gabriel_l1

Well, I almost couldn't believe it, but I came across this lens in an eBay listing today (https://www.ebay.com/itm/166027022299, no affiliation). So here we all go, proof that this lens in this mount did in fact exist. I will attach images for posterity.

<p>I speak French, albeit not very fluently. I will translate the salient points as I read them, probably nothing you haven’t seen already.<br>

March arrival. 1300 Euro kit with 35mm (~50 equiv.), 600E for other lenses. 1.5X 16MP APS-C CMOS sensor with “X Trans” technology: inspired by classical film, photosites have 6 colors and are distributed randomly. So no moiré effect from gridded interpolation of subpixels, which means no blurring filter is needed, so real captured detail is very good (my note: provided lenses are good, of course!). Fuji claims resolution equal to, if not superior to, full frame. Lenses are all metal, apertures are perfectly circular, priority is big aperture (18mm f/2, 35mm f/14, 60mm f/2.4 macro; equivalent to 27, 53, and 90mm). X-Mount has a focal flange distance of 17.7mm, which is very narrow (my note: M mount adapter is likely) and large diameter, and the objective of the Fuji lenses will be just 7.5mm from the sensor (!). Upgraded hybrid viewfinder will be a zooming telescope that automatically matches lens focal length. SUPER WEIRD (IMHO): it has an external autofocus sensor! How can that work, I wonder, at extreme focal lengths? Is this something people have seen before? Aluminum alloy body. They hope the ergonomics will be improved over X100. A grip, a leather case, and a flash are proposed accessories.</p>

<p>Also, it comments on a special edition black X100 release. Snooze.</p>

<p>I am super excited by this! It looks amazing! Will look forward to March reviews.</p>

<p>Haha, oops, I just posted the same thing 2 minutes too late. Moderators, perhaps delete my thread...?</p>

<p>Interesting idea about replacing the 100-400 zoom. This 200-400 *looks* (any specs up yet?) significantly larger than the 100-400 (due to the constant f/4 and the built-in 1.4X extender, no doubt); I don’t really think it is intended as a true “replacement.” Then again, I’d rather own it than the 100-400, so you may be on to something.</p>

<p>Wow:<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1102/11020708canon200400mm.asp</p>

<p>I admit I did not see anything like this coming. Especially cool is the built-in 1.4X extender, which can optionally convert the focal length to 280-560mm. Thoughts?</p>

<p>LOL @ Jim Johnson.</p>

<p>Jack, I was simply misremembering the focus modes. I meant to say use AI Servo (as opposed to AI Focus). AI Servo assumes motion and changes the focus instantly, whereas AI focus has to figure out it something is moving or not; One Shot focuses and then doesn't move at all.</p>

<p>Sorry for the confusion.</p>

<p>PS—what do you mean by "not clear?" Post an example. Are the shots back- or front-focused, motion blurred, camera blurred, soft overall... need more info.</p>

<p>You've basically got it.</p>

<p>You need high shutter speed to freeze action, Servo (not just AI, but full Servo) focus mode to track rapidly changing focus distance, and manual focus point selection may help with tracking the horses (instead of the camera trying to include the background). Ideally it should be bright enough that even with a high shutter speed (very high) you can still use an aperture with SOME depth of field to it (i.e., no f/1.2 lenses here...) to help insure that the horse is in focus; not just from nose to tail, but just in case the AF misses slightly and back- or front-focuses.</p>

<p>One shot is useless in this scenario. AI focus is not very good either, it takes too long to recognize the subject movement and compensate. Servo is the way to go.</p>

<p>All of the above. Yes, that is contradictory, I'm simply stating that I'm not going to "take a side" on this one. ;-)</p>

<p>However, it's a logical fallacy that adding a $70 filter to a $1500 lens turns it into a $70 optic. That makes zero sense. The lens costs $1500 because it has sophisticated electronics, a dozen groups, and high build quality—not because it's a single $1500 piece of glass.</p>

<p>Lex of course says a lot more with fewer words. ;-) Yeah, the more I think about it the more those light rays have to be artistic license—they just appear way too often otherwise.</p>

