drpath

<p>The Tokina was the 28-70mm f2.6-2.8 ATX Pro, easily the best third party standard zoom of its era. I had one in the last years of film-early digital transition times. It was outstanding on film, and the IQ was also very fine on my D60, but the focal range was a bit awkward for APS-C. It was a bulky, heavy lens, typical of Tokina's best. I traded it long ago - and now, seeing the above images, I wish I still had it to to use on my 5D. </p>

<p>The 5D doesn't do video, live view, auto iso, and its auto white balance sucks. AF is accurate enough, but not especially fast. It's a dust magnet, and it doesn't match the dynamic range or shadow noise of the best current cameras. It's not the best camera for street or event shooting. But for any kind of planned shot, such as portrait or landscape, for any print size less than 20x30, you will probably never be able to exceed its image quality. Those big pixels are very kind to lenses. For a crop body Canon shooter with FF capable lenses, it's a great way to go wider. For a Nikon owner, it's more problematic. If you do buy, I think I'd go for a 35mm f2 or 24mm f2.8. Both offer better IQ and build for only little more money, and a wider FOV.</p>

<p>I tested the 40mm f2.8, 35mm f2.0, 50mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, and 50mm f2.5 CM, all at f2.8, all on a 5D. Only the 50/1.4 could really equal center performance of the little pancake. The 50/1.8 and my beloved 35/2.0 were obviously softer, and even the CM couldn't quite resolve the detail the 40/2.8 delivered. What is more, the 40/2.8 seems to give almost the same performance edge to edge, and from f2.8 to f16. Except for the CM, the others show a classic Planar style central disc of sharpness, which gradually expands to fill the frame around f5.6.</p>

<p>It's a different look. I like it, but it doesn't really allow for any central emphasis. I also really like the FOV.</p>

<p>If only. The Olympus raw converter that came with my (otherwise wonderful) E-PL1 is so lame you might as well shoot all JPEGs. Converting in PS Elements 10 and then opening the JPEG for work with enhancing tools produces a more or less equivalent result, at more or less twice the time and trouble as DPP.</p>

<p>The DPP version has more contrast, which to my eyes gives a better first impression, but the DXO image has more detail. Probably you could make either identical to the other. Or lighten shadows while bumping midtone contrast to get the both worlds. </p>

<p>I have an E-PL1 with a Panasonic 20mm f1.7 and the kit 14-42mm lens. And a Canon T1i, 5D and S90. With the kit lens the Oly is good, obviously better than the S90 -- which is the best ultracompact I've ever used. With the 20mm f1.7 and a good RAW processor, you're in a different world altogether, with IQ that matches or exceeds any 12 MP crop sensor I've ever used. While I use my 5D as much as ever, I haven't taken a photograph with the T1i for a month. Soon I'll trade it and all my EF-S lenses. I don't need them anymore. </p>

<p>To me, the E-PL1 probably signals the end of the whole class of consumer-prosumer crop body cameras. I see the value of the speed of something like the 7D, and the extra reach it gives with long, expensive lenses. Otherwise, crop body DSLRs probably will be replaced by mirrorless, just as most compacts will be by camera phones.</p>

<p>I'd say the CM's resolution is similar to the 1.8 at f2.8, with a slight contrast advantage to the CM. The 1.4 is better than both. But I forgot to mention the 35mm f2.0! This lens focuses down to 25cm vs 45cm for the two fast fifties. Otherwise its behavior is like that of the fifties: good at 2.8, stellar at 5.6. Its field of view is much more useful as a general purpose lens than the fifties. It happens that I have taken most of my flower pictures with this lens, with very good results, so it's worth considering.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have a T1i and Canon 50mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4 and 50mm f2.5 CM lenses. I've leased the Sigma 1.4. The CM is by far and away the most fun. I never leave home without it. It shines at macro, portrait, landscape -- everything.</p>

<p>While the 50mm f1.4 is probably the best of the many fast fifties I've owned, it is rarely distinguishable from the 1.8, so I don't think it adds much to your kit. In general, fast apertures are just not very useful at distances less than about twenty feet from your subject, with modern high resolution sensors (and pixel peeping photographers). Closer than that, and the variation in sharpness is just too evident.</p>

