alan_myers

June 10, 2009

Hi Patricia,

Good! Glad to hear you are going to give it a go. There is always a learning curve with a new camera.

In the meantime, why not shoot some RAW + JPEG and see how Canon's preset in-camera conversions handle the files? Who would know better than Canon, what it takes to get the most out of the camera. I know it means giving up the control of RAW, but once you can match or surpass their JPEGs, you'll know your post processing skills have arrived. In the meantime, you'll have a bit of a guide and goal to shoot for, looking at the JPEGs.

One other thing... Have you or your son updated the firmware in the 50D? How about the conversion software on your computer, is it up to date? When new hardware comes out, software and firmware always lag and play catch up.

I started using 50Ds within the past couple months and am finding their image quality excellent... but I was upgrading from 30Ds. And the first thing I always do, after that initial "photograph everything that holds still long enough" binge when a new camera arrives, is update the firmware. All three of the cameras I got were one or two versions out of date. DPP and CS4 needed updating on my computer, too.

Won't it be fun showing your son your shots that look even better than his?

June 10, 2009

Hi,

24mm has long been one of my favorite focal lengths... on film/full frame.

But, on a crop sensor camera the 24mm is a pretty ho hum "normal", as far as I'm concerned (I do use the 28/1.8 for it's speed, though). Also, the 24/2.8 is not a USM lens like your others, so will focus slightly slower and will be noiser. I also dislike the skinny little focus ring, a la the 50/1.8 bargain lens. I have long wished Canon would make a 24mm prime, say an f2, with USM and build quality on par with the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8, priced and positioned in between the f2.8 and the f1.4L. I've been very tempted to adapt a Nikkor 24/2 AI-S I've got, for somewhat heretical use on my Canon croppers!

For use on crop sensor cameras, I'd go with the Canon 20/2.8 instead. It's wider view is simply more useful for me. And, it's got USM. Check into the Sigma 20/1.8 (or 24/1.8) carefully, I've not heard great things about them in terms of IQ, and they are big and heavy.

I also use the Tokina 12-24/4. Great lens and the f4 aperture really doesn't bother me at all, at wide angle end of things (my only other f4 lens is a 500mm, pretty much everything else is f2.8 or faster, well, except for the 24/3.5 TS-E, and the 180/3.5 Macro).

However, since you already have the 17-55/2.8 IS, you might want to check out the Tokina 11-16/2.8. It's an impressive lens, from what I've heard. But, I can't speak from personal experience with it.

There just aren't many truly wide primes for crop sensor cameras. You almost have no choice but a zoom. And, most over 16mm wide are "crop only". But I wouldn't worry too much about selling them in the future if you get a full frame camera. 1.6X format isn't going away any time soon because full frame cameras will always be bigger, heavier and a lot more expensive.

June 10, 2009

Hi Lisa,

20mm, and 17mm for that matter, are not particularly wide angle on your camera.

Interiors often demand wider lenses.

I'd suggest the Tokina 12-24/4, which will work fine on your camera, compliment the lens you already have better than a lens with a lot of overlapping focal length, and won't cost you much more than the 20mm would (by the time you add a hood, which is extra with the 20mm, but included in the price of the Tokina.)

The Tokina is very well made, sharp and well corrected as the Canon 10-22 (which is an EF-S lens so won't work on your camera without modification... and costs about $200 more anyway).

Another thing that interiors often require is multiple flashes and/or studio lights. If you've ever tried to use a variable aperture zoom with manual flash or studio light setups, you'll have another really strong reason to look for a non-variable aperture zoom like the 12-24, and shy away from all the others where it varies.

June 10, 2009

Hi again Linda,

Do you, by any chance, have those filters on the lenses all the time? That could be part of the problem. Inexpensive filters can soften an image *and* mess with focus accuracy. Especially cheaper polarizing filters, since they have two layers of glass. Personally I avoid using filters at all until they serve some real purpose. And the ones I use aren't cheap, but I only had to purchase them once. I primarily use B+W "MRC" multicoated UV and C-Pol in various sizes, but Heliopan SH-PMC and Hoya SHMC are also both good.

Most professional wildlife photographers don't use zooms very much over 200mm for their important shots. They tend to choose prime lenses instead. Zooms have improved tremendously in the past 20 years, but primes are still sharper and some of Canon's prime telephotos are simply amazing.

Speaking of which, I alluded to the 1.6X cameras "free teleconverter" effect earlier, but didn't follow through with that thought. If you get a full frame camera, you might want a 500mm lens for those wildlife shots with it. That really isn't all that long a lens for wildlife shooting with a full frame camera. The Canon 500mm f4 IS is a great lens, but it's big and heavy.