<p>Still, I know from experience that there are locations where tyndall effects are much more dependable than elsewhere.</p>

<p>Rarindra's porfolio is one of the most stunning on photo.net. Many people have asked how to obtain similar results, as if there is a simple setting on the camera that magically transforms photos into this kind of atmospheric result.</p>

<p>I suspect the real answers may be a lot simpler than that. Rarindra has access to stunning locations with humid weather conditions, and is obviously dedicated to capturing them when there is a lot of haze/fog in the right light (golden hour). That comes down to the simple act of scouting and waiting for the right shot. The same locations probably look much less "light-bathed" a good amount of time; the photographer just knows that eventually the right conditions will strike, and has the patience and steadfastness to be there when they do.</p>

<p>Secondly, in my humble opinion Rarindra is not at all shy about tweaking color expertly in post-production, applying a strong vignette, and using soft warm fill flash on human subjects. I say this only because of the consistency and quantity of such images in the portfolio. Either this sort of glorious atmosphere surrounds Rarindra on a common basis, or Rarindra pushes a range of similar conditions towards this single style with a judicious amount of artistic license (applied with a sophisticated and practiced eye).</p>

<p>At any rate the results are spectacular. Undoubtedly there is more going on behind the camera in this case than I can surmise and give credit for, but until Rarindra writes an explanatory article I have to imagine that "making your photos look like that photo" means finding scenes that are similarly beautiful, and photographing them. No great mystery.</p>

<p>For example, I used to live in a west-facing high apartment that overlooked trees, with an unbroken view of the sky. The weather in that location was such that I saw the most absolutely glorious cloud formations and heavenly tyndall-effect light rays in my entire life—on a regular basis. Attached is just one example—this scene practically filled the entire sky when I shot it.</p>

<p>Remember the old adage, "f/8 and be there." Rarindra is there. You want good photos? Go there and take them. :-)</p>

<p><Off topic><br>

The gentleman in Buffdr's example image should be politely informed that the bottom button on a suit or blazer jacket is NEVER buttoned. And that three buttons is generally inadvisable in the first place.<br>

</Off topic></p>

<p>Faysal, lectures can be dim places, but the subject stands still and has a light on him/her so an IS zoom could work. Of course, if you aren't shy about where you walk around during the lecture, the prime could net you higher quality images (less noise) so it depends on the intent for the photos—web publishing or small print images in reports, the zoom is more than enough IMHO.</p>

<p>I love my EF-S 60mm. I use it all the time for multiple reasons—portraits, medium-low light, macro, copy/product-style photos, anything requiring high detail and flat field. The only thing that bugs me (hah!) is the low working distance for insect photography. Eventually I will get the Sigma 150mm macro for that purpose.</p>

<p>In my (limited) experience, conveying the visceral experience of a steep slope is one of the most elusive goals in landscape photography. For a variety of reasons, such slopes usually never "look" as steep as they really are.</p>

<p>Including reference verticals helps. Shooting directly perpendicular to the slope helps too; much better than trying to shoot up or down the slope. Lighting helps as others have mentioned. Video has the advantage of showing slipping tires, grains and pebbles rolling downhill, etc., but even in still photos you might find some indications of downward motion.</p>

<p>When you assume that you'll be standing far away from a person to get flattering perspective, but don't expect to be backing up a <em>huge</em> distance, then 85mm on full-frame is a comfortable length for full & waist-up portraits, while 85mm on APS-C is comfortable for headshots.</p>

<p>50mm is in general a more versatile portrait lens on APS-C, with the limit that you'll have to get just inside the normal "flattery separation limit" for tight headshots. But you can always back up and crop if you're not going to print huge anyway.</p>

<p>If you have zoom lenses in these focal ranges, try just setting them to the appropriate lengths and shooting with them that way. See how you like each focal length on each camera.</p>

