jim_krupnik

July 22, 2010

My take on "favorite lenses" would be defined as lenses that I use so often that they are usually mounted on a camera body, and ready to go at all times. I also suppose that they would comprise the group of lenses that I would replace first if I suffered a kit disaster, and would not think of substituting with a different lens, even if I won the lottery.

The problem is that I own several lenses that do not fit into that category, yet I really, really like them, and they are also long standing favorites. My list is also skewed by the fact that I simply prefer to shoot with APS-C sensor bodies more often than I choose a FF body. I like FF, but for most paid and pleasure uses, I like recent APS-C bodies even more. So, don't divine anything negative about popular lenses that are not included in my list here, as that is not the purpose of posting the list. Some of my most loved lenses are very fast primes, and macro primes, but when I tally the actual shutter time they see, they really don't come close to the four lenses that made the list.

A few decades ago, the list would have have been almost exclusively prime FD lenses. My medium format lens kit is all prime lenses to this day, and that works fine, as it's a different animal than 35 mm compact photography. Times have changed, and so have 35 mm style camera lenses. I was surprised by my own answer to the question....

Here are the four most often used EF lenses in my kit by far. Each is always mounted on a camera for work and play, and even though I would likely select other lenses for specific needs on a trip, or a job, at least three of these lenses would always be packed as well. They just deliver great results for me, and I wouldn't be without any of them for very long. Amazingly, none of them are primes......

1. Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5. APS-C cameras shine at the long end of the typical focal range, but fall way short at the ultra wide to wide angle end. This lens is just incredible. It is L quality or better in performance, and fills the crop sensor gap perfectly. There are alternative lenses on the market, and many people are happy with them, but this lens sets the performance standard for me. At these focal lengths, a fast aperture is not important for DOF issues, and IS isn't a mandatory life saver, so I will gladly trade lens speed for optical performance, and let modern camera sensor technology pick up the 1/2 stop in light sensitivity. There is no equivalent FF L zoom to take it's place on a crop camera. This lens simply rocks, and I would not be without it. It is a work of optical art.

2. Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. This is simply the best zoom lens in it's focal range that money can buy for an APS-C camera. In this focal range, IS and f/2.8 are very important tools with an APS-C camera, and this lens delivers in spades. I don't believe that there is any value priced lens on the market that can compete with this lens, and I know from direct personal experience that no Canon L lens of similar range offers a better choice for an APS-C body (I own the L alternatives, and will never use them on a crop camera unless this lens is trashed). This lens is by far the single most often used lens in my kit, and has been shared between five camera bodies over six years or so in commercial and personal service. It is nearly bullet proof, and is probably my favorite all around lens of all time.

3. Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Valid arguments can be made for choosing the f/4 version, or a non-IS version, but for me, f/2.8, and IS are seriously valuable assets, and are even more valuable on a crop camera. My lens is seven years old or so, and it is worth more used today than I paid for it new. It has also put up with years of brutal treatment, and only the factory hood shows the strain. It's frequency of use placed it on my list, and I absolutely love this lens. Despite the announcement of the MkII version, this lens is a Canon performance legend, and even if it's not quite an heirloom, it will likely continue to perform it's duties at a premium level long after I'm dead.

4. Canon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS. It's not fast, but it is as smooth as silk, ultra compact when collapsed, has a fast AF motor, great optical performance and outstanding IS. I bought it for my FF cameras, but it found it's way into regular use across platforms. It made the list over several sweet primes, and it is by far my go-to long stealth zoom. The green ring looks pretty nice too, but that wasn't a list factor.....

Here are three of my favorites,

And the 70-300 next to my number one favorite lens of all time.....

July 22, 2010

Pardon me for allowing my enthusiasm to allow me to breeze by a most important part of your question... Lens length. The advantages of having a full extra stop available for action shooting in any light conditions are easy to see, but you mentioned a hard limit of 8" in length for a lens to pass through the gates at your venue. If you ever needed proof that idiots often become rule makers, there it is.... No matter though, as here is a quick pic I shot of my old 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens with it's always used hood set to one side, and a tape measure stretched out alongside... From the lens mount to the very front end of the lens barrel, it is just under 8" long.

I have a feeling that the idiot rule makers were informed that there were so many of these lenses in use that to exclude them by arbitrary rule would be akin to political suicide. Anyway, all of the 70-200 IS lenses fit within the rules you must conform to :).

July 22, 2010

For sports, as well as for a long list of perfect uses that do not seem obvious at the start, I vote for the 70-200 IS series of lenses. I would never, ever consider passing up on the IS option on any lens that offers the choice. Aside from offering greater resale value over time, IS offers awesome additional functionality to your premium lenses, and no matter how dedicated the budget denial, it never hurts to have it and turn it off when it is the right thing to do, while if you don't have it, you can never turn it on when it is the only thing you can do....

The f/4 version is a very capable lens. It is lighter, and is much cheaper than the f/2.8 version at the start. That said, I mainly use crop sensor cameras in the 35 mm format for work and for play. They simply deliver far more utility in more situations than any FF camera that I can afford. I owned the first 5D, and it didn't play well for me at all. I sold it. I almost bought a 5DII this year, but the 7D is so much more camera for so much less money that my next new FF camera will have to wait another round. Besides, I have a 5DII available if I really needed it, so, I bought a 7D. I love it. Although it fit's reasonably well with my current 40D, and 50D cameras, it is quite a different beast in many ways, and is the most all around refined offering in the Canon lineup (to me).

OK, that brings me to the one area where an APS-C camera simply cannot match a FF 35 mm camera without hardware changes, despite constant high level advances in APS-C sensor and camera technology (unless it is driven by pure personal level denial). That area is in the ability to deliver shallow DOF. Scene for scene, a crop camera lags a FF camera by about one full stop in it's ability to create shallow DOF. What looks like razor thin DOF that separates a subject from it's background at f/4 on a FF 35 mm camera can only be duplicated at f/2.8 with a crop camera. There are many other attributes of fast lenses that make them more valuable regardless of sensor size, but for a crop camera user, the DOF issue alone is worth the delay to save more before pressing the buy button for me.

That is why I love my old 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens. It is simply amazing on a crop camera, and does not run out of headroom because of an f/4 max aperture. Again, the f/4 version will please you, but both lenses can be expected to last a lifetime, and the pain of purchase price dissipates rather quickly. F/2.8 really delivers more in general, and even more than that on a crop camera. Give it some thought before you buy, but no matter which choice you make, don't let cost be the major deal maker. Considering the service life of an outstanding lens, the additional time needed to build your photo budget up to the level needed to buy whatever lens you really want is easy to deal with.

Here is a shot of my old f/2.8 lens with two stacked 1.4x tele converters. It still delivers great optical performance wide open, and appears to be a nearly 400 mm f/5.6 lens to an APS-C camera in that configuration. AF still works perfectly with both 1.4x converters in place on all of my EOS mount cameras, no matter if FF or crop. If you start out with an f/4 lens, it looks like an f/8 lens to the camera. Not only is AF often compromised at f/8, but your choices of ISO and shooting aperture become more limited as well. Think about it carefully before you buy.

Again, the f/4 lens has it's perks, but with an APS-C camera, f/2.8 usually offers a pretty big bonus set right out of the box.

Here is a shot (not cropped) taken with the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens with a 1.4x tele extender attached on a lowly Canon 30D. It was shot hand held at an effective aperture of f/5.6 (the lens itself was stopped down to f/3.5). ISO was set to 400, shutter speed was 1/500 sec, and focus on the breeze blown bee landing pad was handled by the 30D's Servo AF mode. IS is wonderful, even when you don't think you need it...

Here is a shot (not cropped) taken with the plain old 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens hand held at 180 mm zoom length, f/2.8, 1/125 sec, ISO 400, with a 40D set for one shot AF in the Florida Everglades at a safe distance from Mrs alligator. This fairly big picture may also appear distorted in some browsers, but you can save it, and view it outside of the browser later. It illustrates situations where shallow DOF with a razor sharp point of focus (the young gator eye) is ideal for isolating the subject from fore and background distractions, yet is impossible to achieve with an f/4 lens on the same camera. The full sized shot is available to view as well. The helping hand of IS was in play here as well.

For an APS-C camera kit, there are two other lenses that I think of as foundation lenses. They are the EF-S 10-22, and the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Many people with FF fever limit their kit to EF-L lenses with the understanding that APS-C will be gone any day now, and that FF is the answer to all of their photo dreams. The problem is that APS-C is here to stay, and limiting yourself to only EF-L lenses also limits you, as FF is not a magic photo bullet. Budget for the best lenses built for your crop format. Many of them will sport a red ring, but not all of them. No matter which lenses you choose, don't settle for less than what YOU decide is best. After the initial price shock becomes a faded memory, great lenses will last for several decades before being surpassed, and likely sell for about as much then as you paid for them new. Meanwhile, your latest camera body will be lucky to be considered a viable choice for a beginner 5 years into the future, even though you have likely already replaced it one or more times. Oh yes, whatever you do, have fun!

July 22, 2010

The blog offers an interesting warning, but I suspect an "urban legend" in the making... My (prior to semiconductor solid state) laser experience is limited to experimenting with holography and communications techniques with relatively low powered gas devices, and working with early models of IBM high speed, high volume mainframe printers of the 1980's that used pretty hot (for a helium/neon laser) SpectraPhysics units at their core.

