martin-s

<p>I agree with Jeff.<br>

Also it all comes down to how you define a portrait.</p>

<p>I think Rainer nailed it.<br>

I'm wondering though regarding your statement "I was hoping not to post-process the pictures because normally it takes a lot of time and I was expecting not to since I'm using a powerful lens."<br>

If you shoot RAW you will need to spend time on post-processing – that is the whole point of shooting RAW. Unless you're prepared to do so, you're better off shooting JPEG.</p>

<p>Since the availability of tilt&shift lenses and full-frame bodies were my main reason to go with Canon a couple of years ago, I find the announcement of the 17mm TS-E the most exciting news in a long time. It's quite simple spectacular and will make interior shots a lot easier.</p>

<p>It's not a question of whether an application or printer "supports" a specific colour space: if an application is properly colour-manged, it will produce good output from images in <strong>any</strong> colour space.<br>

The problem is that lots of applications and print services aren't colour-managed and simply <strong>assume</strong> sRGB ignoring any embedded profile. For those cases you'd want your images to be in sRGB.<br>

In general whenever people are unsure whether to use sRGB or Adobe RGB, they're usually much better off sticking to sRGB.</p>

<p>I'm aware of your budget constraints, but...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As a former film user (from the AE1 / A1 / New F1) days onwards I would suggest a good used 5D.<br>

(snip)<br>

My advice is to go into a store and play with the three cameras. I suspect that you will fall for the 5D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Being a former film user myself I totally agree. I didn't consider digital a viable option until the 5D came around. Two things: the large viewfinder and not having to "readjust" my thinking in terms of focal lenghts. The 5D is a great camera, if you can manage somehow.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just spoke with my friend in South Africa who will be hosting part of our stay, and he strongly recommended the 100-400 zoom for the simple reason that it prevents you missing shots whilst changing lenses, and minimizes the chance of dust getting on the sensor in conditions where it will be difficult to clean it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this is excellent advice. It'll save you all the hassle of swapping lenses and perhaps missing a shot while doing so.<br>

Instead you could use the saved time to take in the moment <strong>without</strong> looking through a viewfinder. Even the sharpest image is a poor substitute for actually "having been there".</p>

<p>While I don't own the 24–105, I would certainly recommend a slim-line polariser for anything approaching 24mm and wider. I use B+W slim-line polarisers on both my 17–40mm and TS-E 24mm without any problems.</p>

<p>I’m in the same boat having been considering either of these two lenses.<br>

However <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml">this article</a> made me tend towards the prime despite its lack of IS.</p>

<p>I partly agree with John.<br /> As to the distortion you might want to get a copy of either <a href="http://www.kekus.com/software/plugin.html">LensFix</a> or <a href="http://www.epaperpress.com/">PTLens</a> – depending on your platform – to correct for it.</p>

<p><i>“I would assume that was merely a bit of self deprecating humor (some refreshing modesty in this arena of self aggrandizement and posturing) and not an invitation for a sneering comment.”</i></p>

 

<p>In that case my apologies. :-)</p>

<p><i>“Good point, John. Shooting with a 5D and L glass, the weakest link is behind the viewfinder...8-)”</i></p>

 

<p>That statement might hold true, if you trust technology more than your own skills.</p>

<p><i>“Why in the digital era we still think we need expensive and heavy lenses when we can achieve basically everything we want on photoshop?”</i></p>

 

<p>Selective focus and shallow DOF is something you really can only achieve with fast, non-zoom lenses. No amount of fumbling in Photoshop can replicate that.</p>

<p><i>“As per the sensor resolution vs. lens technology, it was explained to me that film will record properly with the light hitting it at any angle, the digital photosite works best when light enters perpendicular. When you start bending light in weird angles, the photosites on the edges are a disadvantage ... thoughts?”</i></p>

 

<p>As far as I understand, the micro lenses are designed to correct for that.</p>

<p>Yes, an equivalent of Nikon’s 14–24 would be great.</p>

 

<p><i>“TS-E 2.8/20mm L”</i></p>

 

<p>Why not make that a TS-E 4/18mm L?<br>

I used to have a Plaubel Proshift and loved it</p>

<p>@Randy Wong – From your sample I got the impression that the group was a good 10–15 m away from the camera and

assumed that you wouldn't need any tilt under such circumstances.</p>

 

<p><i>“Several I have talked with think that the resolving power of the 1DS mkIII may have over taxing a lens

originally designed for film. What camera are you using it on?”</i></p>

 

