landscape_shooter

<p>The 70-200 is one of the best lenses that I ever used. I don't have it anymore as I sold it when I bought the 100-400. If 200 is as long as you need, and you generally have enough shutter speed than it is the best choice. I don't know how this compares with the lens you have already. I would look at your exif data and see what use the IS has been for you, and the photos over 200mm-would you miss that? Don't think that you need expensive gear to make nice photos. For years all I used was the 28-90mm and 75-300 cheap variation lenses. I sold alot of prints with these simple lenses and probably paid for them 20+ times over.</p>

<p>Sometimes I like to throw an old "car battery in the backpack" and just go with it. Sorry</p>

<p>How much does a new album cost for the mother? The bride already said she's happy with her's. Maybe the price isn't too bad and you can just make one new one for the mother?</p>

<p>Hi, I just read a comment on in-between (640) etc. ISO settings not being as good as the usual settings-100-200-400 etc. Anyone care to elaborate on this? Do many of you avoid these settings? </p>

<p>Hi, I own the 24mm 2.8 Canon prime lens, I am looking to buy probably the 24-70, or the 24-105. I am leaning toward the 24-70. How are these zoom lenses compared to the prime? I am looking at focusing, color, contrast mostly. All these lenses should be plenty sharp I think. Thanks again!</p>

<p>Hi, I have a BW 010 MRC 77mm UV filter I use on my 17-55mm IS. I am going to buy a 24-70 or 24-105mm as I use my 5D more now. Will this filter work or do I need a slim one? If it doesn't work I might as well try to sell it with the 17-55.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"If you are seeking better image quality, I suspect upgrading camera's will not do it. You'll be dissapointed. I think you'd get more bang for your buck by identifying what it is about your images that you don't like and then adjusting your technique to fix that."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>-I agree with this, also that you should want something particular in changing gear or upgrading, not just buying for "better photos". The last sentence could be---adusting your technique to fix that or weighing the price of something that can do what your current gear can't.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In my eyes, yes there is a difference. But only if you are pretty serious into photography and know how to use your cameras wisely. If you are new to the hobby, learning how to use a 30D to the full potential could also result in much better photos. As far as 5D vs. 30D, The difference can be lower noise, a better blurred background, more dynamic range. In my eyes if you did a similar photo side by side, the 5D has a little more dynamic range, and colors are more bold. You can take great photos with your crop camera though. Price lenses out also if you are considering a new camera. Lens prices seem to be going up every month.</p>

<p>I had a problem just like this this past weekend. I was using it like normal, and my shots were turning out very dark. (580EX with external battery pack) I asked the photographer I was working for and he said the flash must have a problem after playing with it himself. He's a top photographer so I'm sure he was right. Maybe your flash has a problem as well. "These stoney river steak ads are annoying"</p>

 

<p>I think the 16-35 on crop is an extremely expensive semi-standard zoom for crop. Do you really want a 2.8 super wide when you go full frame? Remember it only goes to 35mm, not ideal for portraits and not super wide either on crop. The 17-55 is much better for crop, longer (goes to 55) and IS. You could buy the 17-55 used and sell it later for not much less. If you are planning on going full frame soon, might as well just buy the lens that you feel is ideal for full frame. It's up to you which one really is. The 16-35, 24-70 and 24-105 are all rated very good. It's more of the type of use you plan on.</p>

<p>Is the lens compatible with the camera? Clear all custom functions-look in your manual on how to do this. Take both batteries out a while and try again. What lens is it?</p>

<p>Just an update, we met and shot some photos of a 1 year old and his parents. I got to shoot with a 200mm 1.8 and 5D II which was pretty neat. Also the 70-200 IS. It went pretty good, he asked about going along to a wedding in October. I received an email from him and he said we had a great shoot and is sure there will be many more opportunites to work together and he will let me know of some sessions. I really learned alot just watching him. We didn't get much time to talk as he is really busy with things going on this week. Thanks again Bob, it's great how you helped me out. Maybe if it goes well, some day I can connect someone else here with him. Best wishes!</p>

<p>Thanks so much Bob, I sent you an email. He wants to meet me on Sunday!</p>

<p>Hi, I have experience shooting weddings, mostly 7 years with another established wedding photographer and a few by myself. I am trying to get myself going but would like to shoot for someone if interested, possibly for free. I have moved 3 hours away from where I worked with the other photographer. I am trying to get some weddings myself, but right now I feel like I am kind of sitting still. I am in Maryland, close to Baltimore, Washington and everything in between. Thanks</p>

<p>I think the 40D is a great camera. I would definitly rent some great lenses if going on a trip like this. 17-55 and 100-400. The 17-55 you will be able to take some nice portraits of yourselves also. Definitely something longer than 200mm. Lots of memory cards and shoot some in raw if you are just getting started you can fix more errors later when you are home.</p>

