don_pugh

<p>David Stephens writes:<br>

"The AF speed with TCs varies with the body used. With the 1D X, there's very little difference, but with the 5D MkIII, there's considerable slow down with the 1.4x and too much with the 2x to deal with anything moving fast."<br>

This is simply wrong. When using a 1.4X III TC with any Canon camera body, the AF motor speed is reduced by 50%. With a 2X III TC, the AF motor speed is reduced by 75%.<br>

The autofocus speed of the 1D X is faster than that of the 5D Mark III with series II telephoto lens because it has a more powerful battery pack. But that doesn't mean "there's very little difference" in AF speed of the 1D X when you add a 1.4X III TC to a series II telephoto lens. There's a 50% reduction.<br>

That is unless Chuck Westfall of Canon doesn't know what he's talking about.</p>

<p>David, that's ridiculous. You're talking in circles. You advise the OP to get his shutter speed up over 1/1000, then say the 400 f/5.6 is limited because you can't always get your shutter speed over 1/1000. Of course, you don't have to get a shutter speed anywhere near 1/1000 to get sharp handheld images with the 400 f/5.6. And while you can get sharp images at much lower shutter speeds of stationary birds or animals with the longer Canon telephotos with IS, if the subject is moving then you've still got a problem. And then there's the issue that the longer telephotos cost many multiples of what the 400 f/5.6 costs.</p>

<p>Your repeated assertion that a 70-200 f/2.8 with a 2X TC will match the image quality (and presumably autofocus speed) of the 400 f/5.6 is not supported by anything I've read.</p>

<p>And how did we get from shooting birds and 1/1000 shutter speeds to shooting the moon at 1/80 of a second?</p>

<p>David Stephens, why does one need IS to get a sharp image handheld from a 400mm lens at shutter speeds of 1/1000 and faster?<br>

I could not disagree more with your comment about the 400/5.6 being a poor choice for hand held shooting. With its light weight relative to the much heavier Canon telephoto lenses of equal and longer focal lengths, I think it is a great choice for hand held shooting and for carrying long distances to shooting locations. I am not aware of any Canon alternative in the same price range that touches it for portability and image quality.<br>

Here's one of many sharp photos I took of a hooded merganser I took yesterday with a 5D Mark III and a 400mm f/5.6, all hand held. This one was taken with a shutter speed of 1/640. And I get plenty of sharp images of birds in flight hand held with the 400/5.6 as well. <br>

Virtually every test I've seen online shows that the 400/5.6 has better IQ than the 100-400 f/4-5.6 at 400mm, which in turn has better IQ than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS plus 2X TC. So why would a 400/5.6 add nothing to the arsenal of somebody who is unhappy with the IQ he's getting from the latter combination?</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Michael, on a trip like that I'd be more concerned with not having a medium to long range telephoto like one of the 70-200's (preferably the f/4 IS for hiking without a tripod) for shooting landscapes than doing without the 50mm f/1.4. I think I'd end up using the 70-200 as much or more than the 17-40 to shoot vast open landscapes with a full frame camera, and I own and love both lenses. The 17-40 is great for tight spots like waterfalls and for landscapes where you have a great foreground object to emphasize, but a 70-200 or 70-300 will let you isolate and emphasize the most interesting portions of the scene. With a full frame camera, you can still put a really big scene in 70mm and greater, while details can pretty much disappear into the distance at 40mm unless you crop the images pretty severely in post processing.</p>

<p>I have a full frame 5DIII and on a trip like that my order of preference for the lenses I own would be the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 17-40 f/4 in a dead heat, followed by the 100mm f/2.8 macro and then the 50mm/1.4. I generally carry the 5DIII plus those 4 lenses, a 1.4X TC that extends the 70-200 to 280, and a few filters in a fairly small camera bag, plus a tripod when I hike. But if I was space and weight constrained I could make do with just the 70-200 (hopefully plus the 1.4 TC) and the 17-40. </p>

<p>You don't say if you have a 70-200 or 70-300 (or 100-400), but if you do, any of them could possibly handle a lot of your macro shots and allow you to leave the 100mm f/2.8L home if you want to travel light. </p>

<p>Also, you mention using the lens correction capability of the 5DIII. I prefer to shoot in RAW with the camera's lens correction switched off and apply lens correction automatically in Lightroom 4 when I download images. The 5DIII manual says the lens correction in the camera will be slightly less than what is available through the Canon DPP software and that the higher the ISO, the lower the correction applied will be. Since you're talking about using high ISOs to shoot in low light, you might want to think about either shooting in RAW and using software for lens correction or carrying the 50 f/1.4 to avoid shooting at high ISOs any more than you have to.</p>

