matthijs

Is this a once in a lifetime opportunity or can you go slow?

(I'd say play with the 100L before getting an 85...)

Note that if you've got an unchanging light setup you'll only have to custom white balance once and save that as a Canon

DPP recipe.

(And for Bob: presets are pretty handy for color challenged people...)

<p>+1 to Jos.</p>

<p>The difference between 250mm and 300mm is minimal.</p>

<p>In what way is the 55-250 not good enough?</p>

<ul>

<li>Length (250mm is too short) (get closer?) (maybe a used Tokina 80-400?)</li>

<li>Sharpness (needs a lot of money for a small improvement) (don't bother until you've got a higher budget)</li>

<li>Shutter speed too low (f5.6 gives too little light and ISO can't be raised) (again a bdget issue, even a 300/4 non-IS will be out of budget)</li>

</ul>

<p>Good luck!</p>

If you intend to pixelpeep or print huge there's a hit.

But otherwise a 7D x1.4 70-200 combo should do fine. (My 50D, x1.4ii, 70-200/4 IS gives me pretty usable results...)

Uhm... Not my expertise however one thing seems very relevant.

The f/2.8 lens gathers 4x the light of the f/5.6...

Uhm... Not my expertise however one thing seems very relevant.

The f/2.8 lens gathers 4x the light of the f/5.6...

<p>uhm... that's like tiny dedicated touchscreen...</p>

<p>(ok ok not really because a button works by feel but that defeats the screen addition, ok ok you could first look at the button, then raise the camera and then press th buttons)</p>

<p>Still, I just had to smile...</p>

I love the results I get from both of them.

Some thoughts:

At events I prefer a zoom.

Using available light I prefer a faster lens.

For stealth I prefer black.

For working distance during portraits I prefer a longer lens.

What are you average working conditions when shooting portraits?

Yours, Matthijs.

In my experience...

A bigger viewfinder helps when framing wide angle shots.

It's more easy to create a good looking picture with a 5d2 than with a 400D.

It's more easy to create a good looking picture with a 400D than with a 50D.

You can create good looking pictures with "any" camera.

MC.

Try to rent or borrow the 15-85 and a 17/5x 2.8 zoom. See which you prefer.

If it were me I'd go for the 15-85 and a fast prime in favor of a fast-ish zoom that's not as wide nor as long.

Indeed.

But if a portion of the image that should be sharp is shown we might learn something.

For instance we might see motion blur or high ISO noise or sharpening artifacts.

At the moment I've only seen a downsized image. That tells practically nothing...

You can tell quite a lot from an image, even if it's just one image.

Not scientifically prove facts but experience can give pointers.

Kind regards, Matthijs.

1/400 @ 1600 ISO

Did you compare your pictures to 30D pictures using the same parameters?

Could you post 100% crops of a small portion of the picture that should be sharp?

Do you still own the old camera and lens? If so you might want to test a swap to see if anything is out of order. (old lens-new cam and vice versa)

That said, there is a learning curve with any new equipment. As you tamed the 30D I do not doubt that you will tame the

5D-iii. Remarks about a wrong move are in my outspoken opinion utter bollocks.

Experimenting with in camera JPG settings is perfectly fine. Plus if you start using Canon's DPP coverter for RAW

files (it's not that hard, try it) those setting will be inherited as a starting point for your post processing.

Above all, have fun!

Looking for this?

Q. I am about to buy a new Canon 70-200mm lens (either f/2.8 or f/4) and am trying to decide if I should buy the lens with

IS. I have taken thousands of alpine ski race pictures with the 70-200mm f/4 without IS (using 20D and now 50D

cameras). I am usually shooting with shutter speeds of 1/250 to 1/1000 depending on how much light I have. I also often

pan the racers at two or three gates and with this high shutter speed I am wondering if I should even use the IS feature.

Can you comment on whether using IS would be beneficial for this high-speed sports photography?

A. You would be better off with the IS version for skiing photos, for a reason that might not be obvious at first glance.

Although chances are good that you'll be using a shutter speed so fast that the IS system has no effect, use of IS will

present a steadier image to the camera's AF detection system. Thus, if you're using predictive focus, the IS system may

provide better data for the AF system to base its calculations on. However, if you're just zone focusing manually and

waiting for the subject to pass through the area you've preselected, then you might as well shut off the IS function and

save some battery power.

In your sample the ground was dark to begin with.

Not sure if that's a factor but I'd say you might want to run a broader range of tests.

M.

My "small" tele is the 100L. I carry it when I want to travel light.

But if you want / need a zoom that's small and light think 70-300 non-L or 55-250.

In the medium size and weight class the 70-200/4 (with or without IS) are hard to beat.

From what I've read (sorry no personal experience) the image quality is close to perfection. The AF could be better.

If the price is nice the lens is certainly worth trying!

(and it sure works on a Canon rebel body)

Uhm... Not to disparage thorough testing...

But if sharpness at 400mm is consistantly better than at 160mm something's wrong.

Coincidence only stretches so far.

How often has this occured?

Was it just this once or twice or is it a pattern in your last 20 (or more) pictures at different focal lengths.

Did you check the IS settings?

Have you shot at different zoom levels otherwise identical images? (not moving, not changing aim)

Etc etc etc.

Good luck, Matthijs.

<p>MNaybe you can ezxperiment with the 16-35 to determine the preferred focal length.</p>

<p>(If it were me I'd get the 24 in a heartbeat.)</p>

One lens: 50/1.4

Two lens: 16-35 plus 100L

I like travelling light and don't mind gaps.

(personally I own the 17-40 and combined with the 100L it is my preferred minimalist combo)

The 100 is so versatile that I might even bring just that.

And when I need a wider shot I'll use my phone. (about 28mm equiv I think)

Of course when I want to hang the results on a nice wall the phone won't do.

Have a nice trip!

M.

<p>Interesting thread.</p>

<p>I'm in the "yes" camp.</p>

<p>Provided...</p>

<ol>

<li>The new camera helps you see. (to me a bigger brighter viewfinder is very important, especially when shooting wide)</li>

<li>You take the time to experiment with the new gear. (And you would not take that time using your current gear.)</li>

<li>Changing gear is an artistic inspiration for you.</li>

<li>Changing gear wil probably force you to rethink exposure, framing etcetera.</li>

</ol>

<p>So apart from #1 you could also go micro 4/3's...</p>