On the other hand, on a crop sensor camera like the 50D, the 300mm f4 IS will give you almost identical angle of view, at about 1/3 the size, 1/4 the weight and 1/5 the price. This is something a lot of pro sports photographers really like about the 1.3X factor of the 1D-series cameras (and a key reason I think Canon will stick with that format in spite of what the competition might be doing). None of us are getting any younger and many of those sports photogs have been only too happy to trade in their big, heavy old 600/4 and 400/2.8 super teles for more reasonable (but still big enough and white enough to be noticed on the sidelines) 500/4 and 300/2.8 lenses!

Now that you've told us what lenses you have, I'm even more convinced than before... You really should upgrade those before considering any other camera. Neither of the lenses you have are particularly great. They are inexpensive "entry level" lenses. Fine for snapshots, and pretty good value actually. They each probably have "sweet spots" around f8 where they are sharpest, and particular focal lengths where they perform close to more expensive lenses. You've managed to wring some darned good shots out of them, looking through your portfolio. It will be interesting to see what you can do when you step up to some better lenses.

You'll find, for example, that a high quality 24-70/2.8 lens can be used wide open and has little distortion throughout it's zoom range. A 50/1.4 sharpens up at f2, rather than f5.6 or f8. And, larger aperture lenses like the 85/1.8 allows you to make portraits with soft, creamy backgrounds that make your subject really stand out. A 300mm prime lens will simply blow away that "kit" zoom for sharpness, color saturation and everything else!

I'd recommend:

1. A wide lens like the Canon 10-22 or Tokina 12-24/4 for scenics, cityscapes, seascapes, etc. The vast majority of wide lenses for crop sensor cameras are zooms at this point in time. I prefer to shoot with primes, but use the Tokina myself on my 50Ds and 30Ds.

2. Get a faster moderate lens if you want to shoot low light/street photography, like a 28/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4. These are slightly wide "normals" on a crop sensor camera and fun to work with, if this type shooting appeals to you. The 28mm is very compact, too.

3. You might want a portrait lens or two if that's something you shoot a lot of, such as Canon's 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. These are a great pair of lenses for portraiture on crop sensor camera. I use them both. Since adding the full frame camera to my kit, I am shopping for a 135/2 as well.

Canon's "uber lenses" for portraiture are the 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L (and the 135/2), but those would seem heavy and unbalanced on an XTi, not to mention are quite expensive and actually slower focusing than their lesser cousins. They are a bit tricky to learn to use, too, their depth of field can be so shallow.

4. Get a killer macro lens if you want to shoot close-ups. You can't go wrong with the Canon 100/2.8. The current USM version of this lens focuses fast enough to also double as a moderate tele on a crop sensor camera for subjects at non-macro distances. Be warned, it's almost too sharp for feminine portraits, though! And, to be fair, there are a number of good macro lenses available. Sigma offers 50mm, 70mm, 105mm and 180mm. Canon offers 50mm, 60mm, 65mm, 100mm and 180mm. I recommend the Canon 100/2.8 as a good "all around" macro/moderate tele on crop sensor cameras. Shorter focal lengths put you too close to your subjects and longer ones are harder to work with due to shallow depth of field, which requires stopping down, which in turn requires slower shutter speed. But, you could substitute a Tamron 90mm, Sigma 105mm or a Tokina 100mm, though, if you wished. The 60mm Canon is also a great lens, but it's "crop sensor only" and wouldn't be usable on a full frame camera in the future, if you get one.

5. If you don't choose to get a portrait or low light prime lenses, a high quality zoom such as the 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4 IS might fit the bill. Be sure you can live with an f4 lens in these middle focal lengths, though. I chose the 24-70/2.8. Some superb, longer zooms are the 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS. I use the latter, but would recommend you look at the f4 instead,for use on your camera (more info below).

6. A 300/4 IS would be a good choice for wildlife. You might also want to get a 1.4X teleconverter to use with it, but if you do you'd better plan on using a pretty sturdy tripod, too! Evenwith IS, it will be impossible to hand hold a sharp shot at practically any shutter speed. And, note that a 1.4X "loses" one stop of light, so you will only be able to use the center focus point in your camera at, effectively, f5.6. But, this is true of the 50D, 5D Mk II and all the other Canon cameras, too, except for the 1-Series and the EOS-3 film camera.

Now, some of the larger lenses mentioned might feel a bit clumsy on your smaller sized camera. If that's the case, adding a battery grip to the camera can help. The additional mass helps larger lenses balance better with the camera, and the extra battery power is useful if using IS lenses, plus you get a second set of controls that make vertically oriented shots more convenient. Also, I recommended the 70-200 IS in the f4 instead of the f2.8 version, because this is most likely lenses you will want to hand hold a lot. Friends who have tried out my f2.8 lens on their Rebels haven't felt comfortable with it and bought the smaller f4 lens instead.

