ben_quinn1

Seems to me that you may be better going for a low profile option of a prime and go unoticed as possible. At my wedding I

did not want more than one photographer and he was excellent in that we barely new he was there apart from some formal

shots.

pair it with the 24-70 l or 24-105 l

70-200 f/4 non IS is light, cheap and relatively small especially without the hood. Personally I would not leave without at least 1 fast prime especially is you are not taking a flash.

We would not accept that from anywhere else. How difficult is it to test them before they leave the factory. Even the guy on

photozone says the quality control on this lens is poor. Who has time to go back to the store or send back 3 or 4 times.

I think this lens is often the first l lens that some buy and there is a learning curve when using a fast heavey lenses which I

think accounts for some of the complaints. However I have returned 2 of these to b&h and I'm still not 100% sure about my

copy, therefore I think yourvconcern is a valid one and you may want to consider your options as getting bad copies is a pain

in the ass and it's not always straightfoward to detect a lens that is not optimum with simple tests especially If you are not a

pro pixel peaper.

no because your subjects will be moving so is will not help in very low light. You still need a high enough shutter speed to

freeze the motion, shooting with is at slower shutter speeds won't help with that only with camera shake.

Seb - you should tell us what you plan to shoot, if you don't know you should say. This will affect the advice you get.

The 'wide angle lens' they offer and the 'telephoto lens' are not really 'lenses' at all and should be disregarded completely.

The filters are also really cheap and should not influence your choice. Therefore #2 is eliminated. I read the photozone.de

review of the 17-85 and its not good so purchase #1, all of the #1 lenses get good reviews on that site, but i would buy from

B&H or adorama. I would probably add a shorter fast prime lens and you will have a decent set up to begin with.

I think you would struggle with f/4 as the subjects may be beyond the reach of the flash. How about 100 f/2 or a 135 f/2 L, on a crop they are quite long.

$500 is ok, Contax IIa seems like a good option and I have to say a built-in light meter would be nice. Thanks for your

advice, will let you know how it turns out.

You can always sell it on return. The 50d will probably sell on ebay used for the same price as new (without tax) for while

after in comes out.

I already have SLR with many canon lenses, I thought you were rangefinder buffs? Oh well. My ideas that you all shot with

1940s leica has been dashed.

 

The IIIc looks nice, some of the examples I've seen don't look in good shape. I quite like the look of some of the nikons,

why no recommendations for nikon rangefinders?

isn't one of the ff nikons 5 fgps? So wouldn't they want to be at least that fast ?

only 4fps seems unlikely to me, perhaps 5

Or 6?

Thanks for the advise, not sure I need another addiction so perhaps I should forego this idea, or maybe not. I may be back

with some sensible questions. I suppose it does not have to have interchangeable lenses, if I went for a 50mm what would

be my best choices?

I want to purchase a rangefinder for a project I want to do, I have no experience of these machines and limited

budget. I want to do some portraits and street photography in B&W on some high ISO grainy film. I'd want maybe

two lenses maybe a 35mm and a 50mm or a 35 mm and a 85mm. What should I buy for not much money?

As canon users we have the comfort of knowing canon has the resources and scale to answer Nikon increased

competition although there may be small wait for their response. Sam I absolutely agree with you that weather sealing is

probably the clincher for a lot of serious photographers, how much would it cost to add that to a camera? Wouldn't R&D be

virtually immaterial compared to say lower noise sensor etc? So is it a marketing decision to leave it out?

The question is - how much will it be? If its too good it will be top dollar

The 35L is big for a prime, if you have never held one perhaps try it first, its much bigger my 17-40 L zoom for example.

That could affect your decision. I have only rented the 35L and it really does impress compared to all my other lenses,

can't imagine the f/2 can be in the same league and the difference in cost makes it an unfair comparison.

I own a 40d and I would say if you want to shoot wide and have lots of lens options then trade the 40d for a 5d, it really is the only option. Otherwise you are restricted to some pretty average zoom lens like the 10-22mm which is pretty pricey, if you are happy with that then stick with it.

On crop sensor 85mm is at the top end of the portraits focal length range and therefore you need lots of space, therefore if

one had to choose one lens the 50mm may be better choice and it should not be the 50 f/1.8 as the bokeh is a bit coarse.

Unless budget is the primary consideration.

Guys have this dichotomy because the 17-55 is overpriced meaning one has to pay l prices for a plastic lens. If I spend a

grand on a lens I want it built like a tank.

There is a gap in the market for a 'affordable' full frame DSLR once the 5d mk I disapears, assuming the mk II will be >$3,000. The jump from a $1,400 50d to a >$3,000 5d mkII is large, surely there is a market to be tapped here that will not diminish the crop sensor/EFS market that Canon covet.

The 24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4 both of which really are amazing lens so we cannot complain too much. Perhaps they think that anyone who is interested in wide primes will be willing to spend that type of money (>1200). And after using these two lens I would agree that they are worth it.

I agree with you but perhaps the back ground is a little over exposed, do you hvae a shot with a lower exposure?