david_ammer

<p>I used to own the 17-40 and upgraded to the 16-35 for IS. I remember the issue you're describing on the 17-40, but I now always remove the protector (UV) when adding polarizer etc and I typically don't stack any further than that...at any rate I would think a set of 82mm filters and a 77mm>82mm step-up ring would solve the problem more cost-effectively than the lens upgrade though, especially if you can get a few bucks back for your used 77mm filters.</p>

<p>I second the suggestion of getting one that can also serve as an eTTL master; my ST-E2 died after less than two years of pretty minimal use.</p>

<p>I had a similar experience and called the rebate center (phone number at the top of the rebate application form). Upon their explanation of the similarly missing necessary information, I re-submitted the documents via email and eventually received the rebate.</p>

<p>I may be mistaken, but I recall the built-in hood on the Mk I being considerably shorter than the detachable hood of the Mk II which leads me to wonder if it is less helpful and/or if the larger one contributes to more vignetting.</p>

<p>Not a significant sample size, but FWIW the only Mk I I've used was noticeably less sharp than the single Mk II I previously owned, and had considerably more dust inside from its longer service life.</p>

<p>I had the Sunpak RD2000 briefly because it similarly appealed to me for its compactness, upward tilt ability, and low cost. I was quite disappointed with its quality even as just a travel flash after only a couple outings. I sold it and replaced it with a refurbished 270EXii with which I've been very happy. Despite its slightly larger size, it's still pretty pocket-sized. And bear in mind it can also be used as an ETTL slave (not that strong but enough for a little extra background or rim light in a pinch) and as a remote shutter trigger, plus it comes with a bag and a stand - woo hoo!</p>

<p>Apple Support Community was very quick to respond, and the following process seems to have resolved these issues:</p>

<p>Back up hard drive and/or make DVDs of irreplaceable photos in Aperture library, then quit Aperture. Hold option & command keys simultaneously and double-click on Aperture Library icon on hard drive. First aid box should open. I first clicked on Repair Permissions but this did not resolve the problems. I started over and clicked on Repair Database, and this did the trick. </p>

<p>Using Version 3.5.1 & OSX 10.9.1. Several after-market edit plug-ins attached. Two new problems:</p>

<p>Very recently, when editing, the single photo viewer mode will start showing only black (blank), or shows the photo very briefly then goes black, or shows another entirely different photo than what I clicked on, or even a damaged-looking photo. Multiple photo viewer modes still work ok. Problem goes away upon quitting and restarting Aperture, but then shortly soonafter recurs while editing.</p>

<p>Also, trash continually indicates 477 undeleted photos even after emptying. Trash folder verifies no actual remaining files. Additional photos added to trash get added to this count (i.e. 15 actual trashed photos leads to 492 photos indicated in trash, while showing only the actual 15 legitimate files in the trash folder), and then can successfully delete the actual trashed files back to the mysterious 477 number, although with no photos actually left in the trash folder and the Empty Trash function still active for these 477 ghost files. This problem persists despite restarting.</p>

<p>Any suggestions greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>David Ammer</p>

<p>+1 for 18-55 to get you started....find one cheap and you can easily unload it later with minimal net expense. The IS will be great until Baby starts wiggling more, at which point a Speedlite (e.g. 430EXii) and/or fast prime lens will be way more helpful. My 60D starts looking pretty noisy above 2000 ISO.</p>

<p>+1 for 50/1.8 being (perhaps) a bit on the long side for crop, especially if you like to capture baby's surroundings without having to shoot from the next room over. Maybe 40/2.8, or 35/2(IS?), or 28/1.8? Or Sigma's 30/1.4?</p>

<p>I really like Dan's 15-85 zoom idea for the long term. The extra range will serve you well when you're chasing a toddler in 15 months or so. You'll still want that Speedlite or fast prime sometimes, though.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>You've already got a terrific all-around travel lens. If you don't mind carrying more, perhaps a 35/2IS for night action (which also makes a handy 56mm on your T3 if you haven't sold it), or a 50mm (again a nice 80mm on T3). Or simply a 430exii plus an ETTL cord (for people - night and day), or even more simply a tripod (for non-people). Assuming you were using an EF-S 18-something on your T3, I agree with others that you might first get used to 24mm on full-frame (already ~15% wider than 18mm on crop) before committing to something even wider. For tele, perhaps a 200/2.8L, or 70-200/4L (+ or - IS) depending on your speed vs zoom preference, and your budget. FWIW I was very underwhelmed by the non-L 70-300 with my 5Dii on the long (200+) end. Last, maybe a high-quality circular polarizing filter for your 24-105? Have fun!</p>

