ejchem101

<p>Thank you guys for the responses. I will have to look into the 40 2.8 as well... since I don't think that I will notice enough FoV difference between that and a 35. I will continue to think the possibilities over, and let you guys know what I decide on... I suppose I will have to take the new Sigma into consideration as well.</p>

I have two lenses... both good copies and im looking to trade one and keep the other. I would like to get a wide prime (35mm or wider).

the lenses Im looking to trade are the 28-135 and the 24-105. I would be trading them for primes worth roughly the same as the zooms...

so for the 28-135 it would be something like the canon 35 f2, for the L it would be trading for something... like maybe the 35L if I could find a cheap deal on one...

 

Anyway, which way would you go, are there primes I haven't thought of that would be in the same range?

<p>Let me suggest the 200 2.8 prime lens. Since you are worried about the weight issue (it is much lighter than the zooms), the quality is the same as the 70-200 2.8 IS II... and it is a black lens so that it will not be noticed as much.</p>

<p>If you get that, + the 2x TC from canon I think you would be happy. I do most of my hikes with a 24-105 and the 200 2.8 II. This makes for a light pack, and a lot of range.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My first thought is: It's your wife-to-be's honeymoon. Unless she's also a photographer, I'd keep it light on the photo-end. You may want to take a waterproof P&S. Lens? Is there something you feel lacking from your present kit?<br>

<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some great advice from an experienced husband / photographer I would guess. Remember to keep your focus on your wife, I wouldn't spend an over-abundant time on photography unless:<br>

#1 she is already prepared for this... by many many other times where you have focused your lens on the sunset instead of her... (maybe I'm getting too specific here:)</p>

<p>#2. You're willing to hear about it for the rest of your married life</p>

<p>The 24 is about the same as a 35mm, on a 35mm piece of film, not what I would call very wide.</p>

<p>Really your only option if you want to get "really wide" is the 10-22 zoom lens that canon makes. (or you can look at other companies offerings from sigma or tamron etc.)</p>

<p>The advise on this one is easy. There are not tons of ultra-wide angle zoom or even prime lenses that canon offers in EF mounts.</p>

<p>If you are looking to use it primarily stopped down and on a tripod (landscapes etc) then you will want the 17-40 F4 L as Geoff mentioned.</p>

<p>If you need something faster than F4, there is the 16-35 F2.8L which is much more expensive.</p>

<p>In primes: 17TSE, 20mm, I think there is a fisheye that is like 14mm</p>

<p>Geoff,<br>

In regards to the focus speed of the 50 1.8 to the EF 35 f2 I would assume they are relatively the same speed. I have been happy with my 50 1.8, and about 2 years ago I found that this was one of my favorite focal lengths, so I "upgraded" to the 50 1.4. It is nice, and I still use it to this day, but it is soft at anything under 1.8... the biggest difference to me is a slightly softer blurred area (bokeh). So don't let that bother you. Build is better, but nothing major.</p>

<p>Update: So as I'm contemplating the move back to a 5D (to save the cost of around $800) ... and agonizing the thought of my 1Ds (and it's AF, sealing and ergonomics) not being in my bag, I get an email from a co-worker.</p>

<p>"I'm getting married in summer of 2013 in Florida. When we come back to michigan, we would like you to take some casual candid photos at the reception here."<br>

I have spoken to her about it before, and she is very understanding that I am not a wedding photographer, just an amateur portrait / wildlife photog. They have a pro working their wedding in FL and reception there, but just wanted a record for the reception here.</p>

<p>This is basically what I was needing to hear to hold onto this amazing body... just ... something that could justify the cost of around $800 for an amateur like me, this was it.</p>

<p>We already have the tickets to Utah purchased... and i'm not completely certain why I was thinking about selling my "dream" body at this point.</p>

<p>Thank you guys for your support of my craziness thinking of dumping the 1Ds II, but I just can't let it go!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hell, I'm so slow to upgrade my Canon bodies that I have yet to even buy my first one! See? The marketing machine can't touch me, man.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

I'm betting Matt is drooling over/ preordered a D4 (or maybe a D800) already!</p>

<p>So, over the past few years I have kept myself fairly busy buying/selling used camera gear to try things out. I started out on completely manual film cameras about 18 years ago (i'm 28 now). I was mainly self taught on film, my first digital was a kodak, and then when I had a full time job I picked up a D60 with a 50 1.8 I used that for about 2 years, when I decided to pick up a 20D - Then the Gear Aquisition picked up.</p>

<p>From that point about 6 months later, I picked up a 5D because I was having so much fun with the 20D. I used the 5D for a little over a year, putting about 5k shots on it. I then saw a good deal on at 1D mark II so I sold the 5D (for a little more than I payed for it) and tried out the 1D II. I liked it so much I sold that and bought a 1Ds mark II!</p>

<p>Well... in the course of about 5 years I have worked myself from a D60 to a 1Ds mark II. Don't get me wrong, over these 5 years I have taken somewhere in the range of 25k images across all of these cameras, and I have learned a ton! However, I feel like I have outdone myself. I am an amateur. I take some senior portraits, some landscapes, some macros - but - I take photos for the enjoyment.</p>