<p>What Dave says. Many telescope and microscope objectives, like older camera lenses, are not well corrected for chromatic aberration. A filter helps to remove the (usually violet) fringes and increase apparent resolution. As for the OP's question, what Sarah says. A deep hood can really perk up an older lens. </p>

<p>Canon's 50/1.4 is as sharp a lens at 1.4 as you're going to find (according to a recent Lensrentals.com test). Focus with mine is swift and accurate. Problem is, few shots made at a 1.4 aperture are good enough for modern high resolution cameras. Depth of field is painfully thin, showing obvious sharpness variation at any distance less than about 20 feet. You have to stop down -- so you might as well use the best f2.8 zoom you can afford. You'll see few pro event photographers sporting fast fifties. </p>

<p>Either is capable of great IQ. The 5D doesn't do live view, auto iso, movies, or RAW+JPG. Its auto white balance sucks. For an old film guy like me, it's the perfect digital camera. For Today's Photographic Youth, I think it might be pretty frustrating. </p>

<p>For the undemanding purpose of LCD projection either of these scanners will do fine. A couple of years ago I was choosing between a Canon 8800F and an Epson. I picked the Canon because the software was said to be better. At the time most people who were seriously into scanning said that third party software was pretty much required to the get best out of the Epsons. Don't know if that's still the case.</p>

<p>My experience with the Canon is that it's easy to get a high quality result from a 120 transparency. As usual, 35mm is more demanding, but not too bad once you settle on a productive workflow. Keep your negatives as clean and scratch free as you can. Software in-scan dust removal doesn't work on silver negs. While scanning a bunch of old negs is doable, clone-stamping the dust and scratches out of them is beyond tedious. </p>

<p>Focus issues with a 50mm f1.4? (Irony alert:) What a surprise! This lens seems the most demanding in the Canon line-up, both for the photographer and the assembly technicians. </p>

<p>I think the first thing to do is view the image in Canon's or other other software that makes the AF frame light up (Show AF frame under the Show information button). I'm sure few on Photonet do this, but I sometimes allow the AF point wander from my intended target. As Dan remarks, this is especially common in portrait settings. If the red box indicating focus lock is where you intended it to be, and the image within it is not appropriately sharp, the most common error is front or back focusing -- usually a fault of the lens rather than the camera. This is sometimes obvious: an object behind or in front of the locked AF frame is sharper than things in the red box. You can use microadjustment for this. Or return the lens, if you can. Others on Photonet have demonstrated deeper problems with this lens, which seem to originate in sloppy assembly. A good copy can be exceptional, so don't get stuck with a bad one.</p>

<p>I used to have an RB67. Then I got a 5D. Then I traded my RB67 gear to get a 17-40mm f4 L. As many thousands of images on Photo.net and all across the web will demonstrate, this combination is something of a new classic in landscape. As Carrots remarks, it the camera also has the rather significant advantage of fitting within your budget. </p>

<p>Visitors from Leicaland can't seem to resist poking a stick at Nikon and Canon people. It must be galling to realize that you could have bought a superior camera without taking out a home equity loan. </p>

<p>But seriously, if you have a big investment in Leica glass (meaning at least one lens) you should probably look at a Sony NEX or micro 4/3's, so you could use your lenses with a good modern autofocus camera. As for the ancient Canon vs Nikon thing, if you really want to make cross-platform comparisons (and waste a lot of time) you can look at side by side ISO chart crops on The Digital Picture. What you'll find is that comparable Nikon and Canon lenses are, well, comparable. It can hardly be otherwise. If one of these intensely competitive brands really had overall superiority in optics, pros and serious amateurs would abandon its unfortunate rival. That ain't happening.</p>

<p>As Jeff remarks, the main issue with the 50/1.2 is a haze that forms on the elements and reduces contrast. It's usually an oily film, probably from the lens lubricants, which is easily removed with appropriate solvents, but this requires lens disassembly. The lens protrudes slightly into the viewfinder on my VI-T, so I imagine it would cut the corner off in your camera as well. </p>

<p>These issues are the reasons I and many others prefer the 50mm f1.4. But I admit that I can't usually tell one from the other in real photographs. And the 50/1.2 is a beautiful hunk of glass.</p>

<p>By the way, Canon's 35mm f1.8 is a fine lens, much easier to find and buy than the 35mm f2.0. Dante Stella has a nice write-up on this lens and the Canon Sonnar. </p>