I'd be interested in reading opinions from people with direct laser/CMOS sensor lab experience, but some parts of the story just don't sit well with me. I'm only writing about visible light lasers above class II here, as CO2 and other invisible beam devices likely fall under additional regulations. Also, there are are a slew of near infra red visible light lasers that can deliver Buck Rodgers levels of heat energy, like some of the ruby lasers, and many others, but you won't find them at a laser show....

First, lasers are (unless things have recently changed) regulated by the FDA in the United States as radiation sources. They are regulated by class, and also by their application. Class I, and class II lasers are pretty benign in terms of health risk, are used in most consumer devices, and devices where people may be exposed to laser radiation without advanced warning, or taking special precautions. Even then, exposed class I and II devices are required to have some built in means of preventing accidental long term uninterrupted eyeball exposure to the poor slob who wanders by.

Grocery store checkout scanners are a fine example. You can see the laser beam in operation, but it is always moving, and appears as a fixed pattern. Even if you stand there for awhile and stare at the source, your retina will never be exposed to enough power over time to cause damage.

Beyond that, there are class III lasers, of which I have had a few since 1980. That level has the potential to cause tissue damage under certain circumstances of beam focus and duration, and their commercial applications are regulated to avoid those situations. Still, in practice, class III lasers are not particularly dangerous to people experiencing casual exposure. Even the higher end of the class (it is divided into two power levels, with the top level covering up to 1/2 Watt of power), are unlikely to cause tissue damage in a short enough period of time that a person would not turn away or move first. That is not to say that they are perfectly safe, but in a practical sense, a person would likely have to either be targeted by a bad guy, have a desire to hurt themselves, or a combination of both in order to get the job done with a class III laser producing visible light.

Laser shows in smaller areas, dance halls, big parties, etc, usually top out by class IIIA, and sometimes class IIIB. I have a class III self contained commercial light show device for large wedding sized rooms and parties that is modulated by either ambient music, or sound wired from the DJ booth. It's source laser delivers green light at class III levels, but before the beam exits the case, it is divided into 14 (as I recall) separate beams that are individually computer modulated to provide a visual match the sound input. Even when there is no sound source, the beams continue to slowly move at idle.

That creates two important conditions. One, no single beam contains more than a class II energy level, and two, it would be nearly impossible for any person to maintain continuous exposure to any single beam long enough for tissue damage to occur. That is why such devices are are not (were not) subject to further regulation at the user level. They are effectively idiot proof.

Large laser show productions still often use multiple class III lasers for single beam effects, which are amazingly bright, even when modified with lenses for wider beam width. Now that costs have gone down, and options have gone up, class IV lasers (over 1/2 Watt) are popping up everywhere in complex laser shows, and a single device beam can be used intact, or broken into an amazing array of distinct modulated light patterns to suit a show. Most high end commercial laser show devices for even stadium sized venues are in the 1-3 Watt range, and top out at about 5 Watts (not too long ago). For fixed illumination and mobile signage, I have seen commercial visible light lasers with outputs as high as 90 Watts, but they are not in the IR heat producing wavelengths that can melt matter, nor are they in the UV end of the spectrum where they can deliver "cold" energy capable of ripping molecules apart at the atomic level.

Also, I can't imagine where anything over a couple of Watts would be used in any situation where it would be possible for anyone to be exposed to damaging levels of laser radiation without donning proper protection beforehand, no matter if they were members of the public, staff, or special access guests like event photographers. Granted, technology has made it possible to modulate very high powered RGB laser arrays to produce titanic sized full color still and video presentations with a bright, true to life color gamut on nearly any surface, from buildings, to mountain faces, to clouds. In those cases, the zone reaching from the projector to the "screen" where direct viewing of the projector source would result in excessive exposure is carefully protected to prevent accidents.

At that level of power, strict geographic venue limits on potential exposure, maximum absolute intensity of possible direct exposure, and maximum possible duration of direct exposure to significant radiation at laser shows have all been regulated since at least the 1980's. Violations were subject to criminal proceedings, as well as civil fines of nearly a half million Dollars each way back then. I doubt it has become any easier today..... That's not to mention the flood of lawsuits that would follow, no matter how much "we are not responsible" fine print was included in the ticket price to the show. I would bet that various permits, inspections, and minimum insurance coverage is now the order of the day.

As a side note, outdoor US laser displays/shows that use even relatively harmless class II and III power level devices require prior approval from the FAA if there is any chance that they might be painting air traffic with their laser beams. My recollection is based on the way things were 25 years ago, but I'd bet they have become even tighter, and not easier since then.

OK, the last bit that leads me to think that the entire "CMOS camera dies at laser show" story is bunk may well hang me, as I only have anecdotal evidence to support it. As anyone who has left an SLR on the seat of a car with the lens looking at the sun knows, it is very possible for a lens with an oblique view of the sun the cause an "off the lens axis" spot of sharp focus to form somewhere in the mirror box, and within a few minutes, that spot can melt the mirror box into a useless gob of goo. I even recall some posts on other sites where the hapless camera owner who left her/his camera on the car seat with the lens pointing up bitterly complained that Canon or Nikon refused to offer free warranty service for their dead expensive cameras, as a solar meltdown isn't really a factory defect. Tsk tsk, imagine that?

The sun delivers an enormous volume of energy across a wide slice of spectrum to the earth, and plenty of it is in the form of infra red heat energy. Even with a small lens attached, it is quite possible for the sun to enter from an angle that causes the projected image of the solar disk to become focused to a point somewhere behind the lens, and rather than create a large image circle that will make a nice film or sensor capture if you tripped the shutter, it becomes an intense energy spot beam that delivers so much more heat energy to the target point than the target can get rid of that the target is pretty much gone in 60 seconds....

Light show lasers, on the other hand, are very precise in wavelength. There is a great deal of waste heat produced in creating a laser beam due to process inefficiency, but unless your laser is designed to deliver coherent infra red heat energy like a carbon dioxide laser (old school) that can punch holes in diamonds and steel plate, the beam is pretty cold. Show lasers do not cut steel, nor do they set stage props on fire. Even if they did have that ability, I doubt the power levels used at a laser show could do any harm at all in the span of one second. Or even three seconds..... You can't burn a hole in a sheet of black toilet paper with a direct beam from a high powered show laser!

So here is the catch. I'm not aware of any special sensitivity to permanent damage by laser light in CMOS devices. I know that there are biological issues that can place living tissue at risk from intense laser radiation, even when heat is not a factor, especially in the bio stuff that forms a retina, but those conditions simply do not exist at a laser light show. If they did, they would not be tolerated, nor would they be excused by an "enter at your own risk" contract.

Unless there is a risk of permanent damage to a CMOS sensor by human-safe levels and durations of visible laser exposure that I am not aware of, how can it be possible that a Canon CMOS sensor was "destroyed" by a show laser at a public event in less than on second, while no humans were ever harmed? How can that be?

I gave the background info so everyone can understand what I base my observations upon, and even though it's old info, it should still be sound info. I would love to read a new perspective that can explain the destroyed sensor in context with the event, but until that time, I just don't see how it can be possible. I have been using Canon DSLR's since the 20D days, and many of them have looked directly into unmodulated class II and III HeNe, and various solid state lasers over time when I was tinkering with holography. I recently bought a Microvision ShowWX pico projector that employs a trio of 1 mw RGB lasers to deliver focus free full color video projection at a 1:1 projector distance vs image size ratio. It can project a dime sized image, or a 100" image without focusing. Pretty awesome..

A few weeks ago, I butchered my old junk 500 mm mirror lens ash tray to use it's EOS T-mount, rear body plate with screw in ND filters, and added lots of duct tape and cardboard to play around with pointing my ShowWX laser projector into my 7D in video live mode to see how it plays out. So far, the copies of the projector images look like high-def crap, and clearly show the ShowWX scan line structure, but the CMOS sensor in the 7D has not suffered a bit from having a seriously bright class II tri-color laser lighting it up for several minutes at a time. That's just a fact, and that said, how can a hand held camera possibly be subjected to sensor destroying time/intensity levels of light at a laser show without a ray gun wielding Martian being present?

If I'm missing something in my understanding, please let me know. If not, beware of possible urban legends, even if they sound Internet worthy at first....

July 17, 2010

JDM,

I enjoyed your writeup on the EOS 5. I never owned one over the years, but you filled in the blanks pretty well. Thanks. I still have a couple of EOS 1 bodies (one is a parts mule, as bits tend to fall off of the EOS 1 every now and then (after 20+ years of hard time), but I would like to read your take on the "1" in the future. As a side note, KEH currently offers three of them ranging from $79-$144.

You mentioned that you have a 3, and a 10s on the way. That's great! The 3 has been covered pretty much everywhere, and it's a popular camera, but the 1990 vintage 10s is a bit of an oddball camera, and not very well known compared to other EOS models of similar vintage. Then again, the 10s actually delivers reliable performance, and currently ranges from about $9 for a well used good example to a high of only $45 for a super clean example. I'm eager to read your detailed take on the 10s after you get some shutter time with it, and we can compare notes about it's "personality" later on.

I rarely write about the 10s at all when someone asks about EOS film camera options, and I often forget that I still have one, but it always has fresh film, and a fresh battery loaded, and it is often used as a loaner camera in local workshops. How can I forget about a camera that I handle so frequently? It must be a 10s thing...... Anyway, I look forward to your take on the old 10s!