<p>Gary,</p>

<p>The 50mm f/1.8 and every version of the 70-200mm lens are all <em>quite</em> sharp lenses, and the 18-55 is pretty sharp itself. The 10-22 by comparison is not <strong>quite</strong> as sharp; this is a simple fact. The 10-22 gets reviewed as sharp because it is sharp <strong>for an ultrawide</strong>; the Tokina 11-16mm is sharper in the corners, but the 10-22 isn't bad.</p>

<p>I own a 580 EX II and two LumoPro LP120 flashes.</p>

<p>The question you have to ask yourself is, how do you intend to work with off-camera flash? If, like a wedding photographer, you're going to want to move things around and change ratios extremely quickly, and your exposure is going to be constantly changing as the subject moves around, then you really should consider Canon's light-based wireless communication (e.g. 580 EX, 430 EX, etc.). These sophisticated flashes are remotely adjustable, and E-TTL tech means they are constantly adjusting flash exposure in response to pre-flashes and metering from the camera.</p>

<p>However, if you intend to do more strobist-style planned portraits, or creative effects where everything stays pretty much still and you are adjusting flashes this way and that until you get the effect you want, the manual flashes (like the LumoPro LP120 and MPEX sells) are a much better idea for an amateur. They are WAY cheaper, sync almost any way you want via a number of different jacks, much easier to manually adjust, etc.</p>

<p>So in my own case, I got a 580 EX II because I can use it on-camera when running and gunning, and I get all the smart tech helping me achieve a specific flash ratio. It also has a PC sync port, though, so I can include it in my strobist-style manual-only setup, no problem. To that I add my LP120 flashes, which can function totally independently, side-by-side in a radio-triggered off-camera solution, or even in concert with an on-camera 580 EX II if I set them to optical slave mode.</p>

<p>This also lets me learn how I like to shoot and whether running around to each flash to adjust its settings is acceptable. If I eventually decide I want more of Canon's E-TTL, I can buy 430 EX flashes. If I decide the manual-only strobist route works for me, I can add more manual flashes (e.g. LP120).</p>

<p>Just one addendum: RAW files are typically a lot bigger than JPGs, so you cannot shoot as many on one card (or store as many on a given hard drive).</p>

<p>They're really great however for post-processing. I shoot all RAW images, no jpeg.</p>

<p>Using "P" mode as a beginner is good advice in that it will at least get some kind of result, but it's not what I would suggest because the faster you break free from "P," the faster you will learn and understand photographic principles and the better photographer you will become.</p>

<p>Not that I don't shoot in P mode from time to time... usually when I'm just strolling around, talking with friends, and photography is really not what I'm interested at the moment. Shock and awe! Hearsay! Seriously though, I'm of a mind that as an amateur with many hobbies besides photography, you don't ALWAYS have to be the super-disciplined mega-gear take-every-shot-opportunity enthusiast—sometimes it's good to just relax and switch back to "P." :-)</p>

<p>Lynn,</p>

<p>10mm is already extremely wide. The trick with such ultrawide lenses, however, is that getting that "wow!" effect <strong>depends HUGELY upon camera positioning and aim</strong>. Even for a given scene, moving the camera a few <em>inches</em> in one direction or another can drastically alter the appearance as rendered. It is really this aspect that people practiced in the use of ultrawides exploit, by hunting all over the 3D space in search of the best vantage spot. It can be very surprising where that ends up being!</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

—GLL</p>

<p>That sort of color grading (yellow highlights, green shadows) is a popular film (movie) approach. You can do the same thing in image editors like Photoshop, Aperture, Lightroom, etc. using judicious hue manipulations of the highlights and shadows. The method for doing this will depend on the specific program, besides which there are many different techniques and solutions for achieving the same results.</p>

<p>Lots of saturation, lots of contrast, lots of vignetting, green shadows, yellow highlights, add some artificial noise and voilà—the Transformers 2 look.</p>

<p>Yes, it is very hard indeed to shoot good handheld pictures of moving subjects in the dark!</p>