The 300/4 IS is another story. There's no getting around it's size, which is actually reasonable considering it's focal length and speed. I'd recommend using at least a monopod with it, but a tripod would be even better. Yes, it can be hand held, but you might find a tripod/monopod a lot easier while waiting for wildlife to pose just right. Do note, when locked down on a tripod, with this particular lens you have to turn off the IS manually. However, on a monopod or if using a gimbal mount and/or loose panning technique on a tripod, I'd probably leave IS turned on.

Speaking of which, I highly recommend IS on any lens 100mm or longer, if at all possible. I think for telephoto work it's the best thing since sliced bread. But I also have to note that I don't find it very important on shorter focal lengths, nor is it very useful for macro work.

Of the lenses listed, the Canon 10-22, Canon 60mm macro, Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 30/1.4 are "crop sensor only" lenses and couldn't also be used on a full frame camera if you eventually get one. All the other lenses can be used on any Canon EF mount camera, full frame or crop sensor.

None of these are cheap lenses, but quality never is. However, if you were considering spending $2700 US on a 5D Mark II, instead choosing from among these lenses several that best fit your personal needs will be far better investment of your money, in terms of image quality and growing as a photographer. The lenses you use will always have more effect on your images, than the camera will. I bet you'll be amazed what your XTi can produce, with better glass out in front of it!

Have fun shopping!

June 9, 2009

I got both... Much easier than trying to choose ;-)

But seriously Linda, the full frame camera would be best for big prints, portraits (depth of field control) and scenics (detail). Meanwhile, the crop sensor canera would be better for catching fast moving wildlife. The 5D Mk2 is great for super low light situations, but the 50D is better at that too, compared to some of the previous models in the xxD series. I will use a 50D at 3200 ISO, where with my older 30Ds I wouldn't set above 1600 (and tried to avoid that). With 5D Mk2, 6400 is doable. (I haven't shot enough with it at higher ISOs to really say if they are feasible or not.)

The 50D focuses faster and seems to track moving subjects better. It also has shorter shutter lag and a higher flash sync speed. And, it's a little quieter, the big mirror in the 5D Mk2 lets you know when it's working. All these are things that give the 50D some advantage with wildlife. Not to mention the "free 1.6X teleconverter" built in.... Yeah, I know that's a falicy, but 15MP on a 1.6X camera is actually higher resolution than you'd have cropping a full framer down to the same image area.

Canon rates the 5D Mk2's shutter at 150,000 cycles, and the 50D's at 100,000. The 5D Mk2 is probably better sealed against dust and moisture. It lacks a built in flash, for one, which I always felt was a possible entry point for rain or dirt particles on all the 1.6X cameras.

The viewfinder of the 5D Mk2 is great. Big and bright. But the 50D has one of the best I've seen on a crop sensor camera. I wear glasses and can actually see the LED readout in the 50D, never could on my 30Ds.

Both cameras have beautifully improved LCD screens and the latest menu setup from Canon. Both have Live View, Sensor Cleaning, interchangeable focus screens, UDMA memory card capabilities, 14 bit color. Both have peripheral illumination control (to counter natural vignetting in many Canon lenses) and AF micro adjustment (up to 20 lenses).

The 5D Mk2 has HD Video [yes, you just heard a big yawn... sorry Canon engineers, but if I wanted a video camera, I'd have bought a video camera].

Both have Creative Auto mode [another yawn].

The 5D Mk2 uses a new battery type, that's more expensive and can be hard to get at present. No other Canon camera presently shares that battery type.

The 50D uses BP511 type batteries, which are very widely available, even much cheaper third party ones.

But your present camera uses a different battery type entirely, so if you want extras you'll end up buying more, anyway.

And neither camera will show you leaps and bounds improvements in image quality unless you have decent lenses to use on them. Lenses are far more important than what camera you mount them on, when it comes to the end results and image quality. If you are having trouble with sharpness on your current camera, I'd look at the lenses you are using, before anything else. For example, some "consumer/kit" zooms simply are soft at their long end, say at 300mm. A lens that's been dropped or bumped hard might be out of alignment, too. Also technique is important, such as using long lenses on a tripod/monopod, with image stabilization, etc.

Either camera will be significantly larger and heavier than what you are using now. There are places that rent equipment over the Internet. It might be worthwhile to buy the Magic Lantern Guide Book for any model you get serious about, then rent one and give it a thorough test drive, before buying, just to be sure.