July 17, 2010

It's a loaded topic to begin with, and it's not really fair to compare the two. Leaving the FF vs APS-C religious argument off the table for now, the fact is that the 5DII was built around it's very fine FF sensor to suit a particular market segment and price point. It was rounded out with new features over it's older brother as best as possible within that price point, and it quickly became a hit among the budget constrained FF faithful. It was never designed to be the all around most useful affordable DSLR. It was designed to be the best value in a FF DSLR. Big difference.... The 1080P movie mode was a bonus that fit into the price point without re-inventing the wheel, and gave the 5DII a huge marketing boost in return. After all, even as the value leader in FF DSLR's, the 5DII isn't cheap, and it was important to give some mojo beyond what the FF faithful were willing to pay for it without question.

It is a great success, and Canon continues to give it heavy play, as it is likely the highest profit margin DSLR model in it's lineup (relative to R&D costs), and it helps push consumer budgets for gear and lenses ever higher over time. Aside from it's limited feature set due to it's price point, and the expense of it's sweet FF sensor core, it is also becoming quite long in the tooth due to it's age in the ultra competitive DSLR market place.

Enter the 7D. The 7D employs a sensor size that "fits" 90+ percent of all DSLR cameras built by Canon. It is in the hottest segment of the market in terms of engineering competition, consumer brand name market status, overall profit return on investment resulting from sheer manufacturing volume of newly designed components that will fit many other high volume models with little or no modification in a short time frame (even though some models like the 7D may initially appear to be priced below real cost).

That is the category where tech advances are rapidly made, things happen in the market place, and sheer volume spread over many models and price points can erase design failure losses, as well as reap huge rewards for successful engineering risks. Even though manufacturers are careful to classify cameras like the 7D as "pro-sumer", and "advanced amateur" cameras to maintain their marketing pecking order, there are likely more cameras in it's class employed by successful pros than the ultra priced "pro" series cameras that consumers and dreamers believe to be the only choice working pros are willing to consider.

Because of the smaller space needed by an APS-C sensor, the higher ROI of APS-C development, and the combination of huge volume potential despite crushing competitive pressure, the much newer 7D is far more advanced than the 5DII in almost every measure. It's just a simple function of progress. The next version of the 5D will likely offer many of the improvements built into the current 7D, along with a larger/better FF carrot, and the cycle will continue.

I know some FF advocates will scream at me for suggesting that any lowly APS-C camera might be a better choice than a 5DII for shooting anything other than a four hummingbird throwdown, or (gasp) that a 7D offers better button design, better weather sealing, far more advanced metering functions, better and more advanced control layout, much better AF, video, speed, and speed (I like speed). You can slow a 7D down to a crawl, but you can't speed up a 5DII much faster than near dead. Also consider the advanced menu layout, custom options, built in wireless strobe control, 100% viewfinder coverage, selectable transparent LCD viewfinder overlay, dual axis electronic level in both rear LCD and viewfinder modes, much improved rear LCD panel, faster write-to-CF card speed, dual DIGIC 4 chips that deliver better still and video performance than a 5DII can be tweaked with firmware to match in several important areas, and even offers enough extra speed to allow real time wireless video transfer to an external monitor/storage device (no way on a 5DII). That list just scratches the surface for a start.

The truth is, unless you are devoted to FF as a matter of blind faith, are in such constant need of the few clear advantages inherent to the FF sensor that the long list of APS-C related features you must give up to have FF as your primary camera is easy, or if you just feel better owning the highest priced camera you can afford, the 7D can understandably be mistaken for highly advanced alien technology when compared to the 5DII.

It's generational, not personal....

The 5DII is a great camera, and will continue to be a great camera. It's FF sensor is the most important single photographic goal for some people, and it delivers that metric in a solid package, with a feature set, and price point that appeals to a broad enough segment of the market to be reasonably profitable, and very attainable. Sweet! For many others, APS-C sensor line currently capped by the 7D offers the best overall feature set for a working camera, and the 5DII is more of a specialty tool. We all have great choices available today, and even better choices tomorrow with both sensor sizes.

The "guy" in the story was way out of line dismissing the 5DII as claimed, but then again, many people who save their coins for a 5DII, and an all EF-L lens kit to the exclusion of anything else build a personal wall of denial that allows them to consider APS-C cameras to be substandard junk cameras for those who cannot afford the "real thing". They are just as out of line as the "guy" in the story.

July 17, 2010

Your 17-55 f/2.8 IS is one of my very favorite lenses. Good choice. For the 70-200 slot, my personal preference is the f/2.8 IS. There have been a number of great responses that offer alternative choices, and all are valid, as the suggested choices are all fine lenses, and the basic question really centers on personal choice in the end.

My preference for the 2.8 IS version began when it was the only choice offered, and then evolved over time. My lens is pretty old now, and it was really the first premium zoom lens that forced me to be patient with my slow-growth lens budget at the time, and hold out for what I wanted, as opposed to settle for something else when my budget reached the point where that was possible.

Over the years, I have owned and worked with other choices in the category, but overall, I discovered that my old 2.8 IS has not been a burden for me to carry, as I choose it more often than the others, even when weight is a healthy consideration. Then again, I rarely give a high priority to weight when it isn't so important that a pocket cam like the G9 would be a better choice than a DSLR in the first place.

I don't care for neck straps at all, so my cameras all have battery grips and hand straps. That might be a factor as well, since the 70-200 f/2.8 IS mounted on an xxD body sporting a grip and hand strap is nicely supported by the back of my hand when walking, and all five fingers remain relaxed, no matter the pace or distance traveled. Hanging from my neck, the same setup would likely become an out of sync, free swinging battering ram to my body. Not fun at all. Even at events, heavy camera/lens combos clipped to belt mounted hammer hooks by their hand straps have little jiggle room, or effect on my gait, so even carrying two or three cameras for an extended period is pretty well pain-free.

Back to the lens itself, my example has always delivered sharp images, even wide open, and with up to two stacked 1.4x tele extenders mounted. I have posted a number of examples here in the past, and although I have used some examples of the 2.8 IS lens that were less than pleasingly sharp wide open, I think that is the exception, rather than the rule. The millions of fine images of all descriptions captured through this lens over time by amateur and pro photographers alike over the years tend to support that thought.

I think it's fair to expect that comparing ideal examples of the old and the new versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lenses will show the new version to raise the performance bar over the widely acclaimed old model "standard bearer" in most all respects, but it also raises the price-per-mm bar for an f/2.8 70-200 IS zoom to the "insanely painful" level. Evidently though, the old series "standard bearer" still owns the prize for the top performing 70-200 f/2.8 IS zoom in the "extremely painful" price range and below, as old workhorse examples like mine that have been in the field for years sell on the used market today for about the same price they cost when they were purchased new.

The f/4 version, (ideal build for ideal build) also offers some measurable improvements over the old f/2.8 IS series, including a bit broader range IS implementation. It's also significantly lighter, and it's budget point is reached much faster. Still, for the variety of uses I have found for this class of lenses over time, the extra stop offered by the f/2.8 model has been a serious asset in many ways, and it cannot be replaced by high ISO camera sensors, or extended IS range lenses.

A few examples would be the additional full stop of shallow DOF available for use. APS-C cameras are already at about a one stop disadvantage here relative to FF, so that extra stop gives the APS-C shooter a distinct additional level of creative choice in subject isolation (field of view for field of view) that a FF shooter with an f/4 lens takes for granted, and an APS-C shooter with f/4 lenses never experienced in the first place. You can live without it, as it will be tough to miss a feature you never had with a particular camera, and that makes it easier to chalk up the differences in apparent DOF between similar scenes captured with APS-C and FF cameras to be the nature of the beast, and not simply a function of lens aperture. It makes a difference. Is it worth it? For me, big time, but now, that's your call.

F/2.8 vs f/4 within the same zoom range also offers a distinct edge to the f/2.8 lens in terms of AF lock speed and accuracy. With recent cameras, the edge is even more noticeable. Even in live view, and with magnification employed, or plain manual focus mode, the faster lens delivers focus "snap" and speed over a broader range of conditions, and offers no optical trade offs to get there.

If you ever plan on using one or more tele extenders with your zoom, having f/2.8 on tap makes life easier overall compared to an f/4 max aperture lens, and the extra stop makes AF not only easier, but often, it simply makes AF possible.

As for IS, if it is offered, I won't be without it. It has never failed me on any premium Canon EF-s or EF lens, and it tends to produce sharper images in general, as well as otherwise nearly impossible images quite often. I much prefer to choose to turn it off from time to time, rather than wish I had it to turn on most of the time. IS costs more at first, but aside from it's utility value, lenses that offer a choice tend to hold their used value much better with IS than without it....

You mentioned that you now own a 7D. For me, having f/2.8 is already a bonus to a crop shooter, but with the 7D, you will be tempted to shoot video. The extra stop, extra mass, and the IS of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens over the f/4, or non IS versions really enhance video shooting for me. I'm a rank beginner in DSLR video, but the advice I have been offered from some power hitters locally has panned out in practice so far, and I'm still happy I kept the big f/2.8 IS zoom.

Keep in mind that I posted this as a personal view of your question from my perspective of "what does the f/2.8 IS lens do for me", as opposed to an "expensive is always better" line of BS. Also, I have no argument with those who came to different conclusions with their lens kits. The reason lens choices are offered is because different people have different needs and priorities. Give it all careful thought, and you won't be hurt, no matter where you land.

By the way, I completely agree with suggestions that a lens kit is not just a kit lens, and that you really should own a good, affordable fast prime or two. The 50 f/1.4, or the 85 f/1.8 are two great examples. Your 7D can really exploit the speed and image potential of those lenses. They serve different purposes as a function of their different lengths, but when f/2.8 is just not fast enough (often), they bring it on.