<p>I have the 70-200 f/4 IS and love it, but mostly shoot landscapes, wildflowers, wildlife, etc. with it. For the type of shooting you're doing, a maximum f/4 lens is a compromise and that's a lot of money to spend on a compromise lens that you may not be happy with. Since you already have the 85mm f/1.8, I doubt you'd use the 70-200 very often except at focal lengths above 100mm or so. Have you considered the 135mm f/2 L prime? It's not cheap, around $1300, but gets spectacular reviews. If I was in your situation and thought I really needed the 70-200, I'd wait until I had the money for the f/2.8 with IS. Maybe you could rent the 135mm f/2, the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and shoot one wedding and reception with each before making a purchase decision. </p>

<p>David, I don't know if your response was to my comment, but I didn't say a 50mm could substitute for 24mm. I said that the 17-40 or one of the 24-70's could be alternatives to the 24-105 based on other lenses the OP already has. I have the combination of a 17-40, 50 and 70-200 and don't miss the gaps from 41-49 and 51-69. Others might find those ranges essential. I would miss 17-23 if I had the 24-105 instead of the 17-40, and based on what I've read of all the lenses, I have better IQ from 24-40 with the 17-40 than I would have with the 24-105, better IQ from the 50mm f/1.4 than I would have with the 24-105 and better IQ with the 70-200 f/4 IS from 70-105 than I would have with the 24-105. But if you don't need the ultra wide angle from 17-23mm, are more reluctant to change lenses than I am, and like to go out a lot with only one lens, the 24-105 would be a better choice.</p>

<p>With regard to the 70-200 f/4 IS versus f/2.8 IS, I agree with you, but the OP said he already has the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>Following on to Dave Collett's comment, I bought a 5D III around the beginning of the year and could have bundled the 24-105 with it (maybe should have and then sold the lens), but I already had a 50mm f/1.4 and a 70-200 f/4 IS and was more interested in getting a high quality lens for ultrawide and wide angle than a general purpose lens that had a good bit of overlap in focal length with what I already had. I bought the 17-40 f/4 L for close to the same price I'd have paid to add the 24-105 in the bundle, I think about $50 less, and have been very happy with it. I hike and shoot mostly landscapes, and the combination of the 5D III, the 17-40, 50 and 70-200 plus a 1.4X TC, some filters and a tripod/ballhead covers my needs and is a reasonable load to carry on long hikes along with a small backpack with water, snacks, jacket, etc. All 3 lenses produce great images and they are all lightweight and compact relative to comparable alternatives. Everything other than the tripod fits in a shoulder type camera bag and with a tripod the f/4 maximum apertures on the zoom lenses aren't a problem. I wondered initially if the focal range gaps between 41-49mm and 51-69mm would be an issue but don't miss them at all. I don't even use the 50mm lens that much; when I'm shooting landscapes I probably shoot 55% 17-40, 40% 70-200 and 5% 50mm. I shoot a lot of waterfalls, which often big and in relatively tight spaces with limits to where you can go to get the shot, and 24mm often isn't wide enough for my needs (more accurately, my wants since photography is just a hobby). </p>

<p>The OP already has the 50mm f/1.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8. Given how good the 70-200 f/2.8 is, the only reason to use the 24-105 from 70-105 would be to avoid changing lenses or because he was using the 24-105 as a walking around lens and not carrying the 70-200. Depending on what kind of things he shoots and whether he needs ultrawide or not, I'd look at either one of the 24-70 lenses, the 17-40, or the 16-35 (if he needs f/2.8 and is willing to carry the extra weight and pay the much higher price versus the 17-40) as possible alternatives to the 24-105.</p>

<p>Following on to Dave Collett's comment, I bought a 5D III around the beginning of the year and could have bundled the 24-105 with it (maybe should have and then sold the lens), but I already had a 50mm f/1.4 and a 70-200 f/4 IS and was more interested in getting a high quality lens for ultrawide and wide angle than a general purpose lens that had a good bit of overlap in focal length with what I already had. I bought the 17-40 f/4 L for close to the same price I'd have paid to add the 24-105 in the bundle, I think about $50 less, and have been very happy with it. I hike and shoot mostly landscapes, and the combination of the 5D III, the 17-40, 50 and 70-200 plus a 1.4X TC, some filters and a tripod/ballhead covers my needs and is a reasonable load to carry on long hikes along with a small backpack with water, snacks, jacket, etc. All 3 lenses produce great images and they are all lightweight and compact relative to comparable alternatives. Everything other than the tripod fits in a shoulder type camera bag and with a tripod the f/4 maximum apertures on the zoom lenses aren't a problem. I wondered initially if the focal range gaps between 41-49mm and 51-69mm would be an issue but don't miss them at all. I don't even use the 50mm lens that much; when I'm shooting landscapes I probably shoot 55% 17-40, 40% 70-200 and 5% 50mm. I shoot a lot of waterfalls, which often big and in relatively tight spaces with limits to where you can go to get the shot, and 24mm often isn't wide enough for my needs (more accurately, my wants since photography is just a hobby). </p>