But, again, if it were me I'd put my money into my lens kit first. Not necessarily L-Series, either, there are some excellent non-L zooms and primes available as well. The 5D, both the original and the Mark II, are notoriously demanding of lenses. That's because the larger pixel pitch of the full frame sensor actually resolves more detail.

Oh, and when it comes to good technique, books regarding wildlife photography by George Lepp, John Shaw, Nial Benvie, Joe & Mary McDonald, Tim Fitzharris and some others might be worth more than all the camera equipment in the world.

Hope this helps!

June 9, 2009

Bingo! I was going to suggest to check the card reader connections, too. I had trouble using one via a USB hub built into my monitor... Got a lot of corrupted files during transfer. I stopped using it. The card reader works fine when plugged directly into one of the USB ports on the computer.

Another thought, do you regularly format the CF card before shooting? I make a habit of doing an in-camera format every time I insert a card. If your card isn't formatted regularly, it can build up a lot of extraneous, residual data and that might cause problems. Also, switching a card from one camera to another, it should always be formatted first thing.

However, avoid formatting the card in your computer. It's unlikely that the file structure the computer puts on it will be fully compatible with your camera.

Besides the above USB hub issue, the only other memory failure I've ever had with any digital camera was when I popped the door open too quickly... Clearly a "user error". D'oh! So, I think regular formatting - in camera - helps a lot.

Some of the image recovery programs work fairly well. Both Lexar and Sandisk provide it from their websites, but I think they've gotten smart and are starting to charge for it.

I've used the Lexar s'ware most and it includes memory checking and mapping utility, which will mark bad sectors on cards so they aren't used. There's extra "headroom" built into most cards so that you won't even see a change in the card's capacity doing this. By the way, I think this is also usually done at the factory before cards ship out for sale... Some bad sectors aren't at all uncommon even on a brand new card... You just never are aware of them because they are mapped and marked this way.

June 9, 2009

Hi Lauren,

I agree with the other response... Don't be afraid to use that flash. It can do wonders for your pics.

I would recommend sometime getting an off camera shoe cord and a flash bracket, to move the flash further from the axis of the lens. That helps with both redeye and shadows.

Other than that, have fun and experiment!

February 27, 2009

I imprint all my finished prints with my name. It's more a signature than a watermark or copyright notice, but of course it serves both those purposes anyway.

It's kept small and subtle, and placed in one or the other of the lower corners, whichever looks best.

I can't imagine not signing my work. Artists sign their paintings, etc. Why shouldn't photographers.

The only time I'd not sign a print would be if it's submitted for use in media or advertising. In those cases it's up to the buyer to put a photo credit adjacent to the image. That's common in editorial use, but not in advertising.

February 26, 2009

Since you are using flash anyway, you could also use it's AF assist feature.

February 19, 2009

Oh, and one more thing.... Yes update the firmware, but not now.

Do it later after you have resolved this problem. I've never received a notification an update was available... I don't think Canon sends those out. It's just a matter of checking, and that's the first thing I do when I get a new camera. What's on it is almost alway out of date.

Finally, I read a recent, similar thread regarding Err99 and 40D where two users reported failed shutters that Canon had to replace. One had relatively few clicks on it, too. Now, if you are managing to get five shots before it gives the error again, then I suspect it's something else. But, even if one of the suggestions above seems to help, you still might want to send your camera in to Canon for service while it's still under warranty.

February 19, 2009

1. Have you formatted the CF card lately? If not, that might help. I format the memory card every time I install it in the camera. I just think this is always a good practice and reduces the possibility of "mystery problems".

As a side note, I accidentally corrupted a card by looking at the images on it with Photoshop. PS Bridge created small "side car" files on the card that freaked out my camera, but didn't really do any harm. I use Lexar's Image Rescue memory card software, but not the image recover mode... Instead the feature that "optimizes and cleans" the card. This fixed the card and there have been no problems with it since. I think Sandisk offers a similar software. They will both work on any brand of CF card, as far as I know.

2, Do you have a battery grip on the camera? If so, is it tight? If so, inspect and wipe the contacts for the batteries, and remove the grip, inspect/wipe the contacts between the grip and the camera (up inside the camera). Then reinstall. See below for method of cleaning.

2. Look closely at the CF card to see if any pins are broken off in it, and with a flashlight inspect the pins inside the camera, to see if any are bent, or if there is anything in there that might cause problems. If not, reinstall the CF card, but don't turn on the camera yet.

3. Remove all the batteries (including the silver CR2016 or CR2025, whatever it is) and leave them out for half an hour. Then wipe them to remove any fingerprints (a few drops of isopropyl/rubbing alcohol on a clean, lint free rag works well). Reinstall batteries, but don't turn on the camera yet.