July 4, 2010

Scott, the shallow DOF apparent in the head-on shot of the killer bug I posted is a clear indicator that DOF at macro distances is always very narrow to begin with, and more often than not, the relationship between one FL and another at normal image capture ranges does not even remotely hold true at 1:1 macro scale. I dare say that when I'm shooting at true macro ranges, most any lens capable of high optical performance at f/2.8 can cause elements just a few mm in front of, or behind the point of focus to become very fuzzed out. I honestly do not see a problem in effectively matching the DOF of the images you posted with the EF-S 60 f/2.8 lens.

In my experience, shallow DOF is easy to attain with any good macro lens at macro distances, while the desire to get just a bit more DOF to suit the shot becomes a serious PITA because diffraction softness from reduced aperture becomes a real problem before the little bit of extra DOF desired is realized in the shot setup. Outside of the macro range, the relationship between FL, DOF, and aperture exists in an altogether different reality.

By the way, I really like the Canon 180 mm macro, and have I worked with it for several years now. However, on APS-C sensor cameras, I believe it is a very narrowly focused (no pun intended) lens, and I would not suggest that even a well heeled APS-C shooter buy one as their primary macro lens. Maybe their third macro specialty lens, but definitely not their foundation macro lens. I stand by the EF-S 60 f/2.8 as the singular choice for the most useful, and highest overall optical quality macro lens that money can buy for a Canon APS-C sensor camera.

Her are a few pics I posted earlier that show the amazing sharpness, and razor thin macro DOF the EF-S 60 f/2.8 lens is capable of delivering wide open. Again, these are not the best examples of the 60 at work, but the DOF illustrated in these shots is simply the way things happen at true macro ranges. ...

Here is the setup shot. A couple of objects laid out on a table to show the relative sharpness and DOF of a 50 f/1.4 vs the 60 f/2.8 lenses in an older post. The setup shot shown here was made with the EF-S 60 on a 50D at ISO 400, f/2.8, 1/180 sec.

This next shot is of the left front wheel of the Subaru STi police car model taken with the camera positioned at macro distance. Again, the lens was at f/2.8. The 50D camera was set to 1/60 second (with light provided by an MT-24EX strobe), ISO 400. Focus was achieved with single shot AF with the spot located just outside of the wheel bolt circle. Keep in mind that the real distance between the actual focus point, and the Brembo brake caliper that is fuzzed out in the background is a scant couple of mm! This photo, and the following photo are pretty large for this forum, and might appear distorted in your browser view, but the DOF is the point, and any distortion in rendering will not affect that point at all.

This shot was from the exact same setup, with the exact same parameters, except that I chose an AF spot that targeted the Brembo brake caliper itself. Notice the difference? Attaining shallow DOF at true macro image sizes is rarely a problem, and just doesn't follow conventional understanding of how various focal lengths relate to each other in the realm of DOF. At true macro magnification levels, people more often pray for a way to render deeper DOF. As soon as you leave the realm of true macro magnification with any macro lens, it's only potential advantage over any other normal prime or zoom lens capable of the same FL and aperture settings is potential IQ, and that doesn't always translate well into reality. A 180 mm macro lens image shot at less than true macro magnification can always be duplicated in basic structure by a 70-200 zoom set to the same FL and aperture. With the availability of IS on the big zoom, it can often best the 180 macro prime in detail as well, when the shots are made hand held in the field.

Anyway, I don't discount your support of longer macro lenses at all. My only wish here is to point out that shorter FL macro lenses are designed to suit the overall needs of crop sensor cameras to a greater degree, and that even though I agree that no single lens is perfect for every task, and everyone should end up owning a few, the EF-S 60 f/2.8 is the most all around perfect single true macro lens built for any Canon crop camera on the market today.

For the sake of realism, here is my driveable STi shot hand held with a 50D, EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens, ISO 12800, f 2.8, 1/8 second. It was seriously dark, and I was surprised to get AF lock at the time....

July 4, 2010

Quantum is a grand old name in the photo flash power industry, but Canon has been marketing cheap high capacity power options for it's premium strobes for quite a few years now. I have a few, and I have never had one go belly up on me. They preserve all of the features of the strobe without compromise, even the weather sealing on newer models. They deliver plenty of power to complete most shooting events with full flash performance on a single set of NiMH batteries, and offer a ten second battery tray swap when you go beyond the limit.

They also sport camera tripod screw base mount, Velcro accessory mount to most anything, or user waist belt mount choices as a standard feature. They are also very light weight accessories. Here is a shot of one of three that I use (I think it is the older CP-E3 model), and it is still the best thing since sliced bread for high capacity power with all of my 580EXxx strobes. No cutting corners or doors, no compromise, no loss in recycle time compared to a Quantum solution. I suggest that you reserve your Quantum power supply for non Canon strobes you might own over time, or just use it as a backup power source, and buy a CP-E4 to power your 580EXII today. It really is a factory solution that doesn't beg for a cheaper or better alternative... It simply works as if it was purpose built exactly for a 580EXxx strobes (or an MT-24EX strobe). Then again, it really was purpose built for exactly that type of service. And pretty cheap, to boot.....

July 4, 2010

Paul, thanks for the advice. If nothing else, this post struck a chord with some other potential DSLR video shooters, and I learned a few more details along the way from people like you who have already been down the path. I agree with the advantage of constant aperture lenses, as others have already cautioned me to use manual mode, and 1/60 second shutter speed as a baseline for my learning experience here in the US. The lens in the shots above is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I also have the 17-40 f/4 L lens, but I prefer the 17-55 for crop sensors, as it offers similar or better optical quality, a full stop wider aperture, and IS (if IS tickles you). The other lenses I use are also constant aperture, but for one. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens seems to be very well suited for video duty, although I have only worked with it on a tripod to date, and have not used the IS feature. With the 17-55 f/2.8 lens, however, I have not noticed anything but silky smooth hand held camera motion when the IS is switched on. I would like to read more about your reasoning behind never using IS. The one lens I rely on that does not sport a constant aperture is the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 lens. It has not been a source of trouble so far, as I tend to use it more in the way of a fixed prime than a zoom in video service, and it excels in that capacity.

Also, thanks to Paul and Puppy for the mic information. I do own some high end studio recording mics, and I am very familiar with the audio benefits of very high quality recording tools, but my high end mics are not suited for portable operation mounted on a video camera, and my main concern at the time I chose the Rode mic was to gain noticeably higher audio fidelity than the built in mic at an affordable price, isolation from camera/lens generated noise, very light weight, and enough directional capability to partially offset the very annoying Canon audio gain scheme that makes the stock mic pick up the sound of someone passing gas in the background (and my own breathing) nearly as loud as the target subject without being too narrow for general use. I have read reports that suggest recording the audio tracks separate from the video track, and merging them in PP, but that dictates a weight and effort tax on my kit, and also becomes a budget buster for my novice level entry to DSLR video.

In those respects, even if the bargain priced Rode Videomic "sucks green donkey", compared to more expensive options as Puppy indicated, it meets every one of my purchase time goals remarkably well. It is very well built, and feather light. It records audio that may be reasonably described as dramatically better than the built in mic is capable of delivering. It does not pick up camera/lens operation noises, operator breathing, grip adjustment noises, or even background farts that the built in mic happens to pick up amazingly well. Even with the evil Canon audio gain control algorithm working it's magic, the directional nature of the cheap Rode mic places far more emphasis on sounds emitted by the subject in the video frame, rather than giving equal billing to a 360 degree bubble of background traffic noise the built in mic responds to. Best of all, it only costs $140. Very sweet...

That said, I really do appreciate the information about higher quality options, as I fully expect to be bitten by the DSLR video bug enough to pay close attention to the learning curve, and end up with a no-excuses kit over time. Still photography has been a significant part of my income for 40+ years, and I understand that there is no real lasting value in spending significant cash on junk gear and lenses. I prefer to suffer and wait until my budget can deliver what I really think will be a premium choice for decades to come. In this case though, I was very impressed with the potential of the 7D/5DII as HD video capture tools based upon the work presented by others. Both cameras have the essential bits to do a great job.

The idea of owning a relatively inexpensive camera body that not only makes outstanding use of my hard earned collection of Canon glass in still photography, but can also deliver stunning HD video was too much to resist. The main problems I faced were A); video photography is not still photography. Not even close. Granted, we never stop learning (thank God), but between experience and raw understanding, I have done pretty well with still photography. At least not too bad. It became obvious though, that the video techniques I learned growing up with a Bolex Super 8 camera 40 years ago need some serious updating. Maybe a complete system reset....

That quickly made me aware of problem B); both the 7D/5DII apparently have a fantastic inner video soul, and the 7D even sports a few new tweaks and buttons that are clearly targeted for the video capture market, but both cameras are just as clearly optimized for still photo capture in form and control layout. So.... My goal was to find a very affordable basic solution to the most glaring deficiencies of the 7D/5DII when pressed into video capture service. In most instances, I consider a camera body to be a secondary player in my working kit. Lenses always have top budget priority. In this case, I (and scores of others who buy a video capable DSLR) already have a selection of fine lenses, and for once, the camera body has become the core component, and not just a device to help connect a photographer with his or her lenses. That being the case, I want to learn to master video techniques (to some degree), and not have to constantly work around the limitations of a tool set that was clearly designed to be a still camera, even though it is capable of "L" quality video in various scene settings along the way.

