brian_wallace5

<p>Sigma and Tamron both have 17-35 2.8-4.0 lenses that you can find on the used market at very affordable prices. I picked up a Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4.0 HSM lens for $190 shipped off of eBay. Although they're not in the class of the Canon's you'll be able to save enough money for two lenses. At 17mm (f2.8) both lenses are decently sharp although by 35mm (f4.0) they're somewhat soft.<br /> (<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=371&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=391&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=371&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=391&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</a>)</p>

<p>Another option, albeit not a good one, would be the Tamron SP 10-24mm lens. Although this lens is designed for APS-C cameras it will mount on a full-frame camera and by 14mm would cover a full frame sensor. On my 1D Mk II (APS-H) it becomes usable at 11/12 mm.</p>

<p>This weekend we went from sunny and 60 on Saturday to this scene which greeted me on Monday morning. Decided to try my Tamron SP 10-24mm lens that is designed for APS-C cameras on my 1D Mk II which is an APS-H sized camera. Turns out it works pretty well starting at about 12mm.<br /> Technical: EOS-1D Mk II, Tamron SP 10-24 f3.5-4.5, 12mm, ISO 100, f/11, 1/20, Cropped to 16:9</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for all the information - my own simple tests had pretty much shown me that they were comparable in performance. </p>

<p>This week we caught some sunshine and warm enough weather for me to get outside and try out my (new to me) 1D Mk. II and my (new to me) Sigma 120-300 f2.8 HSM lens. I have to say I am pleased with the combination.<br>

Canon EOS-1D II, Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS HSM, f3.2, 1/1250th, ISO 200</p><div></div>

<p>According to their DXOmark scores my 1D Mk II (which I just got and am just learning to use) should be better (albeit slightly) than my 7D at high ISO when it comes to noise. The DXOmark score for the 7D is 854 while the 1D Mk. II scores 1003. Am I correctly interpreting this as to say that I will get lower noise levels at ISO 3200 on my 1D Mk II than I will at ISO 3200 on my 7D?</p>

<p>In a few weeks I'm doing a portrait shoot for a few families - just simple family photos, nothing fancy or special or high end. I've done portraits before, namely senior pictures, and when I did it I only had a T2i and 7D so I used the 7D. <br>

Now I've swapped my T2i for an used 1D Mk II and am wondering for portrait studio type work if there's an advantage either way. I know that when it comes to field of view of bokeh there's a difference - but this will be indoor shooting at a background so bokeh isn't really a big factor. Is one really preferable to one another or is it really a question of which I'm more comfortable using?</p>

<p>Do you have another lens to try it with? If you try it with another lens and it works fine then it's the lens that's the problem. If the same thing occurs with a second lens chances are in the body. </p>

<p>Thanks for all the feedback. The only time I'm considering mRAW use is for indoor sports in low light where noise becomes a problem. Other than that I'm perfectly happy with JPEGs out of the camera for indoor with flash and outdoor sports. </p>

<p>I've been shooting long enough to know the difference between JPEG and RAW formats. I've tended to favor JPEG simply because I shoot a lot of sports and my 7D buffer fills too fast shooting RAW to shoot in burst mode. So the other day I was reading up on mRAW. I know mRAW reduces my resolution on my 7D to 10.1 MP rather than 18 MP but I am looking for experience and advice on using mRAW - particularly for low light indoor sports. Is it worth it over JPEG is basically what I'm trying to figure out. </p>

<p>Some high school hockey this week. Horribly lit arena (even for a high school sporting event) and no way to shoot except through the plexiglass that was pretty marked up. Even so, found some clean spots and got some decent shots. Shot in mRAW and did a lot of work post production to get this one. This previous frame to this one was better but completely out of focus - the puck is moving the water bottle in this shot as the player in blue skated toward the net, wiped out, and still managed to lift the puck "top shelf where momma hides the cookies". <br>

Technical Info: Canon 7D, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens, Manual mode, 1/500th, 2.0, auto ISO (1000)</p><div></div>

<p>Flash is a definite no-no for indoor sports in any setting I've been in.<br>

As Jackson said, you need a fast lens (2.0 or faster) to really get what you're looking for. My four recommendations are: 50 f1.4 USM, 85 1.8 USM, 100 2.0 USM, 135 2.0 USM. The advantage to the 135 2.0 is that coupled with a 1.4x teleconverter it makes a very usable ~200 f2.8 lens which would be very useful for outdoor sports - but it's pricey. If I had to choose one, I'd go for the 85 f1.8 and then use a general purpose zoom (70-300 IS USM, 55-250 IS, 70-200 f4) for outdoor sports. <br>

My best strategy is to shoot in manual mode and set the aperture to 2.0, shutter speed to 1/500th and put it in auto ISO mode. I am usually shooting in the range of 1600 or often 3200 for indoor sports (which I'm not sure the T1i supports 3200 in auto ISO mode) so you may have to manually punch in ISO 3200. Remember - noise can be reduced in post, a blurry photo can't so it's better to push the ISO than to worry about noise. </p><div></div>