<p>You might want to read this tutorial on the 7d AF system: <a href="http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/whats_news_eos7d_article.shtml">http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/whats_news_eos7d_article.shtml</a><br>

I don't have a 7d, but now I want one! That spot AF function would be really nice.</p>

<p>After reading it, and the above discussion, I'd say the following: if your lens is working correctly, this camera will have no trouble focusing it wherever you want. While my own 50/1.4 is sharper and more contrasty at every aperture than any other lens I own, including the awesome 100mm f2.8 USM macro, it's just not good enough at f1.4-2.0 for portrait. The eye won't be sharp enough with a high resolution camera like the 7d. If you focus-recompose, you need to stop down to at least f2.5 or 2.8, which will still allow good background blur at head and shoulders shooting distance.</p>

<p>The 50mm f1.4 is a very demanding lens, and heaven knows this forum has documented plenty of QA problems; so it's worth while shooting a few yardsticks to see where the focus point really is. But I doubt that this is the problem. Focus and recompose means that you swing the plane of sharpest focus away from the eye. With apertures of less than 2.8, at typical portrait shooting distances, this does cause variations in sharpness visible on a big monitor or print. Even a non photographer can tell that the nose, say, is sharper than the eye. Because of the psychologic importance of the eye, this can make an otherwise excellent portrait unsatisfactory. The higher the resolution of the lens and sensor, the worse this problem is, because it's the variation of sharpness across the image that is so striking.</p>

 

<p>I bought an FT in 1967. At the time, as Jeff notes, it wasn't at all clear that full aperture metering was accurate. The idea that you would not stop down to check DOF was also odd, and contrary to the reason many of us went from rangefinders to slr's. I don't remember the Topcon, but the Nikon's linkages seemed klutzy and awkward. The FT was simple and elegant, and the meter was quite accurate. It took the introduction of true in-camera AE to make the advantages of full aperture metering evident to me.</p>

<p>In my twenty-odd years of kid event photography, I've found 135mm lenses to be too short (for full frame). You end up having go down to the stage or courtside; and if you're going to do that, you might as well use your 85mm. The 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM would of course be ideal, but the last time I looked longingly at that lens, it was at least a grand over your budget. The only lens I personally have used, that might do the job in your budget, is a good used or refurbished 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM. This lens gives very good IQ and IS for the money. At high iso you can get good shots of performances. For sports.... not so much. If the subject is moving quickly, there's no substitute for a big aperture.</p>

<p>Go for the Canon 100mm f2.8 USM, with or without IS, as your budget allows. The Tammy and Sigma macros extend on focusing, while the Canons are internal focus designs. This is a major advantage when shooting small critters or when the lens might shade its own light. I find the USM quite helpful my other main use for my 100mm macro: it's the best portrait lens I own. Focus is swift and dead on with my 5D. Background blur is beautiful. </p>

<p>For high magnification photography, try screen I, and use flip up magnifier R. Screen I is very different from all others, projecting a bright aerial image in the central spot marked only by double cross hair reticules. In many frustrating years of doing medical microphotography, this is the only combination I have used which reliably acheives critical focus. Even my present rig of a live view digital (T1i) viewed and remotely controled on a monitor doesn't quite equal it.</p>

<p>The directions for my Kenko teleplus DG pro say it can't be used with the EF-s 18-55mm (due to the protruding rear elements). No other EF-S lens is mentioned as being incompatible. With ten-pin Canon lenses, AF is disabled by the lens-camera interface at <em>effective</em> stops smaller than F5.6. Seven pin lenses can eke out another stop.<br>

This, together with the magnification of lens flaws, makes teleconverters dubious for use with consumer zooms. I bought mine to get a little more working distance with my 100mm f2.8 USM macro, but I might have been better off with an old MF lens, as Andrew suggests. You can get EOS adapters for almost any SLR lens.</p>

<p>Or use the adapter Gossen makes for their Luna Six. The polarity of the Ranger 9 is the opposite of the Gossen, so you have to insert the adapter (with the silver cells loaded) into the meter upside down. Otherwise it works very well.</p>

<p>As the other posters remark, picture styles are of limited importance to us RAW shooters, because they don't modify RAW data. They do modify what you see on your lcd or on your monitor after download. If the scene you are shooting suggests a black and white print, switching to monochrome picture style allows your live view exposure simulation to give you a rough idea of the range of tones the camera will capture.</p>