soft and prone to CA wide-open, but I would contend you can use the softness to your advantage sometimes. By f2 it's a fantastic performer.</p>

<p>Both of the images below were taken with the 28 f1.8 on my 40D and appear here completely unedited (no color correction, no sharpening, only resized for space considerations). The lion (from St. Peter's in Rome) was shot at f2 and the mother with child sculpture (from the Hermitage in St. Petersburg) was at f2.8. I hope this is helpful.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.robmilton.com/img/28_lion.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<br /><img src="http://www.robmilton.com/img/28_mother.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>

<p>"I would bet most dud lenses are really dud users." I'd have to agree, Tommy, and I include myself. As I've learned the strengths and weakness of various of my lenses (aperture "sweet spots", contrast issues, etc.) I can see a marked improvement in my images.<br>

 

<p>(By the way, Tommy, I never properly thanked you for talking me into buying the 28mm f/1.8 over something else several months back. I've loved it!)</p>

</p>

</p>

<p>

<p>No, Rob B., that was simply his subjective opinion. But since he earns a living with his Canon gear and I'm just an amateur, I considered his opinion more experience-informed than my own.<br>

 

<p>Michael and Ken, thanks for your perspective. Like I said, I haven't given much thought to whether or not I'm one of those Canon "loyalists" until now, but I didn't want to be ignorant to a dowward trend if there was a broad consensus about this. Thanks again.<br>

 

<p>"Minolta (who?)" Nice. :)</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

<p>

<p>Just sold mine, and didn't shed a tear. I didn't hate it, per se, but it did have it's frustrations.<br>

 

<p>As many here have said, mine was very soft wide open and gave a yellow or orange cast. I vacillated for a while about whether to keep it or sell/trade it. My decision came when I was staying up late one night going through a batch of shots from a friend's wedding taken with this lens: I realized that I spend more time "correcting" shots from the 50 than from any of my other lenses.<br>

 

<p>So I sold it.</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

<p>

<p>Hello, all.<br>

 

<p>I was out shooting for fun with a friend of mine (who is a full-time professional) and he made a comment about Canon's deteriorating QC (quality control) over the last few years. I made mental note of it, but didn't think too deeply about it until I read this article:<br>

 

<p><a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/26/canon.babies/index.html">http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/26/canon.babies/index.html</a><br>

 

<p>In light of this article, I'm really just curious what your thoughts are, O Photo.net Gurus. Do you have concerns about the quality of Canon's products in the long-term? Do you see a downward trend? Are you dissatisfied Canon's business decisions (whether it be things like in the above article or something else)?<br>

 

<p>I received a 35mm film Canon in college as a gift, and when I decided to "go digitial" I stuck with Canon simply because I couldn't afford to invest in a lot of new glass. So, I've never really considered the issue of brand loyalty, but recently it seems like I've been hearing and reading about issues that concern me as a Canon user. Am I just getting caught up in the alarmism?<br>

 

<p>Your thoughts?</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

I've just shot an entire season of local volleyball matches, and from the sidelines I end up shooting through the net at about a 35-degree angle a LOT. I've learned that if I use the center focus point of my camera and manually focus past the net, the lens tends not to "see" the net and therefore won't lock on it, since the autofocus is looking for contrast and the contrast of a jersey (or something like that) will be "seen" by the focus point instead of the blurred net. Even with AI Servo AF this tends not to be a problem.<div></div>

Sorry to post twice. I forgot to mention that I'm using the 17-40 on my 40D.

I recently bought the 17-40 before a trip to Russia. I took my 28 1.8 and my 50 1.4 also, thinking I'd use them in varying degrees and in various situations. The 17-40 ALMOST NEVER CAME OFF MY CAMERA. the image quality is so high -- color rendition, sharpness, contrast are BRILLIANT. I was even surprised at it's performance in low-light and available-light situations (still went to my faster primes, but less than I would have thought).

 

In short, the 17-40 is a wonderful general use lens and I would agree with others her in highly recommending it!

Aliens, clearly :)

I appreciate your effort to allow me to keep TWO great camera bodies, Tommy!