<p>The 1Ds mark II is an amazing machine, and the greatest camera that I have ever used! But - I have noticed that I loved the photos out of the 5D mark I just as much as I do out of the 1Ds mark II (sure the AF is tons better, but at the sizes I print I can't tell the difference in IQ)... and I found myself taking it along more often because of the size and weight difference.</p>

<p>For the first time in many years, I am going to go backwards. I'm going to simplify. As amazing as the 1D series is - I have to admit that they are not for me. Am I alone here? or are there more of you that would chose to use a XXD / 5D / 7D instead of the 1D series.</p>

<p>With the used prices at the moment, I am able to net probably around $800 + a used 5D. That is enough to pay for my wife and I to have a nice trip to Utah this summer, where I can put that 5D to good use!</p>

<p>Am I crazy?</p>

<p>Let it go, and learn from the mistake. Many of us have done something similar. To be honest, I have even toiled over the idea that my 1Ds2 is more of a camera than I need: But then I look at the files that come out of that beauty and know that there is no reason I would sell it. They are so good... I'm even willing to deal with the outrageous weight of a 1D series body :)</p>

<p>If I had a 1D3 sitting in the closet - #1 it would break my heart that it was not getting used to its full potential. #2 - I would see a pile of $1800 USD sitting there... and the pile will only get smaller as time goes on.</p>

<p>I have to agree with a lot of you who have already posted:</p>

<p>I have the option of zooms, but I love when I leave the house with only a single focal length in tow - for "inspired" photography. It allows my mind to see only one focal length. When I am able to do that, I don't go crazy thinking about the millions of possible photos my zoom could get that would be "interesting".</p>

<p>Instead, I am able to focus on what would make an interesting photo with my 50mm FoV... and I come home with much "better" (in my opinion) photos.</p>

<p>With that said, my 50 1.4 is the one I would choose, but I have yet to try a 35 or wider prime - I use my 17-40 for that range at the moment... and after seeing how many people like the 35, it may inspire me to tape my 17-40 on 35 for a day and see if I can be inspired.</p>

<p>This is on FF</p>

<p>Oops... sorry 1Ds II shutter is at 4fps so 5D3 is 2fps higher</p>

<p>Is it what I wanted? No... but then again, I guess my standards are pretty high. I have yet to find a camera to tear me away from my 1Ds Mark II. Here's why, to <strong>me</strong> I care about weather sealing, iso 100 - 800 IQ, decent AF.<br>

I avoid video like the plague.<br>

I buy most of my gear used because of the value depreciation that happens so quickly with all of this equipment (This $3500 5D mark III will be <$2000 in 5 years).<br>

Long story short: If I look at upgrading from the 1Ds II to the 5D3 I'll gain:<br>

-Worse or possibly equal (I doubt it) Weather sealing<br>

-Same Shutter Speed<br>

-Slightly better (maybe?) AF and exposure<br>

-Better Battery, Bigger Screen, Better ISO Performance, Newer Technology (bells and whistles)<br>

-6MP (which is nothing at this point... it will allow me to crop slightly more... or print bigger (I dont need to do)<br>

- At least $2000 gone from my bank account<br>

So it seems that now... 7 years after the 1Ds Mark II was released, they have put it at the "Prosumer" level in price, with added video, at 2x the price of what you can buy a used 1Ds II for.<br>

If the 1DX was @ the price of the 5DIII then I would be more tempted (because of the faster shutter speeds for when I do shoot sports)</p>

I have to agree with many of the posts here, and I love the non L primes that I have (the 50 1.4 and 100 f2) I would get the non Ls first and if you are missing something then upgrade.

<p>A lot of people seem to be recommending the 7D over the 1Ds II. I personally chose to go with the 1Ds II for a couple of reasons.<br>

#1. FF for the FoV for my 17-40, 50, and 100mm lenses<br>

#2. Weather sealing so I don't worry about going to grab plastic bags in the rain.<br>

I would say they are two very specific cameras for two different purposes. I didnt go with a 5D II because I was able to pick up a used 1Ds II for < $1400 where as even a used 5D II is considerably more than that.</p>

<p>I love still making prints from my digital photos. For one thing, I know a lot of people do a lot of digital backups... and I do too. But I only make dvd copies every couple of months of the new photos, but having hard copies... yes they will fade but, so will I.</p>

<p>There is just something about going to the lab and picking up prints that you start to love (film or digital).</p>

<p>Thanks guys, I'll most likely clean it myself when I get the time. I'm headed to do a wedding this weekend and was just making sure it probably wasn't a permanent mark (or else I would send it back today). Im gonna just go with the thought that it's probably just cleaning marks, and clean the sensor later.</p>

<p>Hey Guys, I just picked up a used 1ds Mark II and had a question about a mark showing up in some of the test shots. I think that it is just a cleaning mark, and I hope that it would not be something permanent, but I thought I would see what you think.</p>