<p>The OP already has the 50mm f/1.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8. Given how good the 70-200 f/2.8 is, the only reason to use the 24-105 from 70-105 would be to avoid changing lenses or because he was using the 24-105 as a walking around lens and not carrying the 70-200. Depending on what kind of things he shoots and whether he needs ultrawide or not, I'd look at either one of the 24-70 lenses, the 17-40, or the 16-35 (if he needs f/2.8 and is willing to carry the extra weight and pay the much higher price versus the 17-40) as possible alternatives to the 24-105.</p>

<p>Louise, I've been shooting with a 5D Mark III for several months and have had none of the problems you described. I shoot in RAW and process in Lightroom 4, but doubt the different post processing software you're using is the problem.</p>

<p>Since you're shooting in RAW, have you gone through the camera's menus and shut off noise reduction, which I seem to recall was on as the default setting? A pro photographer recommended that to get the best RAW files I go through the menus and switch off anything that would have the camera making an adjustment to the file, that any adjustments should be made in post processing. Before I ever used the camera, I went through the manual setting by setting and switched off everything that would have resulted in the camera adjusting the RAW file.</p>

<p>Here is a link to the "Conclusions" page of an extensive and overall very positive review of the 5D III at dpreview.com. But listed under Cons are several comments about shortcomings resulting from the camera's default settings:</p>

<ul>

<li>Destructive noise reduction results in mushy JPEGs, even at base ISO</li>

<li>Visible sharpening artifacts at default settings</li>

<li>Heavy-handed noise reduction leads to lack of low-contrast detail at higher ISOs</li>

</ul>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/29</p>

<p>The problems you're describing seem worse than what the camera's default settings could cause, but it might be worth a try before you send the camera to Canon for evaluation.</p>

<p>Louise, I've been shooting with a 5D Mark III for several months and have had none of the problems you described. I shoot in RAW and process in Lightroom 4, but doubt the different post processing software you're using is the problem.</p>

<p>Since you're shooting in RAW, have you gone through the camera's menus and shut off noise reduction, which I seem to recall was on as the default setting? A pro photographer recommended that to get the best RAW files I go through the menus and switch off anything that would have the camera making an adjustment to the file, that any adjustments should be made in post processing. Before I ever used the camera, I went through the manual setting by setting and switched off everything that would have resulted in the camera adjusting the RAW file.</p>

<p>Here is a link to the "Conclusions" page of an extensive and overall very positive review of the 5D III at dpreview.com. But listed under Cons are several comments about shortcomings resulting from the camera's default settings:</p>

<ul>

<li>Destructive noise reduction results in mushy JPEGs, even at base ISO</li>

<li>Visible sharpening artifacts at default settings</li>

<li>Heavy-handed noise reduction leads to lack of low-contrast detail at higher ISOs</li>

</ul>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/29</p>

<p>The problems you're describing seem worse than what the camera's default settings could cause, but it might be worth a try before you send the camera to Canon for evaluation.</p>

<p>As others have mentioned, a circular polarizing filter is a must for waterfalls to cut reflections from the water and rocks and it has the added benefit of saturating colors. Neutral density filters (not graduated) in addition to the polarizer will get you a slower shutter speed but won't solve a high contrast light problem in mid day. It will just give you blurred water with all the contrast problems remaining. With a powerful waterfall like Victoria Falls at a time of huge water flow and a lot of spray, trying to produce blurred water might end up giving you a big white blob anyway. A faster shutter speed that freezes the water might better convey the power of the falls and produce a better image. I would shoot a waterfall like that at a variety of shutter speeds and f-stops and decide later what worked the best. </p>