 

<p>I did notice the giant front threads on the 16-35. I'm thinking it would also almost definitely interfere with the on-board flash? (I use it for fill-in sometimes.) I'll have to make a habit of carrying my speedlite more often.

 

<p>Looking like the 16-35 or the 17-40 with the 28 in the side pouch.

 

<p>Thanks to everyone for their kind guidance. I'll post some pictures from the resulting purchase.

Ben, I was actually just pricing the 17-40L and the Sigma 30 f/1.4 as a two-lens solution. I have the Canon 28 f/1.8, and I tend to be averse to third-party lenses, but for the right price, I could be open to the Sigma (I'm a sucker for that f/1.4 DOF). And you're right, I know I won't get it all from one lens, I'm just trying to pick something "versatile."

 

<p>Tommy, I appreciate the suggestion, but my wife has a Sony Cybershot, which she asks me to change the settings for her. She uses it take pictures of her book club (more like wine club) buddies. If that gives you an idea :)

 

So its the 17-40 + fast prime vs. the 16-35 f/2.8...

Tommy, when my wife asks why I need to buy <i>another</i> dSLR, I'll tell her because Tommy DiGiovanni said so :)

 

<p>Kidding aside, I wasn't aware of the 5D rebate (knew there were some lens rebates going on but hadn't looked at the bodies since it wasn't originally my plan). I'll look into it, though. Thank you.

<p>I should have qualified my "no tripod" clause. I do keep a gorillapod in my bag which is useful to a degree. Otherwise, I'm bracing on railings, columns, etc.

 

<p>Also, I totally concede that my priorities sound disconnected. I guess the best response I could offer is that I need a really reliable lens that I can get <i><b>some</b></i> use out of for each application. I do love the couple of primes I have for various uses when I'm home, but when I travel, I try to keep things much more "minimal" since I'm often travelling with students on class trips. (In rare cases like last summer, a trip to Europe on a research grant, I can take my whole bag of goodies .)

 

<p><i>"I think you've got to be clear about your priority here. If that's the architecture, then regard it as a bonus if you finish with a lens that's also good for dinner parties."</i><br>

 

Precisely how I've been thinking about it, Robin. And you make a good point about what's "wide" on a crop body. I've been nervous about the "modest" aperture range for the 10-22. But then again, I should remind myself that at such a wide angle, it should be easier to hand-hold, right? I'm intimidated by the notion of a TS lens, honestly.

 

<p>Colin! Without knowing it was you, I've admired some of your photographs recently; so thanks very much your valuable input. You mentioned the 17-40; would you advise <i><b>against</b></i> the 16-35 then? I can reach a little above my budget (as long as the wife stays in the dark about it).

 

<p>Jerry, you're probably right. I'm ruling out anything that starts at 24 (until I go FF, which will be when the prices and my budget can "meet halfway").

 

<p>So option (A) the 10-22 for the best nagle of view archtecture, or option (B) the 16-35 stopped down a bit for architecture and wide open for the low-light soiree?

 

<p>(By the way, thank you -- all of you -- for your kind advice . This is truly, truly helpful.)

 

<p>Rob

<i>"You can always get some good use out of the EFS lens now and resell it later."</i>

 

<p>True. Do you have the 17-55? Have you been pleased with it? I've heard horror stories about dust getting in the barrel and making a mess of things. I'm now leaning toward the 16-35, mostly because of the build quality (I'll be taking this thing around the world).

Zafar, that was my thinking exactly. A 24mm lens focused at near-infinity and stopped down to something like 2.0-2.8 should leave quite a bit in focus, shouldn't it?

G Dan, I'm not planning on upgrading to FF any time soon, I just don't want to drop $1000 on a lens (17-55 f/2.8 IS, namely) that wouldn't "grow" with me. Thus, I'd like to stay within the FF-compatible realm. But you're right: that particular lens is alluring.

 

Zafar, I have considered the 24. I have the 28 f/1.8 and the extra 4mm and faster stop would probably be perfect for the types of architecture I end up shooting. The distortions make me nervous, though.

 

Tommy, like you, I'd consider the 24-105 my "general purpose" lens, and you make a very good point about IS being useless for subject motion. It's always the f/4 that makes me hesitate on this one.

