ilya_e

<p>I think you should consider 70-200 f/4L IS and 1.4 extender. It will give you superior IQ and versatility.</p>

<p>Daniel, try using Zoom Browser (get latest version) to play videos on the computer. See if this cures the problem. </p>

<p>Average 40D is $550 and 50D about $700. If you are patient enough you will find better prices than mentioned above.</p>

<p>If you are thinking about FF body then forget about 17-55. Its a good lens but the dust issue stinks. It sucks up dust like a real vacuum cleaner. 24-70 is one of the best lenses I've owned. Get it and you won't be disappointed.</p>

<p>I use it for majority of my purchases on eBay. The downside is that for large purchases you have to wait 60 days to get your money back. But it's not a major problem for me. Sometimes Microsoft offers 10% discount (instead of usual 8%)</p>

<p>"it was 10$ discount at that time" should read "it was 10% discount at that time". Sorry</p>

<p>Portraits: 85mm f/1.2 L II<br />Lanscapes: 16-35mm f/2.8<br />Macro: 100mm f/2.8<br />Wildlife: 400mm f/2.8 IS + 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (which can also be used for portraits)</p>

<p>I would have to disagree with you. You can find really good deals on eBay if you are patient enough. Especially with Bing cashback. For example I bought 24-70 2.8 for $950 and after Bing (it was 10$ discount at that time) it came out to $855. I only buy from sellers with 100% positive feedback and NEVER had a problem. Sometimes if seller has Buy it Now item I contact them and ask them if they could lower the price for a fast sale. In 90% of cases they do not refuse.</p>

<p>You are giving way too much thought to things like that. I will tell you again and again, 17-55 is a great lens but it is a VACUME CLEANER. If you don't want sucking up dust from everywhere you go then don't buy it. I do not use UV filters at all (in some rare instances only) so maybe a UV will help in that regard.<br>

On a FF yes, 24-70 is the best choice but not for a crop. 38mm is just not wide enough for majority of people on a general purpose lens. 16-35 will become 25-56mm on a crop and with f/2.8 that would be a nery good choice. Or if that is not long enough then 17-40 but then you will lose 1 stop.</p>

<p>"<strong>Weather sealing of a lens might or might not be important to some, but the opinion to dismiss the 17 to 55 and then recommend two other lenses which are not weather sealed seems to lack a logical thought process</strong>". Correct me if I am wrong but 16-35mm is fully weather sealed. It does not even require a UV. Yes 50mm and 85mm are not but I just mentioned those as a part of a complete setup. Yes they do collect dust but nowhere near 17-55. After using both extensively I would not complain about 4-5 specs of dust in 3 years. 17-55 on the other hand was collecting 10 a week. That is why I would not recommend this glass to anybody. Just for that simple reason.</p>

<p>17-55 2.8 is a great lens but I would not recommend it for one simple reason of not being weather sealed. Dust was a serious issue for me when I had 50D. I simply could not stand it. And I am not talking couple of particles. Also I do not like its build. However, the lens does produce great images. Can't argue there. For all around setup I would recommend 16-35 f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 (which can also be used as a portrait lens on a crop body) , 85mm f/1.8, 70-200mm f/4 if you need glass that long (360mm on a crop) .</p>

<p>John, what version of ZoomBrowser are you using?</p>

<p>Again, if the money is not an issue, don't worry about comparing it to 1.8. You can shoot it at any aperture and it will produce superb quality images. I am an amature but have no issues with money. I had exactly the same questions and ended up buying 1.8 glass first only because some pepole told me that images will still be good. WRONG! Yes it's heavy, yes it's slow but once you see the bokeh you will be blown away. Just bokeh was enough for me.</p>

<p>For amature work I'd suggest Audio-Technica PRO24CM. Very affordable (I paid $60 for it) and is much better than the built-in one. Not as good as Rode or Senheiser though.</p>

<p>I have skipped frames in QT and WMP but Zoombrowser seems to be playing it correctly. But in any case I use Neo Scene to convert them to avi format before editing them in Vegas.</p>

<p>If money is not an object then don't even think about 1.8. It took me some time to master the 1.2 but once I did I never looked back. It's definitely the best lens I've ever owned.</p>

<p>Ok, so there is no way for the Adobe to preserve the images? Its strange that they wouldn't support such a feature. Many DSLR users use Adobe and not EOS utility. That brings another question, will there be any differences if I take B&W in the camera or do it in post? If yes, what are they? Thanks</p>

<p>Yeah but if I take hundreds of photos I would not remember which ones were color and which ones were B&W. And what's the reason to have B&W option on your camera then? When I take a photo in B&W I want to preserve it and work on it without any additional steps.</p>

<p>Why Adobe changes B&W images to color after they are copied to a hard drive? I don't want that to be happening. Is there a way to prevebt it? Thanks</p>

<p>Well I am glad to say that indeed I was paranoid. I was able to shoot during the weekend and I am very satisifed with IQ. I also borrowed my friend's 24-70 f/2.8 and it is virtually impossible to tell the difference. In darker situations of course 17-55 beats 24-70 hands down (handheld). To tell you the truth I think that alignment thing is a pure BS. Maybe another way to suck money from the lens owners.</p>

<p>I have an opportunity to cheaply buy Singh-Ray Color Intensifier (non-LB version). Does anybody have experience using both Lb and non-Lb version? Is there a big difference between them? Thanks</p>

<p>Yeah, thats what I figured. But I am one of those guys that opose the use of UV 100% of the time. I do use UV when I am near sand and water but not all the time.</p>

<p>Yes, I'll have a chance to take a few tomorrow. I'll post them here when I have something. I would not dare to do the same with an L glass. But this one was very easy. Front element is protected by a label and 3 screws and rests on top of the housing. I made sure to clean everything up before putting it back so I am sure that it is not tilted. And I did keep everything organized so the front element is exactly as it was before. Well, maybe few microns off :)<br>

This is one great lens but there are 2 major things that I don't like about it: a) when you zoom the whole housing with front element moves and b)it does collect too much dust. L-class glass is much better in that regard. I was considering 17-40 or 24-70 but 17-55 is more convenient for me as 17-40 is not long enough and 24-70 is not wide enough<br>

That was a good strory, now lets hope when I zoom-in it does not start zooming-out instead LOL</p>

<p>Ok, here is another I took earlier today when testing.</p>

<p>Here is another image. Does this one look sharp to you?</p>