bfmelton

<p>Congrats on stepping into the world of non-kit lenses. But be warned (although it may be too late) that you can easily get addicted. :-)<br>

I've never shot with the 17-55, but before you get too wedded to it you may want to consider (and even rent/experiment with) some alternatives. My go-to lens is the 24-105 L, which is only a couple hundred more than the 17-55 and way sharper than any kit lens I've ever used. For that money you get L build quality (described in an above post) and nearly twice the range of focal length. But it's also a slower lens, maxing out at 4.0, and it also has some barrel distortion at the wide angle end.<br>

The 17-40 f4 L is also killer sharp--I imagine sharper than the 17-55 but I don't know for sure--and it's actually about $250 less than the 17-55. But again it's a stop slower, like the 24-105.<br>

If it's the a) speed and b) sharpness you're really after, then you might consider primes rather than zooms. If you think the 17-55 is sharp, then I'll bet you sight unseen that primes' sharpness (including some non-Ls) will _really_ blow you away. The 24mm 2.8 is as fast at the 17-55; the 50mm 1.4 is way faster; and the 85mm 1.8 is somewhat faster. All, particularly the latter two, get very good sharpness ratings, particularly if stopped down a bit, and you could almost buy all three of them for the cost of the 17-55.<br>

The downside to the primes is that you lose the zoom ability, but in many cases zooming with your feet, as it's called, is no big deal and even helps you to hone your composition skills. And these three lenses, being non-Ls, are light enough so carrying all of them in an appropriate bag wouldn't be too burdensome.<br>

Just my $0.02 worth. HTH.</p>

<p>I have to agree with the above sentiments re the quality of the 70-200 4 L and the reach of 200mm. I own this lens--it's an outstanding value, light-weight, very high IQ. But my sister took it to the Amazon last summer for birding, on a 40D, and based on what I saw of her pictures, it was simply too short for the purpose. Based on that I would say go with the 70-300--you don't save as much weight, but I think the extra reach will be essential.</p>

<p>If your only concern is more megapixels, then go with the 40D. An all-around better camera than the Rebels. better-built, better ergonomics. with good glass you probably won't notice the megapixel difference unless you're going to crop a bunch or blow way up.</p>

<p>I strongly prefer shooting in vertical/portrait orientation, and the grips help tremendously with that. I have grips on all of my cameras--40D, 7D, 5DII--and never take them off.</p>

<p>A refurb 50D is fine for learning the craft, and it would free up a lot of money for lenses. Excellent glass has two big advantages: 1) it lasts longer than bodies, and b) provides a lot of instant gratification as to image quality.You could get two or three great lenses if you went this route, such as 70-200 f4 L, 85 1.8, 135 2.0 L, 50 1.4, 17-40 f4 L, each of which is around or below (some well below) the $1000 mark.<br>

A 7D is a killer camera, but you will definitely pay a premium for it. I have a 7D, and yet I still use my 40D with good results and complete satisfaction.<br>

If you want to take the plunge, a 5DII and 24-105 L lens kit is within your $3500 range, and the 24-105 is an excellent, versatile L-series lens. I myself see a definite improvement with the full-frame.</p>

<p>HTH.</p>

<p>I have both the 7D and the 5DII. The 5DII came with the 24-105 kit.<br>

They're both fine cameras, and while I believe I see better tonality with the 5DII, many people would dispute that.<br>

In all respects other than the full-frame, the 7D is clearly the better camera simply because it's newer and is more advanced. Better focus, better rate of fire. But in my experience the full-frame is worth all of that.<br>

The wide-angle consideration is important--with the 5D you'll have a better effective range of wide-angle focal lengths.<br>

Although the 24-105 L is my go-to lens, it does have notable barrel distortion at shorter focal lengths, which means you could probably do better for a wider-angle landscape lens.</p>

<p>I've shot theatre, though not dance, but there are some similarities.<br>

First, depending on the size of the venue, it might help if you shot from the back of the audience, over the heads of the audience, which might let you adjust your vantage point. Find out the best focal lengths for this; if you're lucky, you can use your fast primes. Depending on which prime goes on which body, you have 4 effective possibilities: 50mm, 80mm, 135mm, and 200mm. With luck one of these will be good. 5DII is better in low light but the 40D will give you more reach.<br>

