derrickdehaan

<p>I would have just bought a used 5DII........</p>

<p>I have both, and the 85 1.8 is going to be up for sale. There is nothing else like the 85 1.2 for portraiture. </p>

<p>0% here as well. In fact, I don't even have it on my 1DmkIV anymore. Well, I technically have it, but its not available in the mode selector anymore.</p>

<p>I have not done "extensive testing", but I do can do some comparisons against/with my current gear. All static subjects I have shot have produced amazing files from the mkIV. I actually prefer the mkIV files to my 5DII files.....thus far. I have not totally figured out all the autofocus settings, but in my preliminary testing, I have not encountered any issues yet. So far I have shot with the following lenses with out issue....<br>

16-35mkII<br>

50 1.4<br>

85L mkII<br>

100 2.8 macro<br>

70-200 2.8 IS</p>

<p>The only lens I still have to try is my 600 F/4 IS. I have mounted it and tested it to see if it required any M/A. It appears not to need any. But the weather is horrendous and nothing is moving outside. First warm day, I will go look for some dynamic subjects. This is my first 1D series, but I have been shooting with 40D and 5DII for some time now.</p>

 

<p>I leave mine on 90% of the time.</p>

<p>I would strongly look at a lightly used 1DmkIII. I have the 40D, 5DII, and the 1DIV. I don't find the autofocus really lacking on the 5DII, but its not the best on the block either. But if you are thinking about birds, you'll want the speed and accuracy the 1D series offers, and then the added "reach" over full frame is great too. I use a 600 f/4, and often a 1.4 tc added as well. And thats shooting with the 40D (1.6 factor). Having owned the 1DIV for a few days, I will say this.....I was always blown away by the 5DII files, but the 1DIV files are fantastic.</p>

<p>You have some great glass. I would say that if you get great results with the 40D's autofocus, then add the 5D to your kit for portraiture and low light event work. <br>

I have a 40D, and then paired it with a 5DII for just like I stated above. I used the 40D for action and the 5DII for portraiture, landscape, events. BUT! I just received my 1DIV, and I am not so sure that either camera will see much more work in the future. The autofocus of the 1D series is outstanding to say the least. I would look strongly at the 1DIIn or even selling both 40D's and getting a used 1DmkIII. </p>

<p>Then again, the smartest thing to do would be to save for your son's college. LOL</p>

<p>Your skies will look messed up with the circ. polarizer unless you very carefully watch your angles to the sun. Just the nature of such a wide viewing angle. I just got the 16-35 myself and ordered a circ. polarizer for mine, but not for skies. I bought mine for water reflections and shooting leaves and other greenery. A circ. Polarizer still has its place on this lens.</p>

<p>If its the piece that Keith is referring to, I agree. Although I just toss them in a pocket of the bag without being in a ziplock. You would really have to be trying to short the contacts to actually do it. no worries!</p>

<p>Santa, my wife....got me...<br>

1DmkIV (actually a note saying I got one since they haven't shipped)<br>

Canon 16-35mkII<br>

Pelican 1600 hardcase<br>

Hewlett Packard 600 touchscreen 23" desktop</p>

<p>LOL, Puppy you are likely half right. I was a freshman in high school at that time and photography wasn't on my mind. I appologize.</p>

<p>Dan is correct. THe L-brackets are not the same, te release will work though. Great thing about the 5DII is that the cheap infrared remote from the rebel series works with it.</p>

<p>Yep, tripods are a totally personal choice. I prefer the speed and strength of Gitzos twist locks. I can unlock all sections on one leg at one time to extend. Safer than levers too. I also have the Manfrotto 055MF3 which is a nice lighter weight tripod than my Gitzo 5541LS. I recommend playing with them in store to see what suits you.</p>

<p>From my own tests in the last few days of ownership, I have had best luck at infinity when shooting with the 16-35 @ 16mm and f/16.</p>

<p>I will give that a try Robin. THanks.</p>

<p>Sorry, guess I am having trouble uploading photos too....</p><div></div>

<p>Bob, I am sure I am doing something wrong, I am not blaming Canon at all. Knock on wood, I've never gotten a single bad piece of kit yet. Perhaps I was expecting too much. I thought that nailing a super deep depth of field with a 16mm lens would be a piece of cake, but some of the answers so far have my head spinning. But to answer your question, no. Things after 3 ft are not in focus. In fact, nothing in the image was in focus.</p>

<p>David, the lens is the Canon 16-35 mkII, sorry I left that out in the original post.</p>

<p>I know a resized sample means very little, but this was the best attempt yesterday. f/16, and I set the distance on the scale to (what I figured) 1.75ft. Sorry about the tripod leg, not used to this much angle of view. It appears that the forground is fairly sharp, but infinity seems very fuzzy, just like alluded to in the previously posted link. Maybe its just wishful thinking on my part to expect to ever get very sharp images from my feet to infinity.</p>

<p>http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t3/catfishmarbles/websized.jpg%5Bimg%5D" alt="" /></p>

<p>This may sound like a stupid question, but if one of the distance marks is 3ft, and the next one is infinity.........how do I know where to set it for 16ft? Find something 16ft into the image and focus there I suppose?</p>

<p>Perhaps that is the issue Kent. THat would change the hyperfocal distance at f/8 to 17.5ft roughly. Is they why everything looks better at infinity than 3.5 ft? I use just using the suggested "35mm" CoC off of the DOF calculator.</p>

<p>It does focus to infinity with autofocus. I am 99% sure its user error, but I don't know for sure what I am doing wrong. Perhaps I am not guessing correctly where 3.5ft is on the distance scale? The scale has a mark at 3, then the next mark is at infinity.</p>

<p>Bob, thanks for the response. I have repeated it many times, and there is nothing in the image in focus at f/8 and 3.5 on the distance scale. And I wasn't pixel peeping. This was all viewed as soon as the image opened in DPP and/or Photoshop. Whatever the default is, regarless its far from100 percent viewing.</p>

<p>Can you fine folks please help me with my first Canon ultra-wide? I got the lens as lovely gift from my wife a couple days ago. In shear excitment this afternoon, I took it outdoors and set it up with my 5DII, used tripod and timer release. Using the hyperfoacl chart and f/8 and f/16. Came inside and downloaded nothing but mush. So I went back outdoors, same setup and set the lens to infinity focus. Bingo, the foreground and everything beyond is much sharper. Now why would the hyperfocal chart not for me. The chart shows that at f/8 and 16mm focal length, the hyperfocal distance is 3 1/2 ft with a circle of confusion of 0.030 for 5DII. Why was nothing in the image sharp?</p>

<p>I agree with Kent, if Nikon is sponsoring it, it would be the sporting optics. <br>

@ Bob, just because its something you may not be fond of or agree with, does not therefore make it detestable.....</p>

 

<p>THe 40D is a great camera, and I was never personally impressed with the 28-135 myself. It appears you are wanting a wider lens. THe 17-40 is nice, but at f/4 is a little slow for indoor work. If you really like taking photos of children/families, might I suggest spending the 700 bucks for lighting? A couple alienbees (or other brand) lights and umbrellas will work wonders for your portraiture. If you already have lights, or you do not want them, the 17-40 is a great lens, but I would suggest looking at some reviews of the tamron 17-50 f/2.8.</p>

<p>I agree with Michael. The front element is a "protection" glass. Also, if the lens is 5 years old and has very few marks (or none) than it was likely taken care of. Had it been a sports pros 5 year old lens, it would have more than a few marks. What is the asking price?</p>