tim_price2

<p>less</p>

<p>Honestly, I don't want the camera to have a chance to grab the guy closer than what I am intending, and instead F&R or shoot wider and crop a little. You'll also find that during the reception when it is dark, you'll want to set cf17-2 to allow the adjacent points to aid in AF. BUT, still use a single selection point as your primary, preferably the center.<br>

Oddly enough, I find that the 5D center AF point is quicker at dark reception halls than the 1d2 when using f/2.8 glass</p>

<p>Yes, it is obvious that a macro-capable lens is the obvious choice for the debut, but I am not so sure it will be a 1:1 prime. Consider that it could be a "macro" labelled zoom that achieves a 1:2 or 1:3 ratio. I for one would love to see the 24-70 get IS, as that would completely allay my thoughts of turning to the dark side. Such a lens would take the "f/4 vs f/2.8 and IS vs. non-IS" philosophy which has been successful on the mid-tele (aka 70-200) category, and extend it into the wide-normal category. For ~$2k you get 2.8IS, or for ~$1k you get EITHER f/2.8 OR IS.<br>

The 70-200/2.8IS is also a possible candidate, as the f/4 IS has received such praise and begun to take a little lustre off of the top-notch glass.</p>

<p>Make sense?</p>

<p>I am hoping that is tongue-in-cheek sarcasm..........</p>

<p>Interesting read from lensrentals.com, which buys a lot of glass:<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.04.24/state-of-the-slr-industry-2009">http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.04.24/state-of-the-slr-industry-2009</a></p>

<p>The simple answer is that Canon appears to have cut production/supplies of their most popular glass. It is not just the 135 that is understocked; the 24-70, 24-105, 50/1.4, 50 compact macro, 85/1.8, etc. all have had stock issues</p>

<p>I've never been thrilled with the 1.4 extender on my 70-200's (IS and non-is), but I have owned a 400 and rented a 100-400. Both of the 400 solutions were excellent, so I heartily recommend renting vs buying a tc.</p>

<p>The flip-it works very well in instances where you need to throw light forward as well as bounce, such as in a large church. It is also good when shooting with a long tele at a distance. For close-in work or where ceilings are low, I prefer the gary fong lightsphere. </p>

<p>The reason digital images have to be sharpened is because of the way digital sensors are engineered, not because lenses are defective. To prevent moire effects, there is an opaque filter in front of the sensor that INTENTIONALLY slightly scatters the light gathered by the lens (thus softening the image). This is euphamistically called an "anti-alias" filter, but in reality it degrades every image the sensor captures.<br>

So, every digital camera's images have to be sharpened to correct for this intentional blurring - whether you realize it or not. Some cameras like the 1d mark 2 do very little in-camera sharpening, wheareas the 5d and rebels do much more - even when each is at its lowest setting. <br>

With that said, I have no idea which of the 2 lenses mentioned is actually sharper, as I've never owned or used either. At some point soon I will probably own one, but I have no idea which.</p>

<p>I've not owned either lens, but I have owned a 400/5.6 and rented the 100-400. The 100-400 I rented was very sharp, and provided some great footage of eagles at conowingo dam. It seems about as sharp as the 400/5.6, which is saying something in my book. Looking at the reviews and lens tests, there is no way I would get the sigma - I'd rather have the 70-300IS (which I've owned and is a very good lens).</p>

<p>All 4 of the Canon 70-200's are great lenses, the only real differentiator is the weight, max aperture, and IS.<br />The 2.8IS is heavier than the others, but it can do some things the others can't because of the 2.8 aperture and IS.<br />It's great for: portraits, landscapes, zoos on a crop body, indoor performances and events, macro with an extension tube, indoor sports, and outdoor sports day OR NIGHT (usually for the nearer action) <a href="http://www.goprices.net/favorites/images/IMG_8863_fin.jpg">http://www.goprices.net/favorites/images/IMG_8863_fin.jpg</a></p>

<p>It's hard to do the 2.8IS justice with my skills, but the first 6 of these are shot with it:<br /><a href="http://www.goprices.net/kim">http://www.goprices.net/kim</a><br />And all of these but the first:<br /><a href="http://www.goprices.net/dance2008">http://www.goprices.net/dance2008</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Very few churches I've been in are so dark that you would only get 1/8s at f/4 ISO 800. I rarely shoot my 70-200/2.8IS at f/2.8; most of the time I am at f/4 for the ceremony to ensure getting the DOF I like. At ISO 800, I can't remember a time when I've gone below 1/50 @f/4, which is fast enough to freeze the "action" during a ceremony (except the procession). Receptions are a different story; you aren't going to consistently do without flash even at f/2, so again f/4 is fine.<br>