If the front lights aren't good, faces might be in shadow. If possible, experiment before the recital using a danvcer or stand-in and meter on face and costume and find which exposures are best. Consider auto-bracketing and shoot in bursts of 3. I myself would shoot shutter-priority as slow as I could get away with--pick the more stationary poses and shoot at 1/60th, which shouldhelp you keep your ISO low. If you have enough light you can go to 1/125.<br>

All of this, of course, is dependent on size of venue and amount of light, but in general you want to wring as much speed out of your lenses as you can and shoot as slow a shutter sped as you can without getting movement blur in order to keep your ISO down. With fast good-quality primes you shouldn't be too soft wide-open. It's all a tradeoff.<br>

Before you do this, though, check with the manager/director and the performers to make sure that a) they don't mind you shooting and that b) they're prepared for you to shoot. Even when not using flash (and you definitely shouldn't use flash), someone moving in the back and the sound of click-click-click can be distracting if they're not ready for it.<br>

HTH.</p>

 

<p>An interesting, albeit unscientific, exercise might be to use Gerald's website to try to tell the difference (without peeking at the camera info) between the Nikon pictures and the Hasselblad pictures. While the limitations of the exercise should be obvious, for its limited purposes it may be instructional.<br>

FWIW, I correctly picked out the Hasselblad pictures, but did attribute two Nikon pictures to the Hasselblad.</p>

<p>I have a 40D, a 7D, and L glass. When I put the L glass on my 40D, the IQ improvement is striking when compared to kit.</p>

<p>I have the 70-200 2.8 IS L and love it.</p>

<p>Go with the glass.</p>

<p>I have owned an xti in the past, and I currently own both a 5DII and a 7D, so I might be a good reference for you. :-)<br>

I am a major 5DII partisan for the full-frame experience--the two areas where I see a clear advantage in full-frame is in tonality and in the ability to crop way in with no considerable loss in quality. But lately I'm mainly doing portraiture, and the 5DII is a natural for that.<br>

In your case, though, I'd go with the 7D. The focusing is miles ahead of the xt and the 5DII, and since you mention that as a major issue, I think on that basis alone the 7D is for you. The frame rate also blows away both the xt and the 5DII--not even close.<br>

My guess is that you would really feel the difference--in a bad way--when your 70-300, when mounted on the 5DII, reverted to 70-300 instead of the ~105-450 effective it currently is on your crop-sensor. On the rare occasions I've done birding, 300 effective isn't nearly long enough.<br>

The landscape work is a closer call. But a lot of shooters I know swear that most people can't tell the difference in quality between pics from a 7D and a 5DII, fwiw. I'm not saying that to reopen a much-hashed-over topic, but instead to suggest that plenty of people are obviously very happy with 7D IQ. I do think that in every way _except_ for the 5DII's FF sensor, the 7D is a superior camera. While as I said I'm a FF partisan, given your needs I don't think that FF outweighs your other concerns.<br>

One possibility: rent both, try both, and see which you prefer. :-)<br>

HTH.</p>

<p>I have both. I keep the 28-135 on my 40D as a walk-around combination and use my 24-105 on my 5DII as my serious modeling/portraiture zoom. When I've put the 24-105 on the 40D, I've seen a remarkable improvement over the 28-135.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.hacklightphotography.com/Landscapes/Scenic/IMG0462-2/1121455474_TXVnY-M.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="450" /><br>

can't help you with the Sigma, but I've shot the Canon 70-200 f4 for some time, and sometimes for the same type of things you want to use it for. It's very sharp, especially in strong light/contrasty situations, but fine at other times too. It's the best deal in the L lineup and worth every penny.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I would echo some of what others have already said. Specifically, where are you seeing problems or weaknesses with your current lenses?<br>

I shoot the 5DII as well as the 7D and sometimes the 40D. You'll get a lot of debate as to whether FF is truly better than a crop sensor--I say that in my experience it is, with much better tonality and ability to crop. As to waiting until the 5DIII, that's a mystery. There have been rumors for months, but to my knowledge all unsubstantiated. based on Canon's prior release cycles, the estimate is that we'll see the 5DIII some time in 2011, but that isn't taking account of the tsunami impact on Canon factories.<br>

