matthijs

Ice is a lot like concrete...

Anyway, concerning primes:

Focal length should be the first consideration in my opinion.

Try to decide in how many steps you'd like to get from zero to 85.

If the answer is one I'd say you should look for a lens somewhere around 28mm.

If it's two I'd say 24 and 50.

Note: crop wide angle primes hardly exist. (most are full frame ultra wides)

I really like an EF 28/2.8 on my crop bodies. It's small, cheap, has a nice field of view and very decent image quality.

I had a 24/2.8 which is also a fine lens but more expensive and a little more chunky.

My 50's (1.8 and 1.4) perform pretty well on a crop body. (I wouldn't drop them on ice though.)

I haven't used the 30 and 50 Sigma's nor the EF 35/2 but those are all reputedly fine as well.

I hope this helps,

Matthijs.

I'd say a combo of the EF-s 15-85 and a 70-200/4L.

If money is tight then the kit zooms 18-55/IS plus 55-250/IS.

Best wishes,

Matthijs.

Build quality of the xxxD series is not their weak point. (look at the DigitalRev movie where they mistreat a 400D and a

consumer Nikon and they just keep working)

The small size is either a plus or a minus depending on your use.

The bigger viewfinder and the controls are differentiators. (and the "sports" AF in the 7D)

The images come out great.

Hope this helps, Matthijs.

I believe JDM in his statement that there are good mirrors around. (for example I saw some pretty good results from a

Sigma. 600mm IIRC.)

I also agree that MF is an art.

I'm pretty good at it, recently shot a 100-400 plus x1.4 manually focussed and had pixel sharp results.

But I've never had anything better than mediocre results with my Opteka. Which probably shows that even with mirrors

you get what you pay for.

You could of course go with Sony. They sell a 500/8 mirror, it auto focusses plus they have IS in their bodies. Neat...

M.

<p>If you need it now (and the only choice is either a 500/4 or a 5Diii) then the 500mm will be the better choice because the 5Diii won't be around for a while.</p>

<p>That said, most of the time my 5Dii pixels are sharper than my 50D's. Plus I can use higher ISO's with less degradation. (And the difference is not that much, 15MP crop vs 21MP full frame. It's 4.7 um versus 6.4 um so on a certain area you'll get 36% more pixels per side. Say a birds head occupies 500 pixels to the side on a 5Dii, that same bird using the same lens will occupy 680 pixels to the side on a 50D.)</p>

<p>You might want to experiment with your 300/4 plus 1.4 extender and a 5Dii to see whether sharpness improves.</p>

<p>Oh well, not the answer you were looking for. Sorry. I hope it did some good.</p>

<p>M.</p>

<p>There seem to be some good mirrors around.</p>

<p>My Opteka 500/8 is pretty bad though... (At $90 who can complain... I bought it as a toy, and it is.)</p>

<p>A blow up crop from my 70-200/4L IS is just about the same quality. Plus it is F4 and has IS...</p>

<p>Regards, Matthijs.</p>

<p>Portability?</p>

<p>I love my 28/2.8. It's a standard on my 400D and 50D and it's a wide angle on my 5Dii.</p>

<p>I often go out with just the 28 or the 28 and my 100 macro.</p>

<p>For low light you'll only need the 50/1.4 to freeze subject motion because your 17-55 has IS. It will probably give better results than the 50 with static subjects in low light.</p>

<p>Other options would of course be ultra wide angle, macro, longer tele, flash etcetera but those should only be considered if that's where you want to go.</p>

<p>Hope this helps, Matthijs.</p>

I have a 50D and a 5Dii. The image quality differs slightly at pixel level and sometimes I feel that the 5D colors are

better.

However, when printed or shown on the web I'm hard pressed to tell the difference. And family and friends (smart

people who know about art) practically never see any difference.

So the question is: is your audience (including you) of the nitpicking high tech photographer kind?

Otherwise the 7D will be a great addition to your 5Dii.

Matthijs.

Short and sweet.

Both bodies are very very good.

The differences in image quality are way smaller than the similarities.

Your current lens won't fit on a 5D so you'll need at least one new lens when buying that. (though a 50/1.8 is always a

cheap option)

For wider shots I prefer my 5Dii, for longer shots I wouldn't mind using a 7D at all...

M.

If you'd take advice from a stranger...