<p>I have the 24mm 2.8 and it is a good lens. It is sharp. Not the sharpest lens out there but plenty sharp enough. The color and contrast are pretty good too. I have the 17-55 IS and it is a little ahead in color and contrast compared to the 24 prime. I bought it for the focal length as it was close to 35mm on crop. I read alot of mixed reviews on the 28mm 1.8 so that turned me away, that and it is a little longer and the price isn't cheap either. The 35mm f2 is usually reviewed better. You could consider going full frame and buying that instead.</p>

<p>Many people think the 100-400 is a really great lens. I have taken lots of really sharp, beautiful photos with it. Try using it locked at 300mm for a game and see if you like the focal length. Then you can decide if the added ton of money is worth it for the speed you gain.</p>

<p>I used to own a 70-200 non IS f4 and sold it. I now have the 100-400. It is just amazing. It is very sharp and has great color. I think it is very similar to the 70-200 I had. I like that it is a zoom. If a large bird moves closer or a deer, you can zoom back wider. If you had a prime like a 400mm, you would have to change lenses or take teleconverter out and possibly spook it. Also it is easier to find a bird in a tangle of branches by starting out wide and zooming in, you're not searching with a narrow field of view. The IS works great as well. The only thing I miss with the 70-200 is the lighter weight for portraits or walk around. The 100-400 does weigh 3 lbs. I have mostly used it on a 40D and it's a great combination.</p>

<p>Anyone know what model car this is?</p>

<p>I agree there will be no other more affordable full frame cameras for a while. If the 7D is 1700 and the 5D II is 2600, they aren't going to make a 2100 full frame camera with less features than the 5D II are they?</p>

<p>Hi, I just got a 5D (I already have a 40D). I really like the bigger viewfinder and they way my primes are on it. One thing I am wondering about is the color compared to the 40D. It seems more subdued and muted with the exact same camera settings. Some photos kind of have almost like a color cast that the 40D didn't. Are the white balance settings and picture styles different between the two even though they have the same names? Or is the 5D just different in the way it produces the photos? The colors just don't pop the way they the 40D's photos look. The 40D's colors looked pretty accurate right out of the camera. I was shooting outdoors, portraits and landcapes, birds all in the same place I shot at just the other day in similar conditions with the 40D. Is the 5D aimed more for alot of post processing or am I missing something? One other thing, is it usual for the 5D to take a looooong time to transfer photos to your computer with the cable? Waaaaay slower than the 40D? Thanks like always for helping me.</p>

<p>Wow, I remember when a new film came out that was exciting. The 15-85 lens sounds interesting in focal length. If it was a straight f4 it would be more interesting I think. This must be a replacement to the 17-85 that has gotten a bad reputation.</p>

<p>Thanks for the insight Puppyface. I have gotten alot of really great photos with this crop equipment, but I am always looking to move ahead. I would love to be able to do blurred backgrounds more both with a zoom and at wider focal points. I miss my 50mm being 50mm like back with my Elan 7E. I guess the question is more of should I switch now or wait another year and which would maybe work out better price wise. I'm wondering if lens prices will drop again etc. THanks again for the new point of view.</p>

<p>Hi, I know this is a generic question, but I have 2 40D's, the 17-55 IS, a nice prime set and a telephoto zoom. I am wanting to switch to full frame some time. My reasoning is I really want the more limited depth of field, the better ISO's are nice too. I also don't want to hold onto my crop stuff until it isn't worth much anymore. I know the 5D's are going around 1000-1300 used lately and the 5D II is 2500 or whatever. Adorama has a new 5D/24-105 kit for 2650. The 5DII is out of my price range. I would need to buy a new zoom, the 24-70. The 24-70 has gone up in price like most all lenses. Any ideas? I have been thinking this over for a while now and thought maybe someone else would have some insight. I don't want to see the value drop for the crop stuff I have and loose alot of money if I wanted to sell it. I wonder about the value of the 17-55 as most pros seem to be going full frame. Will many people still want to buy an expensive crop zoom? Thanks for any help</p>

<p>I have the 17-55 IS and it is a really nice lens, however it won't blur the backgrounds as much as a 24-70 on full frame set-up. You need to be around 50mm focal point and kind of close to your subject to really get nice bokeh. 2.8 on crop isn't as exciting as on full frame or film to me, so if blurred backgrounds is something you want then go for primes instead. The IS does work great though. Don't forget about the much much cheaper 18-55 IS lens, which stopped down is very good and is reviewed great for the money. It has a little less contrast and color and is slower, but still a very good lens. </p>