<p>The first is the entire test shot, the second is a almost 100% crop to the area in mention. It is in the upper-right.<br>

I think that the dark spec is just dust, but there's a line of ... stuff?<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13676114-lg.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="429" /><br>

Thanks ahead of time for your help.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13676112-lg.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="144" /></p>

<p>Luckily it's right at the edge of the frame, so if it is annoying it shouldn't take much to just crop it out.</p>

 

<p>Connie,</p>

<p>When I read your question, I thought I would look at your example and see a motion-blurred, miss-focused etc type of problem.</p>

<p>At the size that it is posted, i think it looks plenty sharp. Now, if you are seeing something as unsharp by pixel peeping, then I would say don't worry about it. To answer a couple of other questions, I would turn off IS due to the fact that IS is there to reduce camera shake. If you are using a shutter speed to stop motion, then camera shake shouldn't be an issue. While a monopod might take some weight off of your arms, in full daylight I don't even see the need for it to be honest.</p>

<p>The only suggestion that I would have is to try and identify the problem of the unsharpness... is it depth of field due to using 2.8? or is it slight motion blur?</p>

<p>I would personally use higher shutter speeds for softball / baseball. Don't be afraid of using ISO 400 or 800 even in daylight so that you can stop down and use higher shutter speeds.</p>

<p>At 1/250th of a second I'm sure your IS is helping... on a 50D and 70-200 @ 200mm you are talking about a 320mm lens, which means you should be 1/400th or higher just to stop your camera shake blur. Bump your shutter up to 1/800 or 1/1000 and compare... dont be afraid of experimenting, its one of the amazing things of digital, free experimentation! </p>

<p>This one was shot at F4 1/800th @ ISO 100 on a canon 20D + 70-200 F4<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10923410-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1026" height="600" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>You have too add an alarm clock to get you up at least 90 min before sunrise.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This seems to be the hardest piece of equipment for me to come by lately!</p>

<p>I'm not a professional wedding photographer, however, I do have a lot of nice gear. A few weddings that I went to, I did bring the "professional equipment" of a 5D and 70-200 F4. I didn't like it, #1 - i'm there to have fun and enjoy myself, lugging around a 70-200 (even the f4 version) is not a whole lot of fun.</p>

<p>I do like to bring my 5D or 20D with me, but I just toss on a small lens and only use it for things I want to remember, not so much for the B&G.</p>

<p>If the pro photographer leaves and there are things I wanna grab, then I have my camera there, and I get to be creative with my 50 1.4 or 35mm lenses. I think the biggest difference is that these photos are primarily for my wife and I to remember the wedding from our perspective, not to impress the B&G.</p>

<p>This will probably turn out to be a very subjective post, but- I have a big trip out to Utah planned this summer and I am looking forward to some of the landscape photo opportunities.</p>

<p>My question: In your opinion what made (makes) the largest impact on your landscape photos (not including lighting - which would obviously be first).</p>

<p>Megapixels<br>

Lens<br>

Polarizing Filter (vs none)<br>

FF vs Crop Frame<br>

Digital<br>

Film<br>

Other (specify)</p>

<p>Which one made the largest impact (noticeable when <strong>printed - not pixel peeping</strong> at not bigger than 11x14) on your photos?</p>

<p>I run a photography club for my students, we only have 1 digital camera (about 12 students) that digital camera is a used canon 20D. I am amazed with how it has held up, and with it being the only digital one, kids seem to take care of it a little more.</p>

<p>I have them all start with film (many will argue you can learn so much faster with digital because of instant gratification) which may be true. However, learning with film teaches kids to SLOW DOWN, Think about what they are actually doing (and that needle in the viewfinder really makes it stick- like it did with me).<br>

They actually have to FOCUS (something that is very difficult to do with today's viewfinders in all of these AF models). They learn that aperture is a function of the lens... because they adjust it on the lens!</p>

<p>Once they have successfully shot a roll (24exp) with "correct" focus and exposure (meaning not a completely black frame, and not a completely white frame, and ... focus is close-ish then they can start using the digital. And start the quick learning.</p>

<p>As far as what camera.. I would shy away from the rebels as I have found the next step up to be more durable... If you want to know the MOST durable DSLR (for canon) you are looking at the 1D series. Water resistant-tanks- that come with a price.. but they are canon's most durable.</p>

<p>I guess I've taken things even a little step farther to become less-recognized at weddings as a photographer, and that is I normally just use a small prime and a small body. Instead of showing up with a 70-200 2.8 II IS + 1D II (which I dont want to lug around all day) I will normally just grab my 50 1.8 or 100 F2 and toss it on my 20D. Then I just practice getting all the shots I can, that I expect the pro won't get (odd things going on in the background etc.)</p>

<p>It sounds as if you did this already. In terms of posting on Facebook... There is no etiquette in who posts first, but maybe you could have offered your photos to the pro to put as part of the package so that it is all in one place (yours separated by folder or something obviously). Personally, as someone who was recently married, if we could have all the photos taken of our wedding, all in one place, it would be amazing. Oh, we already do have most of them in one place, thank you facebook.</p>