4. Remove the lens and wipe the lens-to-camera contacts on both the back of the lens and just inside the front of the camera, being careful not to touch the mirror or anything else. The same clean, lint free rag lightly dampened with isopropyl alcohol.

5. You're now ready to try the camera again.

Oh, and you don't, by any chance, have a third party battery grip or a third party lens on the camera, do you? I've heard plenty of instances where these have caused issues. Usually a lens will show up right away, though.

February 19, 2009

I have and use the original 24mm and 45mm TS-E lenses.

I definitely want the 17mm, but will prob wait a little while until the price drops a bit. It will.

In 1991 the original 24mm sold for approx. $2000 of today's dollars, if you adjust for inflation. So, the $2100-2200 price tag isn't unreasonable, for starters, especially if they've done some things to solve chromatic aberration issues with the original lens, and considering that both the new lenses offer the user ability to realign tilt and shift orientation with each other, on the fly, which you couldn't do with all three of the original TS-Es. Now, I don't use the 24mm TS-E enough on my crop sensor cameras to rush out and upgrade to the new one. I'd be more inclined to do so if I had a full frame DSLR.

TS-E lenses have a lot of uses. I use the 45mm a lot for small product shots (tabletop/studio work... again, this is with crop sensor cameras... If I were shooting full frame, I'd have the 90mm for this purpose, instead.)

They are also great for multi image panoramas. And just try shooting a mirror without getting yourself in the images, too, without a TS-E lens. Odd uses of the plane of DOF can be used to interesting, if sometimes overdone effect, too.

Canon's prime lens lineup has had a major gap in it between the 14mm and 20mm for a long, long time now. It's about time they filled it. Sorry, but I think the 17mm will mostly appeal to full frame DSLR users, but it will also serve crop users well too. There hasn't been any truly wide TS-E for crop sensor, up to now.

February 19, 2009

Yeah, please leave me out of your rant...

17mm TS-E.... FANTASTIC! Want it!

24mm TS-E... Excellent upgrade if it deals with the CA issues.

Both lenses now allow easy reconfiguring the allignment between tilt and shift.... IT'S ABOUT TIME! This is the way all the TS-E lenses should have been made to begin with.

Also leave me off the list for 24-70/2.8 "I.S.".... Don't have or need I.S. on that focal length now. It would just be a waste of money, IMHO, especially with higher and higher ISO capabilites in cameras. Ialso hear people whining they want an I.S. macro lens... Well buy the Nikon VR 105mm and you'll find out why Nikon doesn't claim very much improvement with VR at macro distances. It doesn't do much to help!

The lenses Canon most needs to get I.S. into are the 135/2, 200/2.8 and 400/5.6.

200-400/4 will be a $5000 lens, like the Nikon version is. You saving up? It'll be big and heavy, too, just like the Nikkor. I'd much rather have the 200/2, and I already have the 300/2.8 and 500/4. I'm saving up to get an 800mm when I get full frame DSLRs (now that the lens' price is starting to drop a bit).

Canon already offers the deepest and widest selection of lenses to fit your (or my) 30D. You can use all their EF-S *and* all their EF lenses. More than any other manufacturer. Well, Nikon is not all that far behind, but a lot of Nikkors - the non AF-S ones - won't autofocus with the less expensive Nikon bodies. OTOH, there's finally an AF-S 50/1.4 Nikkor... But that's your only 50mm choice in the system. Canon let's you choose from 50/1.8, 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L... Or even a 50/2.5 Macro, if you prefer.

Canon's strength is in their lenses and the choices they offer , plus a number of specialty lenses that no one else comes close to offerting....Like the TS-Es, in fact. Or *four* 70-200s! Compare that to one at most in other brands.

Besides, they had to respond to the three new Nikkor PC lenses, which seemed to take an awful long time to come about (there have been PC Nikkors for a long, long time, in AI/AI-S lenses and even earlier). Those oh-so patient faithful Nikonians. But hey, they finally got a full frame camera (actually three), too! Only had to wait six or seven years for the first one.

Not that Canon is perfect by any means. I wonder if they'll ever respond to the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor? Canon should have built an EF-S 12-24/4 a long time ago, too.

Now I'd really like to see Canon pay attention to the 50/1.4 "Mark II", come up with a USM/upgrade version of the 35/2 and perhaps upgrade the 24/2.8 (or a 24/2) to USM. With the Sigma 50/1.4 and the new Nikkor, I bet we'll see a new EF 50/1.4 soon, too.