<p>I really love mine on the 60d (and, like you, use a 5dII + 2.8's etc for the "serious" stuff). Fewer worries taking it to the pool, slopes, beach - a simple but effective 1-lens solution. Throw in a 40/2.8 or 50/1.8 if you want something light, cheap, and faster along for the ride - you'll still be under cost of the 17-55/2.8. Have fun!</p>

<p>Maybe Jamie meant the new Sigma 35/1.4?<br /> <br /> I also use a 5Dii and owned the 28/1.8 briefly. It generally exceeded my expectations from the reviews I'd read, but ultimately I found it too wide for what I was shooting - mainly candid people/kids, like yourself. So I replaced it with a 35mm and have been very pleased with that length for these environmental-type portraits, especially with an 85mm in my pocket to complement.</p>

<p>John, that's a really helpful summary of the things I've read in snippets on other sites. Thanks for taking the time to write it all out. Thanks to Sarah and everyone else also for helping contain my impulse purchasing. Great community here.</p>

<p>Thanks, Sarah. Right, I'd read about the aperture control issue and then forgot. In this instance, I was actually considering Kenko (Tokina, right?) to be the name brand for 3-tube sets (even though I see Canon makes a couple individually-sold tubes too) just because at $200/set they're comparatively expensive, vs. Vellos/Vivatar/Promaster etc (3rd-party) knock-off's of Kenko's 3-tube set. I've seen that Kenko supports both EF and EF-S while many of the cheaper others only support EF, except for Vellos (which I gather is B&H's house brand) which purports to support EF-S too....</p>

<p>Yes, I've been continuing to read here and elsewhere about many macro-shooters' preferred reliance on manual focus and stabilization (i.e. tripod). I also see that the major third party macro lenses in the 100mm range have very comparable resolution to Canon's macro 100's, especially at the stopped-down apertures that I can expect to be using to counteract the inherently smaller depths-of-field.</p>

<p>I've actually come back around on the tubes option though, especially since I now see they're often used in conjunction with (rather than instead of) macro lenses anyway. This makes them much more appealing as a starter investment since they'll retain their use even upon my potential graduation to a dedicated macro lens - and they can also be included more easily in a travel bag. Thanks to all of you who have encouraged me to research this option more closely.</p>

<p>I can certainly live with a $200 investment in the Kenko tubes, and I previously stated my aversion to cheaper third-party gear in most circumstances....but is there a clear "danger lies ahead" scenario if I opt for the fairly-new $70 Vello auto-focus tubes that also supposedly work with EF and EF-S , or even $25 manual tubes, since I can expect to be focussing manually anyway? After all, it's basically just a cylinder with some metal contact points, right (albeit a cylinder that I need to seal pretty securely between the two pieces of much pricier gear)? A personal decision of course, but I'm open to your thoughts.</p>

<p>Thanks again everyone - this is all very helpful!</p>

<p>Thank you again, everyone. I'm still flying a bit blind here in terms of knowing exactly what the authors envision, as well as knowing whether I'll have any future macro use/interest beyond that, but your responses are resoundingly clear that a dedicated macro prime is the most extensively useful and capable option (even though I too am a real fan, John, of the 15-85 for its overall versatility).</p>

<p>Laura, I've gone through a few bought-then-sold Canon lenses, and generally have managed not to spend too much for the trial period of ownership, so-to-speak, especially when buying used, of course. I've yet to rent in part because I've always narrowed down my choice to one lens (which of course I always believed was the right choice right up until the day I re-sold it :-)). I estimate I've spent not much more on a few temporary (<1-year) ownerships than I would have on a couple weeks' rental of the same gear, especially given shipping costs for trials and time allotted for my learning curve. That said, I realize that if I definitely plan to use a specific lens just once, then renting keeps it simple. Roger's blog has certainly made me a believer in his company too.</p>