<p>If you can afford either the only reason to get the 7D is if you want to be able to shoot action photography as the 7D has a superior autofocus system and can shoot double the number of frames per second. The only other reason to consider the 7D would be if you have a serious investment in EF-S lenses as you can use those on the 7D. <br>

For low light, image quality and resolution the 5D II wins out - hands down. <br>

(As a disclaimer - I own the 7D and chose it over the 5D II so I'm not bashing the 7D)</p>

<p>Caught a little high school basketball this week. In spite of the miserably lit gym f2.0 and ISO 3200 once again proved to be the magic ticket to a decent number of shots.</p><div></div>

<p>We were sledding a few weekends ago and my kids had a total wipeout that I managed to catch!</p>

<ul>

<li>Technical Information:</li>

<li>Camera: Canon 7D</li>

<li>Flash: Did not fire</li>

<li>ISO: 100</li>

<li>Lens: Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM</li>

<li>Focal Length: 73mm </li>

<li>Aperture: 4.5</li>

<li>Shutter: 1/500</li>

<li>Exposure Adjustment:+0.67</li>

<li>White Balance: Cloudy</li>

</ul><div></div>

<p>We had a nice free day last week and decided to take our kids out for a walk in the snow.  My son still loves soccer - even when it's cold<br>

Technical Information:</p>

<ul>

<li>Camera: Canon EOS 7D</li>

<li>Flash: Did not fire</li>

<li>ISO: 400</li>

<li>Lens: Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM</li>

<li>Focal Length: 180mm </li>

<li>Aperture: 3.2</li>

<li>Shutter: 1/5000</li>

<li>Exposure Adjustment:+0.67</li>

<li>White Balance: Cloudy</li>

</ul><div></div>

<p>So what exactly is it about the 5D that appeals to you? <br>

You've got a great set of lenses for both Full frame and crop frame - although at this point in time you don't have a true wide angle lens for full frame. If I were you I might think about jumping up to a 7D rather than a 5D. All your current lenses work with it and having come from a T2i working with the 7D is like using a whole different camera. The main advantage that I see with the 5D over the 7D is the low-light performance. For me I found the 7D to be a much better option over the 5D II because of it's frames per second and autofocus system. </p>

<p>You didn't specifically list Sigma but I can tell you that both of Canon TCs are compatible with the Sigma lenses I've used (70-200 2.8 OS HSM and 120-300 2.8 HSM). </p>

<p>Double post by accident</p>

<p>For what you're saying you don't want a 7D - in fact, a T3i or 60D would be better for video than the 7D.<br>

The 7D strengths are build quality, autofocus, micro focus adjustment, and frames per second - all great features (I own a 7D and love it) but they're not going to help you. The adjustable screen on the T3i or 60D is a much greater advantage than any of the features of the 7D would be for video. <br>

As far as lens - I would either go with one lens (Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC) or set of primes - but - I wouldn't buy any lens for video that has an aperture less than 2.8. The smaller the aperture the higher the ISO the more noise. Your other option would be primes - 20, 35, and 50 would make a nice set to start with. If I were you I'd go for one zoom lens with IS/VC/OS which comes in really handy for video. </p>

<ul>

<li>Technical Information:</li>

<li>Camera: Canon EOS 7D</li>

<li>Flash: No</li>

<li>ISO: 200</li>

<li>Lens: Canon EF 24-105 f/4 IS USM</li>

<li>Focal Length: 105mm </li>

<li>Aperture: 4.5</li>

<li>Shutter: 1/500</li>

<li>Exposure Adjustment:0</li>

<li>White Balance: Sunny</li>

</ul><div></div>

<p>Travel - no questions asked. </p>

<p>More megapixels let you crop more and still have an image large enough for print. </p>

<p>Had some time at a park last weekend to get some photos of my kids for the grandparents and my youngest actually held still and looked at me long enough to get a few good shots. <br>

Technical Information:</p>

<ul>

<li>Camera: Canon EOS 7D</li>

<li>Flash: No</li>

<li>ISO: 100</li>

<li>Mode: Aperture-Priority </li>

<li>Lens: Canon EF 70-200 f4L USM</li>

<li>Focal Length:140mm </li>

<li>Aperture: 4.0Shutter: 1/750</li>

<li>Exposure Adjustment:0</li>

<li>White Balance: Auto</li>

</ul><div></div>

<p>Ian - that is phenomenal - what body was that taken on?<br>

John - great message </p>

 

<p>I've used this combination before and have always been quite pleased with the results as long as there is sufficient lighting. I also recommend stopping down to f6.7 or f8 with the TC attached.<br>

As far as Kenko vs. Canon - I own both and the difference is by and large negligible (it is there however). The Canon's have less chromatic aberration and the new Canon 1.4x III is supposed to much improved when it comes to CA (from a sharpness angle, the 1.4 I, 1.4 II, and 1.4 III are all pretty close). </p>