Want more focus points? Buy a 1D-series camera. But, it's not the number of points that matter, it's where they are located. My EOS-3s have 45 points (same as the 1 series cameras), and I keep it turned down to using 11 or 13 (I forget which, without going and looking). But this does allow linking spot metering to the active point, something only the 1D series can do now. I'd really like to the the 9-point systems able to do that.

Frankly, I looked at a D700 and found the tight cluster of 51 AF points in the center of the viewfinder somewhat distracting. I could get used to it, but with my cameras I'm using the center point or another pre-selected single AF point and the * button (CFn 4/3) most of the time anyway. If there were 51 points and I were only using one like that, I'd probably feel like I'd wasted my money! ;-)

Again, Canon ain't perfect either. The 5D MkII's AF points look awfully centered to me.

Sigma makes two fisheye lenses specifically for crop sensor. Tokina makes a fisheye zoom.

Some have whined about the price of the 24mm TS-E Mark II. I looked up the original when it was introduced in 1991 and factoring for inflation, it was $2000. The new lens will very likely settle down from this initial "list" price over time, much the same way the current models have.

February 19, 2009

Hi Andres,

I would think you'd want a longer lens for the type of shooting you like to do. One of the 70-200s might be ideal, but aren't cheap! The 55-250 IS or 70-300 IS might be a good budget alternative, for now.

I do think the 28-135 in kit with the 50D is a good deal. Have you considered possibly a 40D instead, to end up with more money to spend on lenses? It's also available with the 28-135 in kit.

The new Tamron 10-24 and Tokina 12-24 are good budget alternatives to the Canon 10-22. Better in some ways, even. The Tokina has better build quality, and they are blowing out the first version right now with the new Mark II just announced (improved coatings are the primary difference). The Tamron offers a wider zoom range. You can get any of these lenses for about $250 to $300 less than the Canon 10-22 (by the time you get the hood for it, too, which really shouldn't be optional).

February 19, 2009

Folks, you might be interested to know that when it was introduced in 1991, the original 24mm TS-E linitial list price was just about $2000 (converting from yen, per the Canon Museum, and adjusting for inflation). I didn't look up the other two lenses, but I bet they were similar.

As far as I'm concerned, the new feature allowing easy realignment of tilt and shift in relation to each other , plus if Canon managed to significantly improve chromatic aberration control, the new version of the 24mm would be well worth $100 more relative to the old one.

Will I buy one for $2100? No.... But, I'm not buying an 800mm yet, either. That lens started out at $12K last Fall and currently selling for around $10,600. All Canon lens "list" prices gradually drop after introduction. Sometimes faster, sometimes slower, depending upon demand for the particular lens.

I'm very pleased to see a wider TS-E lens, which will be very useful on both full frame and crop sensor cameras!

I'm hoping they do some more clever things and keep paying attention to their primes.

February 19, 2009

A lot of pros bought and used the EOS-3, no matter how it might have been categorized.

It shares the Power Booster (PB-E2) with the 1-series cameras. In the EOS-3 you can get 6 or 7 fps with it, in the 1V HS you can get 9 or 10. So, how often do you want to change 36 exposure rolls of film? Ever 5 or 6 seconds or every 3 or 4 seconds! ;-)

The EOS-3 and the Elan 7/7N, EOS-30/33/N were the only models to get Eye Control Focus, which never worked well for me, but some people love it.

The EOS-3 introduced the new 45 point AF system, which was an improvement over the 1N's at the time, and that eventually found it's way into the 1V and from there into all the 1D series, including the ones on the market today. No doubt there have been some tweaks to the system since the EOS-3 was first offered, but it's still a top notch AF system. Considering the 1D MkIII AF debacle, I'll leave it up to you to decide if this is a plus or a minus. ;-) (In truth, the 45 point system works well on all the other cameras and has been fixed, supposedly, on the 1D MkIII, whether it was real or imagined to begin with.)

EOS-3 also have a feature I really liked a lot... You can reduce the number of AF points to 11 (or is it 13?) and link spot metering to the active AF point. As far as I know, only the 1 Series cameras can do that today.

So in a sense, with EOS-3 you get the AF and metering features of the "pro" cameras, just not quite as high build quality and sealing and not as high a price.

EOS-3 has around 20 custom functions, I think the 1V has about 40 or so, but I don't know all the differences.

By the way, the AF system on the Elan 7/7N, EOS-30/33/N is quite similar to the 9 point used on many of the digital cameras today, including the 20/30/40/50D and 5D/5D MkII.

Incidentally, the Elan 7/7N, EOS-30/33/N were designed and built to be quiet... Very quiet compared to most SLRs. (EOS-3 does have a "quiet mode" in the custom functions, but what it does is slow down film rewind at the end of the roll, so that's the only time the camera actually operates more quietly).