<p>Don (or anyone), have you ever found the lack of IS/VC inconvenient for macro (I noticed you did opt for the IS version of your 70-200/4), or do you typically shoot macro on tripod anyway? (Really beautiful contrast and colors, by the way!) I thought I'd never miss IS on my own 70-200 non-IS (which I use mostly for moving subjects anyway) until I got the IS version on a whim during one of the Canon refurbished sales and was instantly hooked - but I also tend to leave my tripod at home (again, usually moving subjects). I also gather that f/2.8 on macro makes quite a shallow depth of field at 1:1, so might I correspondingly expect overall slower shutter speeds and stopped-down apertures as the norm for any subject much deeper than a coin? And therefore, last, would a ring flash to help boost shutter speed & a tripod for stabilization be a sufficient hedge against springing the extra money for a macro lens with IS/VC? </p>

<p>JDM (or others), I'm guessing that, since you still use it, you haven't experienced quality and/or focusing issues etc. with the Tamron (really love your composition, by the way - and that it was hand-held and stopped down gives me some information regarding the concerns I described above). I've always been gun-shy with "off-brands" for photography, auto parts, most things. (I realize this may be a can of worms opened many times here previously, and I sincerely hope not to offend anyone!) Obviously these companies are still in business so there must be plenty of success stories with their products, like yours. Is there any formal reliability data out there for various lenses by various manufacturers to help us assess the risk/reward of Canon's lower-priced competitors?</p>

<p>Thanks again,<br>

Dave</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"real macro-sized thingies"<br>

<br>

Aha, got it - I'm still learning all the scientific terminology! ;)</p>

<p>Thank you all for replying so quickly!</p>

<p>Robin, I agree with your assessment of the tubes as somewhat inconvenient. I'm inclined more toward an EF 100/2.8 (vs EF-S 60/2.8) so that I can use it on either body, but I appreciate knowing that the 60 is an adequately-performing alternative.</p>

<p>John, your explanation of magnification is helpful (as well as some additional macro tutorials I've read this afternoon). In absence of a proper macro lens, I am inclined to experiment with how much detail is shown/lost on subjects by using a telephoto lens and image cropping in post - maybe (or maybe not) this substitution will suffice for this particular project, I guess depending on how small the actual subjects are, but will probably give me an even better visual understanding nonetheless.</p>

<p>JDM, thank you for the mention of the Tamron and close-up lenses, both of which I had not yet considered as relatively low-cost options. I guess I should have said insects instead of "bugs" too - a macro-noob gaffe, I guess.</p>

<p>Thanks again to all,<br>

Dave</p>

<p>Hi everybody,<br>

<br /> I searched the forums and there seems to be mixed information about this, so perhaps there's someone here who can help resolve my dilemma.<br>

<br /> I generally shoot full-frame (5Dii) and have a set of f/2.8 zooms and sub f/2.8 primes (including 85mm & 135mm) which have heroically filled my recreational needs to present. Additionally I have a 60D w/ 15-85mm zoom which serves as the family/take-anywhere/one-size-fits-all kit. You probably know the 15-85 has a pretty close minimum focus distance of about 1 foot and a corresponding "macro" range setting on the focus dial.<br>

<br /> I was recently asked to do a small shoot for a children's educational publication that will include a couple up-close shots of bugs, flowers, etc. I'm just an avid hobbyist but their budget is small and they really liked some previous on-location people shots I did for them. (My wife is an author, if that helps set the scenario.)<br>

<br /> For those of you who have some hands-on macro experience with the 15-85, and comparative experience with a bona fide macro lens like the 100/2.8 (L or non-L, on crop and/or on full-frame), I am hoping you can report whether there is significantly noticeable difference in what each lens can produce of, say, coin-sized objects on fairly small book-quality prints (2"x3") in reasonably good light, at ~f/5.6-8.0.<br>

I realize I could go the tubes route but I am somehow skeptical of image quality and auto-focus issues - is this skepticism well-founded? I am also aware of the 100/2.8 macro's dual usefulness for portraiture, but as mentioned, I already have the f/2.8 short-medium telephoto range well covered, both with and without IS. Last, I know that 1:5 magnification (which I believe is what the 15-85 provides) is not 1:1 magnification, but I can't quite grasp how this information translates to how my photograph will look.<br>

<br /> Thank you very much for reading,<br>

<br /> Dave</p>

<p>I've owned both.... +1<em> Pick whichever focal length you need. For all intents, you won't see a different in prints.</em></p>

 