My default lens for 5D portraiture is the 24-105, and I like it a great deal. I'm not sure how much better it is than the 24-70, though. I also have the 70-200 2.8 IS L. For portraiture, its image quality dynamite, at least as good as the 24-105 and in my vies noticeably better, but it's also heavy and cumbersome, and for anything other than a short shoot that does have an impact on your arm strength and steadiness. I have the 70-200 f4L too, and while I don't think it's as spectacular a performer as the two others I've mentioned, it is a great value, and _much_ lighter and easier to work with than the 2.8.<br>

Given your ownership of the 24-70, unless you're seeing some sort of problem or limitation with it, I'd say go for a 70-200 and/or a prime or two. My 135 f2 L is so sharp that I could cut myself on it if I'm not careful--easily the best lens in my kit. Many people say that the 85 1.8 (non-L) is a better portrait lens than the 24-105 L, and very reasonably priced. All of the Canon 50s are worth a hard look, from the "nifty fifty" 1.8 (which is easily the best performance/cost deal in the entire Canon line) to the 1.4 and the expensive 1.2 L. Some people find them a bit short for portraiture on a full-frame; others don't. On a full frame they're good for full-body portraits.<br>

HTH.</p>

<p>Nice to see the end results. Glad you rescued it.</p>

<p>The best question I've read in the thread is what you think is lacking with the 40D. The answer to that will help the diagnosis a lot. :-) I have all three bodies in question: 40D, 7D, 5DII. You may want to consider putting your money into L glass if you don't have it already; you may well see a bigger jump in image quality than you would with a new body. On the occasions when I put my 24-105L onto my 40D, the improvement over the 28-135 kit lens is really stunning. You can get the 70-200 f4L, which you might find serves well as a sports lens, for a third the cost of a 7D. If the light's a problem, you could even get the 70-200 2.8L for less than the cost of the 5DII. So do ask yourself if the 40D is really all that lacking--don't be seduced by the megapixel siren song.<br>

If you think new body is the way to go, you'll find that the 5DII "feels" more like the 40D in most respects except frame rate, which is much slower. The 7D's frame rate and autofocus blow away both the 40D and especially the 5DII, so it's usually considered the sports/action camera.<br>

Although the comapritive IQ between the two is hotly debated, when doing portraiture/scenic, I always reach for the 5DII instead of the 7D. I see a big difference in tonality, and the 5DII allows me to crop in by a huge amount without sacrificing quality, which isn't true of either the 40D or the 7D. 5DII is also the undisputed low-light champ . . . but it just isn't a great action camera.<br>

HTH.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

First, I agree with the above comments about understanding exposure basics and not shooting in full auto mode. I, too, am puzzled by lenses being too "dark"--that normally is a function of exposure values, not the lens. Was the review talking about deep, dark, rich colors, by any chance, as opposed to pictures that were too dark?<br>

Next step after this is to ask yourself exactly what you don't like about your current lens. Or, to put it another way, what do you want your new lens to be able to do that your current lens doesn't? Do you want a different range of focal lengths? A bigger maximum aperture that will allow shooting in lower light? More sharpness/clarity? Depending on what you're trying to accomplish, or where your priorities lie, your answers will suggest certain lenses while perhaps excluding others.<br>

With a $600 budget, which is a bit on the low side for a good-quality zoom, I wonder if you've considered prime (non-zoom) lenses. Buying one or more primes as opposed to a zoom would have several advantages. First, primes tend to be less expensive than zooms because they're mechanically simpler. That means you can get an excellent prime, or maybe two, for the cost of one zoom. Second, they tend to be faster lenses, which allow you to shoot in lower light. Primes tend to be sharper than zooms, and they also tend to be smaller and lighter. For instance, you can get the Canon 85 mm 1.8, which is an excellent portrait lens, plus the Canon "nifty fifty" 50mm 1.8, which would be a nice portrait lens on your XT, for a combined cost of a little over $500. Or instead of the 85 you could get the 35mm f 2.0 and the nifty fifty together for a little over $400. There are other combinations that will keep you in the $600 ballpark as well.<br>