February 17, 2009

Hi again Laura,

I answered your questions on the other post asking the same, that you started back on Feb. 10th.

February 17, 2009

I find the 100/2.8 USM to be plenty fast focusing at non-macro distances, so long as I remember to set the focus limiter. It's not as fast as, say, 85/1.8 or 300/2.8 or 70-200/2.8, but really not all that much slower, either.

Might be some difference from camera body to camera body with the lens. I'm using or have previously used EOS-3, 1V, Elan 7, 10D, 30D with this lens.

I find it to be quite usable as a short tele lens at non-macro distances, in fact. The same can't be said of the 180mm, which is more of a macro-only lens in my opinion, due to slower AF even though it's USM and when used with the focus limiter.

At macro distances, well any AF is fairly slow and might go off hunting on you unless you manually brign it close to the point of focus first. It's often easier to simply focus entirely manually and just use the focus confirmation.

February 17, 2009

Hi Laura,

You can make yourself crazy trying to choose!

First of all, be very careful about packages assembled by sellers, as opposed to what Canon offers in kits. Often those seller packages include cheap stuff that makes them sound good, but are pretty much a rip off when you get into them and consider the individual pieces more carefully.

On the other hand, Canon's kits are usually good values. I have used and like the 28-135 IS that's often available in kit with the 50D. I used that lens before I got the 24-70/2.8 and find the image quality really isn't all that different. The biggest difference, besides it's the much higher price, is the build quality and dust sealing of the L-series lens, and its f2.8 aperture of course. The 28-135 is Canon's mid-grade... Decent, but not as durable or well sealed as an L.

Buy a couple lenses that appeal to you and be aware that you will add more gradually in the future. Don't get too many lenses too fast. I started out with four specific (two zooms and two super teles) and it's taken me seven years to build up my lens kit to where it is today. I just sold a lens and purchased a different one in January, in fact. Your lens kit will likely always be evolving, so don't fret it too much.

All I can tell you is what I chose, and why.

I use the 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 IS as my main lenses for work. I just added a Tokina 12-24/4 to have a wide zoom available too. That's usually in my camera bag while the other two lenses are on my cameras. I also have a 1.4X and extension tubes in the camera bag, which gives me a very versatile kit in a relatively small package.

The other ten lenses in my Canon kit are all primes (not zooms) and some are pretty specialized. They include two macros, two tilt-shift, two super teles, and a four-lens portrait/walk around kit.

Just speaking for myself, I don't mind an f4 lens for a super wide where I'm seldom concerned about rendering shallow depth of field and can hand hold pretty low shutter speeds, but I really can't live with anything slower than f2.8 in the middle to moderate tele focal lengths. Plus, for portraiture, street shooting, general walk around I like to use a modest set of prime lenses rather than the zooms, which I use for sports/events where they are necessary. That's just me... I like to shoot with primes whenever possible, but there are other times when a zoom is simply essential.

I also really like IS on tele lenses and, after using several of them with it for a number of years now, really wouldn't want to be without it on my 70-200, 300 and 500mm. But, I don't find it all that important or necessary on lenses under 100mm. Granted, it's always nice on any lens so long as it doesn't add cost or weight, but I just don't find it all that essential on shorter focal lengths that I can manage to hand hold steady without it. Other people, perhaps including you, might and sometimes do feel differently.

I haven't had experience with the 17-85 or any of the 70/75-300 you mention. There are plenty of reviews of those here and elsewhere on the Internet, though.

If you want to make some lens to lens comparisons, I recommend Popular Photography's lens tests, which are archived on their website. They have a very consistent testing procedure which is helpful when trying to make comparisons. Their URL is www.popphoto.com. Also, dpreview.com is a good place to look for comparisons, although they are a bit less careful about consistent testing methods.

All four of the 70-200 Canon lenses are top quality, both in terms of build and image. All work well with the 1.4X teleconverter, too. I won't use a 2X with mine, though, because the IQ suffers too much in my opinion.

A lot of people rave about the 17-55/2.8 IS, too. I haven't used it, though. It's pretty easy to add other lenses around it, to make up a nice kit, same as with the 24-70, 24-105 or 28-135.

My favorite macro lens on crop sensor cameras is Canon's 100/2.8. It's also usable on full frame/film, and gives me good working distance from shy/nasty subjects, but not so far it's difficult to hand hold. 50mm macro lenses have never been my favorites, they just put me too close to the subject. And, my 180mm doesn't get used much except with my film cameras (full frame). But I should also point out that the 24-70 is quite close focusing and it's quite usable with macro extension tubes (as are the 28-135, 70-200, and my 50mm and 85mm primes, if needed).