<p>To shoot a waterfall in high contrast mid day lighting, I would also try HDR (high dynamic range, take a group of bracketed images at different exposures and blend them with software to eliminate the blocked shadows and blown highlights). HDR can be done in a realistic looking way, not just the overprocessed cartoonish look you often see. In my opinion, when done properly, in extreme high contrast lighting situations like waterfalls in harsh mid day light or sunsets, HDR can produce images a lot closer to what the human eye sees than a camera is capable of producing with a single image. I've read that the human eye sees a range of about 9 stops of light versus 5 stops or so for a camera. We don't see all those blocked shadows and blown highlights when looking at a waterfall in harsh light.</p>

<p>That's not to suggest that an HDR shot of a waterfall in harsh mid day light will be as good as shooting the waterfall with a single exposure in great early morning or late afternoon light. There is no substitute for shooting in good light, but when it's not possible you do the best you can with what you have to work with.</p>

<p>For wildlife, I agree with the advice to bump your ISO up as high as necessary to get the shutter speed you need to produce a sharp image. Insufficient shutter speed to overcome camera shake from handholding and/or a moving subject is guaranteed to result in unacceptable images that can't be fixed post processing. With high ISO, the noise might turn out to have not nearly as big a negative impact on image quality as feared, and there are things you can do to reduce noise in post processing. This is a lesson I've been slow to learn. I still ruin shots of birds trying to shoot at ISO 640 or 800 when my camera can easily produce high quality images at ISO 2000 or more. If you're trying to shoot birds or wildlife in aperture priority with a relatively low ISO setting, you've got to regularly check the LCD to make sure you're getting adequate shutter speeds and if there's any doubt, boost the ISO.</p>

<p>A carpet of ferns.</p><div></div>

<p>I agree with the advice to shoot in RAW. You can use Auto White Balance and correct the white balance if necessary in post processing. You have much more flexibility in post processing, where you can adjust to any temperature setting, than you have in camera with a half dozen or so different settings. </p>

<p>If you haven't done so already, you might want to consider buying a color management system for your computer monitor to render colors as accurate as possible, or the way you want them. Uncorrected monitors can be way off on colors (my I-Mac wasn't even close to accurate before I started using the Data Color Spyder4Pro to recalibrate the monitor every couple of weeks) and if you're adjusting white balance and colors in your photos on the computer with an inaccurate monitor you probably won't end up happy with images you print or post on any photo sharing websites.</p>

<p>You may find that if you use Auto White Balance you almost never have to correct the white balance in post processing. I shoot with a 5D Mark III on Auto White Balance and rarely have to adjust it. </p>

<p>"the much exalted and glorified 70-200/4 IS (which not so long ago was regarded as dog food in comparison to the 70-200/2.8 IS)"</p>

<p>What a load of complete BS. </p>

<p>While hiking and shooting along a bit of the Appalachian Trail with my dog at Max Patch in North Carolina just below the Tennessee line, we came across this turtle. In researching it, I have identified it as a female (because of the brown eyes) Eastern Box Turtle, which I have learned is the state reptile of North Carolina and the only land dwelling turtle found in the state. I was lucky to already have my 100mm macro lens on the camera mounted on a tripod when I came across it. I took the camera off the tripod, got down very low and took this shot handheld at a very close distance. I would have liked to have also gotten shots without the long grass in between us, particularly the strand in front of the turtle's face, but figured encountering my dog and me had disturbed it enough and if I had moved the grass it probably would have started moving.</p><div></div>

<p>I should have noted when mentioning the Canon 35mm f/2 lens that I was talking about the older version that can be purchased new for less than $300, not the new IS version that costs about 3 times as much.</p>

<p>Here's the other one I got that I liked. The moon is not in the shot but the light it was putting out helped. Without the moon it would have been pitch dark. This is from the Pounding Mill Overlook on the Parkway. The tower and lights are on Mount Pisgah. The streaks of light high in the image are cars on the Parkway, and the ones low in the frame are on Hwy 276 which exits the Parkway a mile or so past the overlook I was shooting from.</p><div></div>

<p>I hiked up to Black Balsam on the Blue Ridge Parkway, elevation a little over 6000 feet, intending to shoot the moon low on the horizon with a landscape as the foreground when it rose early with sunlight still present. Unfortunately and not uncommon for Black Balsam, a wave of clouds started blowing through an hour or so before sunset and moonrise and cut visibility to a few hundred feet until well after the moon had risen. However, while driving back home I did get a couple of shots I liked at Parkway overlooks, including this one of the moon over Looking Glass Rock. I used a couple of graduated neutral density filters, 5 stops combined, to keep from totally blowing out the moon while having a long enough exposure to get some detail in the landscape.</p><div></div>