<p>If that was the case, wouldn’t that show across the entire frame and not just the corners?<br>From what I’ve

seen, shots taken on a 1Ds III show a general softness – with other lenses, too – but the 24 TS-E doesn’t seem

any worse and doesn’t have any visible corner issues.</p>

 

<p>I use mine on a 5D.</p>

<p>@ Randy Wong: in a group shot like this with no close foreground objects, there is usually no need to use tilt

at all.</p>

 

<p>@ David Clapp: you can emulate shift by correcting perspective distortion later in software to some degree,

but there is no way to do so for tilt.</p>

 

<p>I’m starting to wonder, whether the poor results you're claiming are due to the fact that you're pushing shift

and tilt to the extremes? In that case you’re likely to see softness at the very edges, and there’s a good reason

those values are marked <b style="color:red">red</b> on the controls and should be avoided.</p>

 

<p>I for one have been very satisfied with this lens’ corner performance when used properly. In fact its detail

sharpness is very close to even a fixed 85mm</p>

<p><i>“Focus is not a problem - turn on the focus 'beep' and when its in focus it beeps and you stop.”</i></p>

 

<p>It’s certainly not that simple, since you’re essentially dealing with a cloud of focus points – scattered across the entire frame – that do not all lie in a focal plane parallel to the camera sensor.</p>

 

<p>With the TS-E you need to rely on the viewfinder image and your experience.</p>

<p>While I prefer using mine on a tripod for precise framing, it is quite possible to take hand-held shots just

as with any, slightly heavier lens. Check

out <a href="">Focusing the Tilt-Shift Lens</a>. David also supplies some useful tilt charts to optimise the

focal plane.</p>

<p>It took me little time to get used to it, but that's perhaps because I've used view cameras before and I

needed its movements. When using tilt precise focusing isn't as easy/comfortable as with a view camera, but you

should get the hang of it.</p>

<p>I used to rely on the DOF scales of my MF film gear in the past, but after going digital, that became a lot

more difficult. Modern AF zoom lenses generally don't have DOF scales anymore and when eye-balling the hyperfocal

distance, I was often dissapointed with sharpness at infinity.</p>

 

<p>I found <a href="http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html">this article</a> enlightening.</p>

 

<blockquote><i>“Before I describe the solution, let me say what's wrong with the existing philosophy. There's

nothing wrong with the logic or the math. It's the basic assumptions that have been surpassed by technology. The

starting point of the existing theory was that there is a limit on the resolving power of films and lenses. That

limit was said to yield a smallest spot having a diameter equal to one-fifteen-hundredth of a normal lens's focal

length. Thus the maximum permissible "circle of confusion" is 1/30 mm in diameter for a 35 mm camera with its 50

mm standard lens.<br /><br />

 

The problem is that today's films and lenses are capable of achieving a resolution standard at least five times

as stringent, and maybe more. But if one enters that revised standard into the formulae, depth of field just

about disappears. And that doesn't square with experience either.”</i></blockquote>

I find an UW zoom like the 17-40 or 16-35 essential for landscape images on a full-frame camera. The 17-40 is my preferred walk-around lens on the D5 and I mostly use it at the wide end (17-24). In fact, if Canon came out with an equivalent of Nikon's fabulous 14-24, I'd buy that in an instant.

Racing photography sure is another issue. I use mine for landscape/nature, so I can't comment. Is there any chance you could try one out before making the decision?

 

Perhaps the better option would be to trade in your 400 5.6 and a 70-300 IS and get the 100-400 L – more reach/flexibility – and keep your fast 70-200 2.8?

<p>I’ve had mine for over a year and I’m very happy with it. It’s the perfect lens to take hiking since it’s very

compact. AF is fast and the IS is excellent, build quality is excellent, too.</p>

 

<p>I’ve got a very recent copy and I’m pleased with its IQ although I believe it’s not on par with the L zooms.

It has a comparatively short minimum distance and performs very well for close-up shots. As mentioned in the

article linked above, it is very sensitive to backlighting and you might encounter strong flare under certain

circumstances. It’s soft wide open, but stopping it down by just one f-stop improves things massively. There is

visible pincushion distortion at the long end which can be a problem if there are any straight lines close to the

frame borders such as the horizon. It also exhibits visible vignetting at the long end, even stopped down, but

that is easy to correct in software.</p>

 

<p>There’s <a

href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml">another article</a> at the <i>Luminous

Landscape</i> which sums up my impressions quite well.</p>

 

<p>Personally I’m very pleased with mine. It’s got a great range, excellent AF and IS, all contained in an extremely

compact package – that’s hard to beat.</p>