I can't attest to the AF of the f/4, which might be an issue with a camera that doesn't have a cross sensor active at that aperture.</p>

<p>I have the tammy 17-35, and on full frame my copy is soft on the left/right borders and in the corners. It's fine for what I need, but I am not really a landscape shooter.</p>

<p>It is possible to get away without flash indoors - it all depends on the church/venue and how overcast it is that day. As for falloff of the flash power, yes you will lose a lot of power just bouncing into a high ceiling. Shooting with a diffuser or reflector is an absolute must, with a reflector being the better choice for throwing light any distance. Joe demb makes the flip-it, and there are many do-it-yourself instructions on the internet.</p>

<p>The 70-200/2.8IS does things none of the other 70-200s can, and for an event/wedding lens it is the best catch-all option. There's a reason it is a staple among canon wedding shooters and PJ's. I find that the IS does really help, because some churches can be really dark (or an overcast day), and in some cases you aren't allowed to use flash. So, by having IS you can get away with a lower ISO while keeping enough of a shutter speed for fairly static subjects.</p>

<p>Oh, I forgot to mention that I would rather have the 70-200 with IS than the faster 135/2. The reason is that churches are often badly lit, and many priests ban the use of flash. So, putting an IS lens on a monopod will end up getting you better results for those times than the fast prime. There is also the utility of the zoom for those priests that will only let you shoot from the side aisles and not the center aisle.</p>

<p>I'm going to be a contrarian here, and suggest that if you love the 17-55 on your rebel then get a much different range for your 5D. For travel and the wedding you plan to shoot, the rebel with 17-55 is an excellent choice for the wide to medium tele end, so why spend more money on a wide lens for the 5D? What you are missing is a longer lens for portraiture and longer distance type shots. A great choice for portrait lens on the 5D is the 70-200/2.8IS or 135/2. Since you are more limited on funds, the 70-200/4IS would make a good alternative to the 2.8IS. It will go a little against conventional wisdom to use the cropeer for wide and FF for tele, but at least you'll have a much more versatile kit. You'll probably also find that almost all of your "wow" shots from the wedding will be shot with the longer lens.<br>

I use a 5D+24-70 and 1dm2+70-200/2.8IS for weddings, and find that I can cover 99% of situtions with them and a 580ex. On rare occasions I find I need wider than 24 on the 5d, which is why I just picked up a tammy 17-35. I envision using it for less than 5 shots a gig, which is why I chose not to go with a 17-40 - it just didn't seem worth the investment. You also have to realize that while it may be fun to shoot things with a distorted perspective, people don't like to see pictures of themselves that way.<br>

As for a fast prime, sure it would be nice to be able to go flashless, but if you drag the shutter and use a good diffuser you can live without one.</p>

<p>Personally, the most important equipment choice you can make is to have reliable backups for your gear. Nothing against the 10D, but at this point you also have to expect that the shutter or other components are going to fail. The 5dm2 might have some great features, but youd probably be far better served by a pair of new bodies rather than a single new one with 10d as backup/alternate.<br>

As mentioned, the 5d is a great camera and a big step up from your 10D. I'd have to agree that a 5d classic along with 40d makes a pretty good duo. With long glass like the 70-200 on the 40d and something wide like the 24-70 on the 5d you're covered for almost anything. I've got almost the same kit, and it really works well</p>

<p>Honestly, the way that this can be exploited really has me concerned more than an operation that might have been blown. The UK already has the "no photographing officers" law on the books, and this will be used as justification. I am sure that here in the states many are looking at a way to use this to keep chipping away at the bill of rights as well. There's a thread on POTN about a guy being forced to delete his images and leave under threat of arrest by cops in a public park in Boston, simply because there was a LNG tanker in the harbor.</p>

<p>I'd have to go with a single system, just in case a lens or body fails. In that event, you'd be stuck with lenses that can't go on a body, or a body for which you might not have the right FL/aperture available.<br>

Personally, I'd suggest a 40D because a 1.6 cropper complements your FF very well. I for one do weddings with a 5d+24-70 and 1dm2+70-200/2.8IS, and it works out very handy. During speeches, I have both a wide angle and tele slung over my shoulder and ready to go.</p>

<p>What about the 28-135IS? Since you are talking about an occasional-use lens, do you really want to tie up $1000 in a 24-105? I haven't picked one up yet, but the time time I have to go on a trip I intend to pick up a used 28-135 and see how it does. If you look, you can find them for $250 or less.<br>

Anyone have experience with the 28-135 on a 5D?</p>

Agree with Colin, sounds like it is just the IS servos spinning up.