Of course, with primes you have to move around more to find the best shooting angle/distance, plus you'll have to change lenses more often, but that's why you can change lenses on SLRs to begin with--so you can take advantage of different ones.<br>

Keeping in mind that lens quality tends to make more of an impact on image quality--often a lot more--than the camera body does, you may want to wait and save up some money so you can spend more than $600. For instance, the Canon 24-105 L, which costs a bit over $1000, will blow away your kit lens in terms of quality--you'll see a huge difference. It's also built like a tank, designed for professional (ab)use, so it will last a long time, so perhaps you can amortize the extra cost, as it were. You could go with the 28-135, which is the kit lens for the 7D, but I'm not sure if you would see a huge leap in quality over what you have now--perhaps not enough to justify its $450 cost.<br>

One possibility is the Canon 70-200 F4L. It's one of the least expensive L lenses--you can get it for a not much more than $600, and it's an excellent one. It wouldn't replace your kit lens because on your XT it would be a medium telephoto, but it would be good for shooting individuals (head and upper body shots). Before considering it, you'd need to be sure that its range is one you would like.<br>

If you can, try out lenses at a camera shop, or try renting them, so you can see exactly what you like. One good review site for Canon and Canon-compatible lenses is<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Lens-Reviews.aspx<br>

Feel free to ask further questions. HTH.</p>

 

<p>Alien Bees have an excellent reputation. I'm looking at switching to them from my current pack system. You can also buy a lot of modifiers/extras for them, which you have trouble with with some pack systems (don't know if that's true of the kits you mentioned). If you go with the Bees or some other monolight/ a la carte system, you can spend as you go and better put the money precisely where you want it to go.<br>

While I have wireless triggers, they aren't a necessity, especially in a smaller studio. You could spend the money elsewhere if you omitted them and always add them later.</p>

<p>HTH.</p>

<p>My go-to portrait combination is 24-105 f4 L on a 5D mk II, thus:</p><div></div>

<div></div>

<p>So the other day I was shooting an outdoor modeling session. Lighting was late afternoon, in shade/diffuse, with a 580 EXII firing through an umbrella at between 1/4 and 1/16 for the most part. A bunch of the pics came out rather flat-looking. The pic here is a good example: weak catch lights, muddy darks. (The model actually has great hair, which did come out when backlit with sunlight, but it doesn't show here--given the angle I couldn't figure out how to add a hair light.<br>

Postprocessing experimentation in Lightroom hasn't helped. So what would you have done with this pic regarding flash ratio and placement, given one or two flashes to work with, to make it pop?</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Canon 5D MkIII. As long as they don't do to the 5D line what they did with the 60D. :-)</p>

<p>The filter issue is one for perennial debate. Some say that if you pay good money for a good lens you shouldn't degrade its quality by sticking a filter on it; others say that the quality will be degraded a lot more if you scratch up an unprotected lens. You pays your money and takes your choice. :-) I would say that if you opt for filters (which it sounds like you are), get the best, because yes, it definitely matters, especially if you start getting into the bargain basement stuff. The best filters still far less than the cost of the lens and with them you'll be getting the least distortion. I myself use B+W filters on all my lenses; excellent optical quality glass and brass mounting rings. Hoya is another top contender. YMMV. HTH.</p>

<p>Regarding the body vs. lens issue, here's something to think about: This afternoon I put my EF 24-105mm f/4L, which normally resides on my 5D II, onto my 40D, which usually hosts the 28-135 kit lens. My specific goal was to compare the image quality of the two lenses on a lower-megapixel body. The improvement was really remarkable, and the 40D has only 10 megapixels as opposed to your T1i's 15. this is not to say you should go specifically with the 24-105mm f/4L, but merely that if you put your money into premium glass as opposed to a new body you might get noticeably more bang for your buck.</p>

<p>Of course, I haven't shot the T1i and I don't know what additional features you'd get with the 7D which you don't have now and would like to have--that might well affect your decision. i do have a 7D and it's a great camera-- I usually pair it with the 70-200mm2.8L and have no complaints. But if what you're after is image quality, keep your T1i and go with the best lens(es) you can afford. You'll definitely see quite a difference overall.</p>

<p>HTH.</p>