I'd say start with the 135/2 and see where that takes you. Leave the rest of your money in your pocket until you're

more sure of your needs.

Why the 135? Because I'd say the 85 is too close to your 50 and the 200 might be too long a gap. (though I like tight

shots at 200mm on a crop so maybe you'll end up with one of those too.)

Getting a flash might be a good idea depending on your style and skill. But I'd say change only one part of your system at a time. If you change too much at once you won't see what the item brought you.

M.

<p>My 100L does great when shooting portraits.</p>

<p>And depth of field at f/2.8 at normal working distances is very small. When shooting portrait I stop it down... Faster lenses can of course be fun and usefull but I don't think they're necessary for shallow DoF portraits in general.</p>

<p>Both great.</p>

<p>The L might be slightly more "golden" in its hue and the 10-22 more "real" but that just might be my eyes or my post processing.</p>

<p>All the best, Matthijs.</p>

<p>(Post scriptum: to me the most important thing about shooting UWA is having a big viewfinder to compose with, not the exact lens used.)</p>

Maybe you could try to rent or borrow them both?

They're very different.

That said, unless there's a full frame camera (or film SLR) in the very near future the 17-40 is not the logical

alternative.

The above mentioned are. (best reviews tend to go to the Tokina 11-16 but the differences are minimal in the current

range of crop ultra wides. Sigma has currently the widest and the Canon is great and safe.)

<p>There is one...</p>

<p><strong>AF-D Zoom Micro-Nikkor </strong><strong>70~180mm f/4.5~5.6</strong>s<strong> </strong><strong>ED</strong><br>

Up to 0.75x reproduction ratio</p>

<p>However it's not one of "ours".</p>

<p>But indeed most zooms that have "macro" on the barrel stop at 1:4 (0.25 reproduction ratio).</p>

My old EOS 650 (one of the really first ones) works beautifully with any EF lens I mount.

If you just want to get a feel for it that would be good enough and I bet you can get one for practically free.

An EOS 3 is of course great but it will cost you several hundred dollar/euro. Whether that's worth it to you depends.

M.

"In the social sciences, atavism is a cultural tendency—for example, people in the modern era reverting to the ways of

thinking and acting of a former time. The word atavism is derived from the Latin atavus. An atavus is a great-great-

great-grandfather or, more generally, an ancestor." Wikipedia.

There's also a biological use but that was less funny...

By the way, a few days back there was a nice thread on the FX vs DX (hihi) discussion.

<p>If those are your choices I'd say the 85/1.8 would be the way to go.</p>

<p>Throwing an odd ball here: how about the EF-s 60/2.8?</p>

<p>Nicely in the middle of your zoom and your other macro and shorter than the 70-200 of which you say that you mostly use it at 70mm.</p>

<p>If you need longer just use the 100mm macro.</p>

<p>Good luck, Matthijs.</p>

Dear Matthew,

I wrote the one-liner exactly with the intention to give C.S. a short answer. The OP posed a short question without

giving us a lot of background.

My answer is based upon my experience with several film and several digital cameras. (Lubitel 2, Praktica MTL 3,

Canon EOS 650, Canon 400D, 50D and 5D mark II)

And it says exactly what I mean.

It will not make you a better photographer but it will help you in creating better looking pictures.

At a price.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Regards, Matthijs.

<p>I'll probably catch some flame for this but...</p>

<p>...it's more easy to create a high quality image using a 36 x 24 mm sensor than using a 22,5 x 15 mm sensor.</p>

It can both be true.

Which probably means Panasonic is the Light side...

<p>Another option might be using ISO 100 and do full blown HDR's of these subjects.</p>

<p>To my eyes the dynamic range of the shot is pretty extreme.</p>

<p>Good luck, Matthijs.</p>

<p><a href="http://pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=26&camera=1052&perpage=30&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&iso_min=none&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3">85 on a 50D</a>.</p>

<p>Just to show what it can do.</p>

<p>Welcome of course!</p>

<p>...</p>

<p>You don't have to tell us anything, but I'm interested in the reasons behind the change.</p>

<p>There's a lot to explore and I wish you fun while doing that.<br>

I myself have just discovered some cool downloadable picture styles at the Canon site which I have fun playing with in post processing.</p>

<p>All the best, Matthijs.</p>