<p>Jake is right. For instance, if you used a 50mm f/1.4 lens, that's four "stops" or <strong>sixteen times</strong> faster a lens than your 55mm f/5.6. If you were only able to get 1/4th of a second exposures before—much too slow to prevent blurring—then with the lens Jake mentioned, you would be able to get the same exposure at 1/64th of a second, which is much better for preventing blur (still not great, but usable). Of course, with a big aperture comes very narrow depth of field, meaning that it becomes difficult to focus exactly where you want (and only a certain portion of the frame will be in focus). Everything is a trade-off in photography.</p>

<p>Canon's cheapest lens, the 50mm f/1.8 (about $100 these days), is much much faster than your 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 zoom. If as a beginner you want to experiment with big aperture lenses, I suggest you start there. It's sharp, light, cheap, fast.</p>

<p>Cameras that take good pictures at high ISO are another option, but they cost a lot of money and the difference is not necessarily as extreme as getting a fast lens (unless you spend a LOT of money for a 5DII or a 1D). Still, pros obviously value a camera that can shoot clean photos at high ISO for exactly the reason you bring up—freezing action in dim environments.</p>

<p>PS—If you are having trouble understanding my explanation, I suggest you check out photo.net's official articles on exposure:<br /> http://www.photo.net/learn/basic-photo-tips/aperture-shutterspeed-iso/ (start here)<br /> http://www.photo.net/learn/basic-photo-tips/correct-exposure/ (a little more theory)<br /> http://www.photo.net/learn/making-photographs/exposure (once you get a good sense of the basics)</p>

<p>Balancing ISO, Aperture, and Shutter is an absolutely critical foundation to taking good photos. Becoming fluent in this aspect of photography will make a tremendous difference in your ability to capture images the way you intend.</p>

<p>Hello Nidhi,</p>

<p>In Shutter Priority mode, you set the shutter speed and the camera tries to choose a suitable aperture automatically. If you are in a dark room and your shutter speed is too fast, the camera defaults to the biggest aperture (smallest f/number) it can. If that aperture still isn't enough to achieve a good exposure, then you're out of luck, the exposure cannot be increased. Slow down the shutter speed until you get a bright enough exposure.</p>

<p>That does not take into account ISO. If you are set to auto ISO, the camera will select a wider aperture AND increase ISO appropriately as far as it can, but again, too fast a shutter will result in hitting the limits of physics and your camera / lens's light-gathering ability. IF however you are set to a manual ISO that is too low (say, 200), try setting it as high as you can stand (800 isn't terrible on that camera, and 1600 is usable for web photos or journalistic must-have shots) or set it back to auto.</p>

<p>In Aperture Priority mode, you set the aperture and the camera tries to choose shutter speed (and ISO, if set to auto) to get the right exposure. HOWEVER, your lens (the 18-55mm IS <strong>f/3.5–5.6</strong> lens) has a <strong>variable aperture</strong>. If you set it to f/4.5 and then zoom in to 55mm, the aperture MUST go to f/5.6! That's as wide an aperture as the lens is physically capable of getting at 55mm, as is printed on the label; it is impossible to set that lens to 55mm f/4.5.</p>

<p>If you owned a constant aperture lens like the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, then you could always set the aperture to f/2.8, no matter where you were zoomed to. It's just a function of lens design. Constant aperture zoom lenses typically cost more; you get what you pay for (the 17-55 costs a LOT more because it's a bigger aperture, not just constant aperture).</p>

<p>Even with the 1.4 extender, the 300mm f/4L is not at all a macro lens. It is about as good as most "macro" (cough cough) zooms, but only goes to 1:3 WITH the extender, whereas even the 50mm compact "macro" goes to 1:2 and all true macros go to 1:1. The difference is massive for things like aphids.</p>

<p>I do covet that lens though for a lot of reasons.</p>

<p>As far as macro goes, I'd just get the EF 100mm f/2.8 (non IS). Good working distance for bugs, not too expensive, excellent image quality, etc. I own the EF-S 60mm macro, which is great, but it's very close for bug shots, makes insect photography more challenging than it has to be.</p>

<p>Not sure I understand... what kit? The 24-105 lens? How can you possibly mount a filter to that lens so that it contacts the front element? Plus, the only one who can tell us if the front element is damaged is you... just look at it carefully under good light, if it's scratched you'll see it.</p>