That is why I chose the two add on components I detailed at the top of this thread. The camera body itself is already the core component. The additional parts only cost about $350 US, which is a reasonably cheap budget hit, considering that it offers a still photographer who already owns a 7D/5DII the means of almost instantly transforming their very fine still camera that also happens to have the soul of a fine HD video camera into a reasonably functional HD video camera that handles much more like a video camera is expected to handle, and doesn't demand anywhere near the level of operational compromise that it's factory still-photo optimized configuration requires without third party assistance. In other words, learning good video recording technique with a 7D/5DII can become both fun, and rewarding for a relatively small additional financial burden over the cost of meeting currently budgeted still photography goals.

The bang for the initial buck is huge, and as skill and expectations advance, the initial $140 Rode mic will have served it's purpose by upstaging the performance of the built in mic by a huge margin, and making the larger than life constant presence of an accessory mic seem as right as rain to someone who might be a bit shy about toting gear around town that says "look at me" (even casual acquaintances ask if I'm feeling OK when they see me without a camera hanging from a grip on my right hand, but I have met plenty of people who will choose a lesser quality lens mainly because it is smaller, as they are uncomfortable standing out in public by virtue of their camera gear). When the desire for even higher quality audio reaches the point where my budget is in line with desire, that $140 mic will have long since paid for itself, and I won't feel a bit of pain when I hand it over to someone who has just been bitten by the video bug, as it's initial purpose will have been served in fine fashion.

Again, thanks to all of you for your replies, and I really hope that I see more video-centric EOS DSLR threads in this forum. Video recording has become a significant standard feature on even consumer model DSLR's lately, and the experience of those who have started down that video path ahead of the rest of us plays an important role in our understanding, and the choices we make at every step along the way. It took some time for me to accept the concept that a DSLR can really record video worth watching, but after I propped up my 7D with the 10-22 lens a mere foot away from the front of a salt water aquarium solely illuminated by it's top mounted incandescent light and let it record for 10 minutes (manual mode 1/60 sec shutter, f/5.6, auto ISO), at a party a week or so ago, and later played it back on the new 50+ inch LED HD TV that was the reason for the party, I was stunned by the quality of the video. Maybe shocked is a better word... So was everyone else. I had no idea that my latest APS-C camera body (bought for what it brings to the still shooting table) offered such an amazing alternate identity as a free bonus.

If you already have a 7D/5DII, spend just a little money on a change of clothes that better suits it's video alter ego, and you might believe in Santa Claus again, or a free lunch......

July 2, 2010

Forget the crystal ball trick. When would you like to start shooting pictures? Now? Great! The 7D is an awesome camera (in many ways better than even the older 5DII), and you can buy one right now. Even if there is a new announcement soon after you buy, or there is a price drop soon after you buy, it doesn't matter a hoot. It will still be a great camera then, and you will have already had the benefit of using it for a period of time that could never be replaced by a future, or cheaper model that you simply can't use today.

Even at that, this is 2010, and new cameras are not expected to deliver great leaps in technology that was the norm for the past decade. The latest digital cameras are feature rich, and technologically mature compared to the reality of 2005. How could you lose? Besides, it will likely take several years for you to really master all that the 7D has to offer, so you might as well get started now. Any future camera that catches your eye is going to be built on the 7D foundation anyway, so it is a perfect launching point into the future. It is quite different than even a 50D, and although it looks more like a 5DII control setup, it is well beyond even that camera. Now is the time to buy a great camera, and meet the future of photography on your own terms.....

July 2, 2010

I beat my cameras pretty hard in both commercial and personal service. As a matter of course, I break things from time to time when trying for a shot, or just being inattentive. Then again, screen protectors are just a PITA to me, and they have never found their way to the LCD of any of my cameras since the first 30D hit the market. Neither have LCD scratches.....

Here is an old rear shot of my last 30D, and my current 40D, and 50D bodies v(not in that order). There are no scratches on any of the LCD's, yet there are clear signs of wear on all of the cameras. My 7D LCD appears to be a more expensive repair option than with previous xxD cameras, but it lives without a plastic cover as well.

I used screen protectors on my first iPhone 3G, and they were a PITA to clean and maintain. When the 3GS came out, I was intrigued by the "oliophobic" surface treatment Apple championed, and I never used a screen protector on that phone. It's been two years now, and as is usual, my phone lives in my pocket with keys, coins, and other junk, yet there isn't a scratch on either one. Here is a pic of both generations of iPhones, with my current 3GS on the left. The plastic case on the 3GS is the same case I used to protect the body corners from shock when I first bought the 3G. It works like a charm, although it is pretty beat up looking right now. There is no doubt that they were both seriously abused though, as they have been my sole phone link to the world for both business and personal use 24/7 for years.

Screen protectors? No thanks.....

July 2, 2010

I'm way in the minority here, but you are planning on spending some serious cash, and although others are cheering you on, I'll suggest that you pass up the opportunity. I bought a 5D when it first arrived on the market, and sold it within several months. To me, it was a one trick pony, and the trick was it's FF sensor. Everything else about it was sub standard at that time, and is WAY sub standard at the present time.

As I see it, the only thing keeping the old 5D at a used value greater than $1000 today are the masses of people with a limited budget who have been brought up to believe that FF offers such an inherent IQ bonus to their shots that it is worth giving up everything but (maybe) AF in order to claim possession of a FF DSLR.

I don't buy the Kool-Aid. The old 5D is a clunker of a camera by modern standards that happens to have a pretty nice FF sensor for it's time. Is that what you really need as your primary camera? Is owning an old FF camera that can take great shots in some situations, while often being less suitable for the task at hand than a Rebel T2i, and almost always less suitable, and often completely out of the league of a 7D camera your greatest priority?

If it is, then go ahead and spend $1000 on a used first generation 5D. When you you need more than it can deliver, you could take comfort in the fact that even though it doesn't do all that much compared to a more modern FF camera, and your best efforts are often smoked by an average shooter with a 7D, you can still say "I have a FF camera".

Think before you jump. People will always be willing to help you spend your money on their dreams, right or wrong. It seems that you have already decided that FF is where you need to go by the way you worded your post, but it might be worth renting a 5D 1 and a 7D for a long weekend of play before you press the buy button.

OK, I angered more than enough people already, but my intent was sincere. I think the old 5D is a poor way to spend $1000 on a primary camera body considering the quality and functionality of new alternative camera choices.... I'll duck and cover now, but you should give it some thought. Buy a 7D now, rock your entire 20D based digital photographic world for a few years, and buy a 5DII as a second body when they dip into the $1000-1500 price point down the road.

July 2, 2010

HD video has recently become an expected feature on modern DSLR cameras. When I bought my 7D, 1080P video wasn't the deal maker, and even when playing with video after the fact, it seemed more than a bit alien to me compared to my comfort level shooting still pictures.

That said, I have two friends who are intimately involved in TV video production, and they kept prodding me to give 7D video a serious shot, as they claimed that Canon gives top video billing to the 5DII because it is at the top of their price pyramid for "affordable" video DSLR's, but the 7D is at least as good in most cases, and much better in a few other cases. In particular, the APS-C sensor still delivers better shallow DOF than many mega buck commercial studio video cameras, while it is easier to control with the 7D vs the 5DII, in terms of keeping focus in track. Nice... Even the low light capability of the 7D exceeds the ability of most mega buck studio video cameras, and the real difference between it and the 5DII is minimal by comparison.

Also, the 7D has two Digic 4 chips, and unlike the 5DII with one Digic 4 chip, the 7D can stream full live HD video via WiFi connection to a remote capture device (I never knew that). Apparently, the two Digic 4 chips in the 7D also give the 7D a significant edge in reducing the funky rolling shutter distortion that DSLR based video cameras (including the 5DII) are subject to. To cap it off, they offered comparison captures between the two cameras, and no matter how well their assertions stand up to debate, all of the video examples, and TV shows recorded on both cameras looked fantastic!

Which caused me to ask why my basic attempts at shooting video with my 7D tend to look like amateur crap, even for a rank video amateur. Two things were suggested as built in roadblocks to video heaven in both the 7D, and the 5DII. First, the stock mic is awful. It picks up everything, including internal camera noise, and the gain circuitry is set to boost all captured sound to what the camera thinks is a normal level, so aside from the fact that it's frequency response suffers at the low end in an attempt to control camera sourced noise, the built in mic also offers no directional sensitivity at all, and the sound you record is pretty bad compared to what might have been with a better mic. An high quality external mic is a serious priority with either camera...

The second tidbit offered is that it is all but impossible to maintain reasonable focus in a video by looking at the naked rear LCD screen on either camera. It's even more of a problem with the 5DII LCD. Beyond that, smooth video generally requires a bit more camera mass, and a comfortable grip at eye level, even if IS is in play. I absolutely agree with that last assertion.

So, a comfortable grip, a better mic, and a full view, magnified LCD hood seems to be the minimum recipe for video nirvana with either camera. Unfortunately, that stuff tends to cost way too much. I looked at, and tried a variety of solutions, and this is what I found to do the job in spectacular fashion, and at an affordable price point. What I mean by "spectacular fashion" is that adding these relatively affordable devices will transform your 7D, 5DII into a serious quality HD video camera that also happens to be a breeze to use. The difference between trying to use either one for video recording in stock condition, vs with these few additions is truly spectacular.

Here is what I ended up with to date. First, the battery grip and hand strap are perfect for video use. I hate neck straps with a passion, and have only used battery grips and hand straps for many years. For video use, the added mass of the grip, and the natural way a hand strap allows proper camera orientation, while leaving your fingers free of any camera support duty at all really comes into it's own. Your fingers are free to control the camera. That is a universal truth that people who use a hand strap already understand, but in video service, it is an even greater bonus.