 

I've shot quite a bit of architecture in the f/2.8-3.5 range with good (not great) results, so the 16-35 is a strong contender. Otherwise, I'd be stopping the f/1.4 prime down, of course. I do like the razor-thin DOF with the faster primes, but I don't take advantage of it as much as I could/should.

 

Any 16-35 II users out there? Are you satisfied with it in low-light situations, and is bokeh pleasing?

Hi, Tommy. Thank you for the input. My 28 is exactly what you said: just really soft (and sometimes hunts in low-light). I do find improvement at 2.0 and up, and I love the contrast and color. I just have to be selective about the scenarios in which I use it (sometimes have to fall back on the 50 if I can't use a flash...if I do use a flash, I dial it down about -2 or so).

 

When I had the 35 f/2 I found that 35mm was a "natural feeling" focal length on my old digital Rebel (in other words, when I would see something I felt might make a good shot, the 35 was almost exactly what I was seeing in my mind's eye in terms of composition). So I think I'd probably be comfortable with the 35L. I'd probably have to re-learn 35mm on a FF.

 

I must admit I've been leaning toward the 24-105 mainly because of the range at the longer end. But the purist in me wants to be talked into a prime. Any experience with the 24 1.4?

Hello, all.

 

I have the opportunity to spend buy a new lens and have a bout $1000 (USD)

budgeted. Since I'm a public school teacher (Art and Art History) I am looking to

make a "wise investment" to work with my Canon 40D as well as a future FF (one

day).

 

First, some background: I shoot a LOT of large architectural interiors (think

medieval churches), so a good low-light performer is a must. Because I

sometimes need to pick out some architectural details, I either need a tack-sharp

prime or a fast-ish zoom. (Shooting from tripods is rarely an option for me, simply

because I'm almost always "travelling light.")

 

Since I'm the "photography nerd" in the family, I also end up shooting a lot of

dinner parties (again, low-light). Since I'm usually whipping my 40D out around

dessert, I prefer not to use flash, since there's nothing quite like the mood and

colors that come from the random assortment of light quality you find at parties.

 

My 28 f/1.8 has disappointed in these situations, and the 50 f/1.4 has been a little

too long for across-the-table candids (and we all know the value in catching

someone when they don't know you're looking!).

 

So, to my question(s): I've considered the 24-105 f/4L but I'm nervous about the IS

improvement. Is it really 2 or 3 stops? I don't want to get that thing inside a dark

old cathedral only to find out you can't actually shoot sharp at 1/4 sec (like some

claim).

 

I've also considered the 16-35 f/2.8L II, but again, I'm nervous about 2.8 being fast

enough for some low-light situations.

 

I loved my 35 f/2 (sold it.. I know, dumb) so I've also considered the 35 f1.4L.

 

Any experience you wizards can offer this amateur would be greatly, greatly

appreciated. (My wife would also appreciate it so I'll stop tlking to her about it!)

 

Thanks in advance,

Rob

Hi, all. I just joined Photo.net and this is my first post; although I've been following this discussion (and other related threads) for some time because I'm in the same boat as you, Chris: I'm about to buy a "normal" length prime for my 40D and am grappling with many of the same issues.

 

I currently have the 35 f/2 and the 50 f/1.8 II, neither of which feature USM (obviously). Recently, I bought the 50 f/1.4 (fabulous lens, by the way). Compared to the USM lens, the older lenses are a bit noisier (when shooting in various chapels in Italy this summer, I noticed I'd get a sideways glance or two sometimes). The USM is truly silent; I tend to hear the stopping of the glass over the noise of the motor. So if noise is a factor you're considering, I'd say the difference is significant.

 

Typically, I keep the AF confirmation "beep" turned off on my cameras, so now that I have a USM lens, the only noise I make when shooting is the snap of the shutter/mirror. (The noise of the fake film advance on the d-Rebs always bugged me; the 40D has a simple dampened 'clack' which is much more discreet, I think.)

 

Sorry to ramble. Bottom line: the difference in noise is significant, I'd say.

 

Rob