Now, when selecting lenses I've had to keep in mind ones that are compatible with the film cameras I use. I also plan to add full frame digital cameras, soon. So, for me, that's largely ruled out Canon's EF-S or third party "crop only" lenses. The one and only exception in my kit tight now is the Tokina 12-24 I just bought.

When I do add full frame DSLRs to my kit, I'll likely be looking at some additional lenses or replacements. I know I'll need another tilt-shift lens for certain types of work. I'll also probably get a 24mm, a fast 35mm, and a 135mm, as those are all key lenses I've used a lot on film cameras in the past (and have equivalents for on crop sensor cameras now). I might even get a 200mm prime and, if I win the lottery, maybe an 800mm! But, I'll add or substitute lenses a bit at a time, as needed.

So, in the end, I'd say just pick two or three lenses to get started and go for it. You can be sure you'll add more later, as needs arise. If you find you aren't happy with a particular lens, most are easily sold off. Canon's lenses hold their resale value better than third party, as a rule.

February 17, 2009

There are a few advantages and disadvantages to each camera.... But both can manage to make pretty darned nice photos under a wide variety of conditions. Handle both and see what you like. Do a close comparison of the finer points of the two models to see if there's anything one offers over the other that's very important to you (price, size, weight, memory card type, ergonomics, ISO capabilities, frames per second, accessories, etc., etc., etc.)

The far more important question is the glass you put on the front of whichever body you choose. The lenses you select, which might be influenced by the price of the camera or what you can get in kit with the camera for a better deal, will have far more effect on the images you are able to make. You mention you have some 35mm experience. If that's fresh enough in your mind and you had a kit of lenses and some favorites you liked to use with the film camera, sit down and make a list of the focal lengths then multiply those by 1.6X to figure out what lenses you'll need with the new digital camera. If the 35mm happened to be an EOS camera, some of the lenses you used on it might be usable on the digital, too, but will behave differently due to the crop factor.

You really can't go far wrong choosing either camera body. Even if you do change your mind later, it's not difficult to sell the one you got and purchase the other. In fact, at the pace digital cameras are improving and seeing new features added, you should expect you'll want a new model in a couple years, anyway. Good lenses, on the other hand, you are far more likely to keep and use on camera after camera.

So, think in terms of a system, not just the camera body. And don't fret too much about which camera. They'll both take great shots.

February 16, 2009

There are several good books about stock photography. Amazon has them.

"Photographers Market 2009" should be near the top on your reading list, too.

Watch for seminars on stock anywhere neary you. I was fortunate to attend one of Bill Bachmann's last year (www.billbachmann.com)

February 16, 2009

I have the 18-55mm lens that came with the camera body, and a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III, which is what I have been shooting with, for those who asked what lenses I have.

</blockquote>

So you've got longer tele and shorter wide options covered to some degree, should the need arise.

Then, yes, my opinion hasn't changed... I think the 50mm would be your best "all around" portrait choice for now, and with your budget the f1.4 makes good sense.

Eventually you'll probably want to add both wider and longer portrait lenses, so just think of this as a first step.

February 15, 2009

I've been using several OCSC2 for a number of years and don't see much difference in the 3, except for the 50% higher price tag and the wider plastic flanges to help "seal" a little better with the latest cameras' hot shoes and a current Canon flash's hot foot.

I removed all the screws from the OCSC2 and Locktited them back in place some time ago. They'd loosened a little on one of the hot shoes, with use. Never had a single glitch with them since.

There are a number of third party shoe cords that probably work just as well and would cost even less. After all, it's just a cord.

February 15, 2009

Hi Brent,

Geez... Rent em, try em, then buy the one you like.

For that matter, just go ahead and buy the 50/1.4, shoot with it a few months and see if it works for you. If so, great. If not, sell it for 80 to 90% of what you paid. You might end up out of pocket $30 to $60, approx. If used 3 months, that would be a darned cheap "rental".

The 50/1.4 is good for what it is, a nice mid-grade lens. I recommend getting the hood for it, too. Besides the typical purposes when the lens is in use, the hood in the reversed position also serves to protect the lens when it's stored in a camera bag or pack.

February 15, 2009

There is nothing wrong with the bargain 50/1.8, but I'd not recommend it for someone who will be shooting professionally.

Get the 50/1.4... It gives somewhat better image quality and will hold up to pro use better, plus focuses faster. You can get it with it's lens hood for about $350.

I use the 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. But, if you are only getting one lens right now, get the 50mm and back up for the full length portraits, move in for tighter head & shoulder shots with it. Later you can add the other lenses, if it makes sense.

Yes, it would have been helpful to know what other lenses you already have.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by alan_myers