Next, there is the need for a good microphone. I tried a few over the past several months that I have been working on this project, and some were plain garbage, while others were better suited for people with an unlimited budget. Even then, the mega buck models were not always the clear winner in an A vs B sound test. In the end, I was surprised, and pleasantly so. The RODE VideoMic ($140 US) just powered ahead of the others in all around price, performance, size, isolation, and just plain light weight and rugged build. It also has a standard 10 year warranty, and ships with a full spare set of eight rubber bands that isolate the entire mic assembly from the standard shoe mount.

It is really amazing in practice, and it does not pick up lens motor sounds, or even my breathing behind the camera. It is directional enough to clearly record your subject whispering at 18 feet, while it also delivers high fidelity recordings of your favorite band at a practice session. Are there better mics on the market? You bet there are, but I'm not cheap (to a fault), and this model from Australia just won me over as a great all around high quality mic, and it happens to cost the same, or less than some serious garbage offerings on the market. It's worth a long look if you want to persue video with your 7/5D.

Last, is the video focus problem. There were few choices that answered that problem directly, and still allowed for the use of a battery grip, or a wireless grip. Even then, they were priced in the realm of crown jewels, and out of my budget by a longshot. That's when I tripped on the Hoodman "Hood Crane". It's a goofy name, and I never bought anything from Hoodman before, but I am very impressed with the quality of this product. It retails for right at $200, and it is a very robust kit that has the look, feel, fit, and finish expected of top quality gear. It is sweet. It attaches to the camera hot shoe, and has a quick release to swing it out of the way in a split second. When in place, it is rock solid, and it offers a large rubber eye mask that can swing through 360 degrees, a fully adjustable 3X eye piece that not only matches most any state of user vision, but also delivers a clear view of the entire LCD screen without any external light leaks to spoil the fun. It makes critical focus a matter of course, and makes follow on action focus an intuitive breeze. No kidding, you have not experienced video shooting with a 7D, or a 5DII until you have used a video specific LCD hood.

Obviously, I am still learning DSLR video, but for a total of only $350 (if you already use a battery grip, or wireless grip), these two tools really transform your DSLR into a solid video platform within seconds, and cost far less than many other popular choices on the market. Here are a few shots I took today to illustrate the kit details described in this post. If nothing else, it's food for thought among the many 7D/5DII owners here. Enjoy!

July 2, 2010

Actually, the 7D is very well sealed, all things considered. As a rule though, I prefer to prepare for what is likely to happen, and rely on camera seals only when something happens that I didn't prepare for. Truth is that even "non-weather resistant" cameras deal with wet weather better than expected, and more often than not, you can shoot in the rain, and get away with it.

If you prepare though, you can shoot in the surf without ill effect. I prefer rubber bands and clear office style garbage bags as camera condoms. They work perfectly. Here is a shot of my 40D sporting a 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens, and wearing a garbage bag condom as protection against a shower head attack. Don't over react to potential minor wet events, but use your imagination to deal with expected grand scale wet events.

Your gear will thank you, no matter how water resistant it might be out of the box. One rubber connection cover left unsealed can kill a weatherproof camera in a downpour, while a thirty cent garbage bag can protect the least weather resistant camera in a full sale dunking. Garbage bag camera condoms are a form of cheap insurance that do not interfere with your creativity. Keep a few bags and rubber bands in your kit. You will sleep better...

July 2, 2010

They all work if they are not broken. My favorites in the FD world are the New F1 and the T90 (the T90 is bullet proof, and doesn't die without use). My favorites in the EOS world are most all of them, although I prefer models newer than the EOS3. The 3 is a great camera for it's time, but aside from it's technical shortcomings related to it's age, it may well be the loudest EOS ever built. I dumped mine awhile back (found it a new home), and replaced it with a newer tech, much cheaper, but lower class Elan 7e, which happens to be a better camera all around anyway, except if you plan to shower with it. There is also a fully functional EOS 1 in the pic below, and it is a fine camera, but it is similar to the 3 in vintage (old), and if you really want the king of all film cameras, you should go for the EOS 1V HS, which is not in the pic below because it was in a drawer at work, and was not here at home when I took the shot.

No matter though, as the answer to your question is that most any Canon film camera will rock your world within it's new performance envelope, no matter how old it is today. Also, they are all so cheap today that the real problem is which one, two, or three should you select from all of the various models that still work perfectly fine.

Here is the picture of some of my Canon gear made for a different thread, but it does cover several decades of Canon tech, and all of them work as new to this day. I have older Canon gear, and some of the latest Canon gear as well, but upgrades are never about the previous model going belly up. Great lenses last forever, but the best camera bodies only last until the next release. There is always a better body coming soon. The question is, do you really need it? The only reason that the Canon film line halted it's progression with the EOS 1V is because the Canon film line simply ended after the 1V was introduced. It is funny though, that if you discount AF, and digital sensors, the ancient T90 is still a bleeding edge technology wonder to this very day......

This basic series has my vote for the top super cheap and awesome EOS mount film body that can use modern accessories like ETTL strobes. It's quiet, has better AF, and faster eye control than the oldies like the EOS3. Did I mention that it's cheaper and lighter as well?

If you like "old school" Canon manual focus FD cameras, there are many to choose from, and here are my favorites. Of the three though, the T90 is just plain awesome. Maybe awesome is a bit reserved... Incredible might be a better word....

What can I say, it's only 24 years old, and still going strong....

Time lapse photography, programmed functions, date and time still current to this very day? No problem, the T90 does it all...

Of course, if you prefer a silent 35 mm film rangefinder with Leica quality 40 mm f/1.7 fixed glass, and Rock of Gibraltar reliability, the nearly 40 year old Canon G-III QL still works beautifully, and remains so popular that a good used copy costs more today than I paid for my first new version back in the early 1970's. Here are the two that I currently own. The one on the bottom is the one I bought new. My first Kodachrome slides of the Colorado Rockies were shot with that camera way back then, and they still leave me breathless today. Kodachrome is (sadly) gone now, but the ancient G III QL is still ready to deliver images that need no excuses with the best film currently on the market.

If you thought choosing a Canon film camera to play with would be as simple as asking "what still works", think again..... You might have an easier time figuring out who will be the Prime Minister of the UK in 2047 :).

July 2, 2010

The EF-S 60 f.2.8 is ideal for shooting flowers with your 7D. Aside from being a fantastic true 1:1 macro lens, it is also a superb razor sharp mild telephoto lens on your 7D (likely better than anything you have ever experienced before). It will perform many jobs outside of it's macro design nature on your 7D that a 100 mm lens would never be suited for, except on the FF cameras that 100 mm lenses were designed to suit.

Don't worry too much about bugs. The bugs in NJ must be a bit more bold than the bugs in other states, as they don't scare so easy, but if shooting paranoid bugs is not your main issue anyway, the 60 f/2.8 macro is the only macro that was designed with your camera sensor in mind. Yes, there are valid reasons for owning a 100 mm macro with a crop camera, but in my view, you give up more than you gain by choosing that route.

I have been fortunate enough to have my work add to my photo budget in a significant manner over the years, and I own examples of both types of macro lenses. If I had to go back and just buy one for my crop cameras (which have been my favorite cameras), it would be the EF-S 60 f/2.8 without even a hint of reservation. The lens is perfect for any crop camera today, and likely tomorrow as well. It may not be the case here, but among the people I know in the real world who chose a 100 mm macro for their crop camera, the reasoning offered was the fabled scared bug thing, while the real mental pressure in play was that they thought a 100 mm macro lens was considered standard fare for a FF camera, and it therefore somehow was a better choice for their crop camera....

Of course, that is BS, but the crop vs FF thing is a psych battle in the consumer mind anyway, so that's where it gets played out. It is interesting though, that a 100 mm macro lens is almost a universal standard in the FF world because of it's field of view. It serves so many practical uses that it is rarely limited to macro duty alone. It is such a standard that Canon and others took the time and trouble to build top quality 60 mm macro lenses to fill the same slot in the crop sensor world. The 1.6 factor comes into play here, and the EF-S 60 f/2.8 delivers the goods to the crop world in spades.

Using a 100 mm macro on a crop camera is akin to using the 180 mm macro on a FF camera. It exists, and it is a fine lens, but it's useful range is limited. More FF people use a 100 mm macro than a 180 mm macro for a slew of reasons other than raw cost. Likewise, the 60 mm macro is ideal for a crop camera, while a 100 mm macro works for some uses, but there are far more compromises to deal with in a 100 mm lens on a crop camera than there are benefits. Yes, your full macro working distance is closer with the 60, but the scared bug thing is (in my opinion) a Red Herring in the overall scheme of things.

So, that's my argument for the 60. It isn't an accident that 60 mm was chosen to be the FL for a crop camera centric macro lens. It isn't an accident that the resulting lens is one of the very finest performing lenses on the planet. Quite simply, the EF-S 60 macro was built to be be the ideal all around macro lens for your 7D even before your 7D was designed.

By the way, you own the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens, which is a clear step above my old version of the same lens. It isn't a macro lens, but with high quality 77 mm close up lenses, or even standard tele extenders, the big zoom can get nice shots of spooky bugs from 15 feet away with ease, and with IS to help.