<p>@ Rodeo Joe:</p>

<p>According to manufacturer instructions, only one of the up to 3 wire-connected flashes can be supported at a time by ETTL. The A-B-C switch is supposedly designed to determine which of the three ports will support the single ETTL flash; the remaining two flashes must be adjusted in manual mode (and, as I discovered, if left in ETTL mode, will simply fire at full power).</p>

<p>The manufacturer also advises that, at least on the Canon version, the B port will not support ETTL, regardless. My experience with the one I just bought indicates this lack-of-function extends to the A port as well. Apparently you're best off leaving the ETTL selector switch on C, since it's the only port (at least on my unit) that will support ETTL at any time. In other words, you're exactly right - the ETTL selector switch is basically useless (except for quickly switching your C port flash from ETTL to full power, I suppose). There's also separate on/off switches for each port, which could be useful for quickly testing key/fill/back lights separately.</p>

<p>I know absolutely nothing about the circuitry, so I can't really speculate about the reason for this technical quirk, which the manufacturer states only applies to the Canon version, not to Nikon. I simply wanted a long straight ETTL cable (I also bought a 30-foot ethernet line for $4) to use when infrared triggering is unreliable, and using the C port accomplishes this. I can still connect two other wired flashes in manual mode, or use the wired ETTL flash (a 580EXii in my case) as a master to trigger additional flashes wirelessly. So for about $20 less, it's a slightly more versatile alternative to the OCF Gear straight ETTL cords , as you can potentially add 2 more lines of manual flash, and swap in/out different lengths of ethernet cable depending on your distance.</p>

<p>I recently unloaded my 24-105/4L for a 28/1.8 and 85/1.8. If I were to add a 50/1.4 or 1.8, I'd probably also swap the 85/1.8 for a 100/2, but 2 focal lengths usually suits me fine. FWIW I shoot on both crop (60D) and FF (5Dii) alternatively, and occasionally combined.</p>

<p>UPDATE: A-ha! The ETTL function in fact works with this unit, but only when the flash cable is connected to the "C" port on the VM-801 hotshoe transmitter. I discovered this quirk only after reading a footnote on the Pixel website that Canon ETTL is not supported through the "B" port; it turns out, at least with my unit, ETTL is not supported through the "A" port either. (A little counter-intuitive - if you were to guess which one of the three ports would support ETTL, wouldn't you guess they'd have made it "A" instead of "C"?) If Pixel writes back, maybe they'll also update their instruction manual....</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>http://www.pixelhk.com/Proshow.aspx?id=155</p>

<p>~$38 on Amazon and elsewhere</p>

<p>Wondering if anyone else has tried this set-up, the Pixel Componor PF-801 for Canon, which features a VM-801 controller that fits into the camera hotshoe and can connect up to 3 speedlites with VS-801 receivers via Ethernet cable. Manufacturer states that the master you choose (with the A-B-C selector on the back of the controller) will fire in ETTL mode, but mine only fires full power when flash unit itself is set to ETTL, and the camera menu won't even recognize the flash being connected as it normally does with the conventional coiled ETTL cord. FWIW I'm using a 5DII and 580EXII, the channel I've connected is turned on (and I've tried all three), and the master selector is moved to whatever channel I've connected the flash to. The only thing I haven't tried is connecting for than one flash at a time (but the instructions don't imply that this device is only for 3 flashes at a time, no more no less). I've sent an email to Pixel In Hong Kong and am waiting to hear back....</p>

<p>So is this thing junk, or am I just overlooking something?</p>

<p>Thanks for reading!</p>

<p>It's nice when one lens can serve more than one function (the reason zooms were invented), so for your purposes, I'll add a vote for the 100/2 or 85/1.8, as both serve well for gymnastics/concerts as well as for portraits. Similarly, I like the 100/2.8 macro - a stop slower and heavier, and a little more expensive, but adds a third capability. Maybe let the availability of what you can find used influence your decision between the three?</p>

<p>I should add that at my daughter's most recent meet, the pros were shooting massive 2.8L zooms exclusively, on monopods, and were photographing beam and floor only, not bars nor vault. Predictably I guess, my own best shots from that meet (using a 135L mostly on a 60D at ISO 1600-2000 and shutter 1/320-400), were on beam and floor, although as previously posted, position and timing are everything. You might get some extra practice in at a local collegiate sports event (next year, I guess), although you probably won't be able to get as close.</p>