Just for fun, this first pic is a 2007 shot of a bee on a flower in a breeze. It was shot with a 30D and my 70-200 f/2.8 IS (old version) with a 1.4x tele converter at ISO 400, 1/400 sec shutter speed, wide open aperture, hand held from about 15 feet with servo AF maintaining focus despite the breeze. This is the full frame, not a crop. It might be distorted here, as it is a large file, but you can save the image to your PC, and view outside of your browser later. It isn't real macro, but it's fun..... The DOF delivered at that focal length, and f/2.8 is pretty wild as well. Buy what best suits your camera, and best suits your needs.

If you need to see examples of the EF-S 60 f/2.8 on the 7D, suggest some easy to create summertime shot setups, and I'll be happy to shoot a few for you to browse. The 60 is an awesome lens, and is tailor made for a crop sensor. You should own one......

This is a bridal prep shot I recently made with the EF-S 60 on a 50D (maybe a 40D). It is a mild tele lens on a crop camera, but it is still in the workable sweet spot.

Here is a crop of the same jpg image. The EF-S 60 is a fantastic optical performer without any help from Photoshop....

Here is a bug shot with the 60. Bugs in NJ think they can defeat lenses with ease. No fear...

Here is the full frame of a side view of the wing of the killer bug shot hand held with the 60...

June 27, 2010

What they said...

Mine is over five years old now, and it has survived heavy commercial use, as well as numerous disaster scenarios over the years. It has also survived four generations of APS-C camera bodies from the 30D, to the 7D, and it still remains all alone at the summit of L quality lens performance in it's focal range for APS-C bodies.

Get used to it's unique chirps, and spend a decade or two smiling about how you chose the best lens that money can buy in it's class by far, without compromise or excuse. By the way, if you didn't buy a hood for your lens, buy one now. It is the best IQ enhancement, and the best insurance against damage offered for the lens at any price. All you have to do is commit to using it at all times. Trust me, it's true....

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens is a prime example of how buying the finest glass is always worth more than buying the most current camera body. Here are three shots showing my first and only 17-55 lens on 40D, 50D, and 7D bodies. I also have shots where it is mounted on the 30D body that was leading edge tech when I bought the lens, but these three shots make my point in fine style.

My Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 lens is over five years old. There is nothing in the Canon catalog, or any third party catalog that can deliver higher performance on an APS-C camera in the same focal range. Nothing at all. When I bought my lens over five years ago, it cost me right at $1,000. Cleaned up for the used market, it still sells for right at $1,000 even after five years of heavy commercial use. Keep that thought in mind for a moment...

The 30D body I owned when I bought the new 17-55 f/2.8 lens cost me far more than $1,000 at the time. The addition of a battery grip, hand strap, and additional batteries brought the total to closer to $2,000 in reality. When I transferred that camera to a deserving new owner several years ago, it's used market value had declined to well below $600, even with the grip, shipping box, and accessories. The 17-55 was still worth $1,000 used at the time......

Since then, I have updated my camera bodies to remain abreast of technical advances that may enhance my ability to pay bills. I still own a 40D, a 50D, and a 7D in the APS-C form factor. In each case, the purchase price for each basic camera body alone was far more costly than the initial purchase price of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens, yet within a year or two, both the 40D, and the 50D bodies lost so much cash resale value that their current used value (in pristine condition) is hundreds of Dollars less than the value of my five year old 17-55 lens!

My current 7D is very new, but I have no doubt that before another year has passed, it's used value will also dip below that of my old 17-55 lens.

People often tend to be dazzled by breakthrough camera performance, and then look for value power when they buy lenses, so they can afford the latest expensive camera bodies first. It's a backwards financial formula. Today, as in the past, the best lenses last for decades, if not a lifetime without becoming second string performers badly in need of an update, or worthless cheap entry points that were expected to be obsolete soon after the purchase was made because desire to have something now overpowered patience.

In reality, no matter how marketing people might wish things were different, or how happy people who currently own cheap glass may be as a result of never owning the best glass, the truth is that the high end examples of digital camera bodies offered today are the obsolete cheap used junk offered tomorrow, while the best lenses offered today will likely continue to be the best lenses available way beyond tomorrow....

In your case, you own the best lens money can buy in it's class. Enjoy it, as it will likely be with you for a long time to come....

June 27, 2010

If it works now, it's probably less bruised than your conscience. Obviously, you should avoid subjecting your camera gear to gravity kisses with concrete as a standard priority, but in reality, they often survive with little more than a surface blemish to remind us of our inattentive moment in time....

At this point, look to protecting your gear in the future, and be thankful that it dodged a bullet. For what it's worth, I don't carry a purse, but it seems like a lousy place to park an expensive DSLR. I have destroyed my share of camera gear due to "less than proper care" over the years, and it still stings to remember those events, but I learn and move on. Well, sometimes it takes more than one hit for me to learn, but you get the idea....

Anyway, camera gear is pretty tough, and far more often than not, the full extent of gravity related damage becomes apparent right away. As an example, here is my "ancient" Canon S2 IS. To this day, it is a fine 6? mp P&S camera with a mega zoom, and movie mode, but within three days of buying it, I became so comfortable with using the quick release snap on my tailor made Tamrac camera bag to close the lid instead of using the full zipper, that my brand new S2 IS jumped out of the bag before I could react, and kissed the concrete four feet below.

I was lucky, as the camera has performed perfectly since the 2003 or 2004 gravity event, but it's surface scars serve to remind me that I'm solely in charge of protecting my camera gear, and if it is destroyed, it is either because the risk was worth the attempted shot, or because I dropped the ball, and wasted a pile of cash over a matter of convenience.....

Faysal mentioned, "Then again, the people at the Nikon forums say Canon's arent built well....". What would you expect of the faithful followers of a brand that lost the cream of it's professional crop of users to the EOS revolution before it could re-group, and deliver a worthy market response?

I give Nikon a great deal of credit for setting high standards in the 35 mm marketplace, and it would be a personal nightmare for all of us if either Canon or Nikon met a new dawn without the other brand in hot competition, but the last place I would look for advice about anything related to Canon cameras would be the Nikon fanboy temple.

Anyway, here are the shots of my very old S2 IS and it's early concrete scars. If your dropped Rebel is working now, it likely survived your purse event without any hidden damage waiting to ruin your day in the future...

Just to make you feel a bit better at my expense, the 30D, and the 40D shown in the following shot both survived a full scale gravity kiss to a stone floor from the top of a 72" tripod leaned against a kitchen counter top that toppled over when I was too far away to do a thing about it (yes, that qualifies me as an idiot, as I set up the identical scene for disaster both times). The events were about one year apart, and in different parts of the globe, but the very same EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens shown at the left side of this picture on a 50D body happened to be in place at the moment disaster struck on the 30D, and the 40D also shown in the shot. The same factory lens hood shown in this shot took the entire gravity hit face first on both occasions, and without even a light breeze to break the fall. Twice, and it is still on the job today.....

In both cases, the lens, and the camera were unscathed. Lucky me.... Unfortunately, in each case, there was a 580EXII Canon strobe mounted to the camera hotshoe, and it was pretty much destroyed to the tune of a $200 repair bill each time when I returned home. Still, that is a much better scenario than if the strobe remained intact, and the hot shoe ripped off of the camera body... I have championed the use of factory lens hoods at all times for many years, and continue to do so. Nothing will protect your gear like a factory plastic hood. Nothing.... That very same 17-55 f/2.8 IS is still my favorite APS-C normal range zoom in the current 7D world, and I don't lean cameras perched on top of extended tripods against kitchen counter tops anymore, but old history is instructive.... Both of the other lenses pictured have also had their shining disaster moments to be sure, and their factory hoods have saved the day countless times in commercial service over the years, but my example here is meant to highlight "innocent" operator error...

Canon gear is very tough. It is often tougher than Canon owners deserve. When your gear survives a momentary lapse in judgment, just smile, and learn a bit more for the future.

June 25, 2010

NK is pretty much right on the mark. I have previously owned 30D, and 5D cameras, and currently own 40D, 50D, and 7D bodies. Of the group, only the 40D, 50D, and 7D offer camera menu control of external flash unit settings. Ray mentioned flash exposure compensation control from the camera in the 30D, but that is a fairly common old school camera feature that simply tricks the strobe into delivering more or less light output than normal for a particular metered scene.

True external flash control is built into more recent models of Canon DSLR's and high end P&S cameras like the 40, 50, 7, various Rebels, G cameras, etc. They can actually view and change a variety of external flash function settings directly from the camera LCD and control buttons that would normally require using the LCD and control buttons of the flash unit itself to effect. It's one of many useful tools that pops up in the wake of progress in the camera world....

Here is a poor shot of one of the external flash control menus of the 7D. It is pretty typical of all similarly capable Canon cameras, and gives an idea of the higher level of direct external flash control that has become all but expected in recent hot shoe equipped Canon cameras at every price point. <img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1087/4732154099_825a3ffa59.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" />

June 25, 2010

My first EOS camera was either a 620, or a 630. I can't remember which, but before two years passed by, I hit a financial crunch, and that EOS with it's single lens was the odd member of my otherwise FD mount camera kit, and I sold it. It's a damn shame how little cash you become willing to sell good gear for when you are broke......

Photo-finances quickly improved though, and EOS became my new 35 mm foundation in short order. As photo income rose, so did the budget for tools. I still own the first EOS 1, and the EOS 10S I purchased new. They are shown in the photo I just shot, and posted below. The EOS Elan 7e really shouldn't be there, as it was a recent $8 purchase, but I use it fairly often, so it crashed the party...

All of the digital EOS models shown in the shot were purchased new, and represent my current primary photo income tools. I own other EOS models that I bought used, like the 1V HS, and some that I bought new over the years were sold off for one reason or another. My EOS 3 is gone. My old 1D is gone. My first generation 5D camera sensor never delivered enough FF "wow" to the people who pay me to offset all of the things it couldn't do, and it only lasted a few months before I sold it to someone with FF fever for nearly the same price I paid for it. Two 30D bodies gave me outstanding service for years before they just lost enough IQ and feature edge to newer models to remain as primary commercial tool choices (they are still fine cameras though).

I almost pressed the button on a 5D MkII when I bought the 7D, but the 7D offered a feature set, and performance level that seemed to be ideal for 90% of my work and pleasure needs, where the 5D MkII showcased FF sensor performance at an affordable point, but still fell short in several other areas that are important to me. There is no doubt that a new FF camera will join my kit in a year or two, but for now, APS-C continues to deliver more often than not, and when a job demands a larger digital sensor, I'll rent a Mamiya digital back for my RZ kit, or rent a high end Canon FF body as required.

In any event, pressing the go button on the EOS concept was a monumental step for Canon when film ruled the photo world, but it really became a driving force in the industry when the digital electronic photo revolution began shortly after it's introduction. There is an unprecedented number of bleeding edge competitors in the photo industry today, but at the beginning, Canon owned the digital-electronic initiative with EOS.

The ability to move camera technology forward in bold steps without concern for it's effect on past products or widely accepted industry methods and means gave Canon such an edge before the competition could get their collective act together that even Nikon, the hard earned god of 35 mm professional photography brands took so long to develop a worthy response to EOS that the sheer number of then to fore loyal Nikon professional shooters who abandoned Nikon for Canon EOS cameras and fashionable white lenses could easily have been mistaken for a Cecil B DeMille movie describing the biblical Exodus story.

EOS was an important milestone in Canon history. Arguably, it provided the corporate ladder to allow Canon to reach the industry summit. Nikon still owned the legend, but Canon owned the reality. Fast forward to the present, and the choice of "the best" is far more difficult. Some things remain the same, as in lenses. Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Schneider, Zeiss, and a few other brands still produce "the best" glass. The best camera tech, on the other hand, is always changing. Camera consumers are living in a fantasy dream world today. If you choose a good brand, and buy their best lenses, you pretty much can't lose.

As I see it, EOS was the corporate artillery shot that really got the attention of the camera industry in general, and set the stage for the drool inspiring selection of cheap bleeding edge technology that all digital photographers enjoy today.

June 24, 2010

NK Guy,

It was the continuous blinking that I was addressing. I didn't take the "Zoom--mm" comment by the OP as a literally blank number field. Thanks for the reply, as that makes all the difference in the world...

June 24, 2010

The 20D is getting old fast. It is a good camera, but old. The 30D is a minor update to the 20D that includes a larger rear LCD, and a several operational tweaks. I had two 30D's in the past, and I enjoyed them very much. They offer the same resolution sensor as the 20D, but even the very first 30D produced is newer than the last 20D produced.....

Both cameras are bargain priced today because of their age and the simple fact that there has been enormous progress in DSLR design over the years. Honestly, unless you found one at a serious bargain price, I would suggest that a more recent, or current Rebel might offer better overall value without breaking the budget. Look at reputable used dealers like KEH to get an idea of relative street value. Compare "Bgn" condition examples, as that is generally the ideal value point for a used camera body.

Both the 20D and 30D can shoot RAW+jpg, and as is the case with all Canon DSLR offerings, mirror lockup is a menu function, and not available at the press of a button. Both cameras offer the standard 2 and 10 second time delay, and both accept the same high end Canon TC-80N3 programmable remote timer that all recent mid to high end Canon cameras are designed to use. The built in flash is the same between the 20D and the 30D. Neither camera has a built in IR receiver. That function ends at the Rebel consumer level in the Canon lineup.

I hope that helps. Once again, give the Rebel line a good look before you choose. Even the 12 mp Rebels offer many technology advances over the 20 and 30D cameras, as progress in DSLR design was very rapid during that period of time. The 20/30D will always be a rock solid camera with a rugged build though, so if your friend can overlook some of the bells and whistles offered in newer models, the earlier xxD cameras can be long term keepers that maintain the basic control "feel" of more recent prosumer Canon models. Here is a shot of my last 30D. Compared to the 20D, the most noticable change is the much larger LCD...

June 24, 2010

The battery indicator on the xxD cameras with a grip seems to be a bit of a mystery. Even with one battery, it is just a rough guide, but it's function is even tougher to nail down with two batteries. I have used battery grips since the 30D came out, as I can't stand neck straps, and the grip is needed to attach a hand strap. During that time, I have tried various tests in an effort to figure out how two batteries are used by the camera, and I still don't have a clear picture.....

What does seem to be common from the 30D through the 50D is that the camera does not load balance the batteries. You can install two fully charged batteries of identical vintage, and one always seems to discharge with use long before the other. The same is true if batteries of different brands, or charge levels are installed. Load balancing does not appear to be the order of the day, and it is not important to use matching brand/charge level/capacity batteries at all.

You can trick the grip into thinking the battery compartment door is closed by pressing the "door closed" pin, which gives you the ability to swap batteries one at a time during long time lapse exposure sequences without shutting down the camera (which normally happens when you open the battery door). After swapping mixed brands of batteries over the years in different charge states, it seems to me that although the circuitry in the grip seems to always drain one battery before the other if two batteries are installed, the power level indicator on the top LCD only indicates the rough charge condition of the most fully charged battery of the pair. In other words, if you replace one of a pair of fully charged batteries with a flat battery, or simply remove one battery from the grip, the LCD still indicates full battery charge. That isn't a problem at all, since two BP-511 batteries offer huge capacity, and when the power indicator in the top LCD starts losing bars, you still have plenty of time to swap out the old set for a fresh set.

Anyway, that has been my experience, and although I never lost enough sleep over it to really dig into it, I don't believe the xxD charge indicator system is smart enough to know anything about how many batteries are installed, how much current capacity they have on tap, or any other useful information beyond a rough guess of the power left in the "most fully charged" battery in the pair. My 7D charge indicator seems to be reasonably smart, but it is a completely different design that works in conjunction with a dedicated chip in the battery itself, which was not the case with the xxD series cameras. I do have a grip on my 7D though, and I'm curious to see if the camera is notified of the presence of two batteries, and how it reacts to that info in it's LCD display.

Meanwhile, if you wish to do some experimenting, here is a picture of the switch to press on the xxD battery grip to trick it into thinking the battery door is closed, so you can swap out batteries in various states of charge one at a time as you please without shutting off the camera as a result..

June 23, 2010

Faysal, a couple of thoughts, and a question... Actually, the question first. Do you plan on dumping your APS-C camera when you buy a FF camera? It is important for a couple of reasons. First, if you plan to keep your APS-C camera as a backup, or just for it's 1.6x multiplier and enhanced general feature set over affordable FF bodies, it might be worth the expense of adding an EF-S 17-55 f.2.8 IS lens to your lens list. It will complete your APS-C specific lens kit for years to come, and deliver the speed, focal range, IS, and optical quality you want for portrait work at closer ranges than your 70-200 f/4 lens is comfortable with right now.

Bear with me for a moment longer... There is a budget bonus here in addition to giving your APS-C camera complete ultra wide to mid telephoto functionality by adding the 17-55 to your 10-22 lens (aside from the fact that the 17-55 does not depreciate). When you do buy a FF camera, your wonderful EF 70-200 f/4 IS lens transforms into something entirely different than you knew with the APS-C camera body. It still has stunning sharpness, and amazing IS, but in practical terms, it will be 1.6x shorter across the entire zoom range than it appeared to be with your APS-C camera. Portrait work with that same lens will be at a much closer working distance than with the APS-C camera, and the entire 70-200 mm range will be useful and available to you for nailing composition without needing to back into the next town. As a bonus, that f/4 maximum aperture on the 70-200 zoom will deliver (image size for image size) the same shallow DOF that an f/2.8 lens will deliver on an APS-C sized camera.

So, If you plan on retaining your APS-C camera into the future, you will only gain from filling the one remaining gap in your APS-C short end coverage with an L quality EF-S 17-55 lens. Your new 70-200 f/4 IS lens is not only a work of optical art that really adds telephoto reach to an APS-C kit, but on a FF camera, it transforms into an almost perfect answer to your desire for a high end FF portrait length zoom.

If you do not plan to keep your APS-C kit after you go FF (keep it), your 70-200 f/4 IS is still an ideal portrait lens for a FF camera. Don't waste your money on trying to buy a different version of a great FF portrait lens that you already own. Go for the new 100 mm f/2.8 IS macro lens instead. It will leave you speechless within ten minutes of taking it out of the box.

If you have never had the opportunity to compare the differences in the apparent focal length and DOF of a particular EF lens mounted on APS-C and FF cameras, you will likely be amazed by what you see the first time around. Buy a junk flea market condition old school EOS film camera for $20, and spend some time swapping your EF lenses between it and your APS-C camera. Compare the viewfinder presentation between the two formats, and you will quickly understand how any given lens can tackle entirely different jobs with a simple switch of camera bodies. You will also understand why the classic range of standard lens focal lengths for film cameras need the help of the two premium quality EF-S zooms at the short to a bit longer than normal portion of the range to fill in coverage lost to the bonus 1.6x lens multiplier that we all enjoy with APS-C cameras.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by jim_krupnik