<p>I respectfully disagree with some of the earlier advice. When somebody gets into photography enough to be pretty confident that it's a long term interest instead of a passing fancy, I don't see the point in spending years shooting with a couple of lenses that offer a very limited focal range. There are a lot of landscape shots where a maximum reach of 55mm is not going to come close to getting the job done; the same goes for birds and wildlife, even at the zoo. A big part of improving your photography is trial and error, and spending 2 or 3 years looking at landscapes that call for a telephoto lens and not having one is going to slow down your learning curve, not speed it up. It may also reduce your enthusiasm for photography.</p>

<p>As far as recommendations, I concur with David Stephens on the 70-200 f/4 L IS. It is a great lens and one that will work long term as you change camera bodies. I'd either buy a good used one or buy a new one when Canon is offering a rebate program. I'd make that a higher priority than upgrading the 18-55 kit lens, presuming it is the newest IS version. That lens is capable of making very good images though I found that it really struggled to focus in low light. Longer term, you could potentially replace the 18-55 with a couple of prime lenses. The 35mm f/2 and a 50mm prime, either the "nifty fifty" f/1.8 or the more expensive but still very reasonable f/1.4, would do a good job of covering the gap between 22mm and 70mm if you went for the 70-200 L f/4 IS. They'd also give you a couple of good fast lightweight lenses for walking around and shooting in low light.</p>

<p>You didn't mention whether you have a tripod yet, but if you're going to shoot a lot of landscapes, particularly things that often call for slow shutter speeds like waterfalls, low light or night photography, a decent tripod (including a ballhead or pan/tilt type head) should be on your purchase list as well.</p>

<p>Chris, I don't know where you got the idea that $2050 for a refurbished 5D Mark II is an $800 discount. It's not a $2800 camera. Earlier this year, B&H was selling new Mark IIs for $1799 after a $400 rebate. I bought one, but decided to go with the Mark III and sent the Mark II back unopened when it arrived.</p>

<p>B&H doesn't offer the 5D Mark II camera body by itself now, shows it as discontinued, but they have new 5D Mark II's bundled with the 24-105mm f/4 IS L lens for $2699. If you bought the bundle and sold the lens for more than $649 (current retail on it at B&H is $1149, though I don't think many people buy that lens on its own for that kind of price) you'd have a new camera with a full warranty for less than the price of the refurbished one. Or if you could use the 24-105mm lens, that bundle is in my opinion a much better deal than paying $2050 for a refurbished Mark II, which seems like a very high price to me.</p>

<p>What were you shooting immediately before you had the problem with AF? If you go from shooting something 20 feet away to something 100 yards away or vice versa, you can be so far out of focus for what you're trying to shoot that the AF won't work. You might need to give the AF a little help by turning the focus dial manually to get the object or scene you're trying to focus on at least somewhat in focus before you can deploy the AF and it can lock in without hunting all day.</p>

<p>Here is a shot of a 10 year old captive cougar (in a natural habitat area of perhaps a couple of acres with one other cougar) from Grandfather Mountain Park in western North Carolina. The shot was taken through glass which softened the harsh mid day light. I like the effect as it made the face and eyes of this beautiful animal stand out. Not cropped and no processing other than the standard lens corrections and bumps in clarity and vibrance I put every image through automatically when importing into Lightroom 4.</p><div></div>

<p>A green heron nabs a minnow. This guy or gal was quite the hunter, never missed in 8 or 10 strikes when I was watching and shooting and even came up with 2 on one strike.</p><div></div>

<p>Antonio, I agree with Matthew. I shoot a lot of landscapes with a full frame 5D3 and rarely have a need for more focal length for landscape shots than I get with the 70-200 f/4 IS. I've owned a 1.4 II teleconverter for a few months and carry it in my bag when hiking and shooting landscapes just in case I want to extend the 70-200 but don't recall having used it once for that purpose. Birds and wildlife are about all I use the teleconverter for with the 70-200 or my 400mm f/5.6.</p>

<p>As Matthew notes, haze is a big issue when you're shooting landscapes at 400mm. That's not to say you can't get a great landscape image at 400mm, but I think they're relatively exceptional and need the perfect match of the scene and lighting/atmospheric condition. </p>

<p>A couple of questions I'd ask myself are what percentage of landscape shots do I think really require a 400mm focal length and how much weight do I want to carry on long hikes (presuming you hike a lot as most landscape photographers do)? With a camera/lens combination as good as the 6D and 70-200 f/4 you can shoot the scene at 200mm, crop the 200mm to a 400mm perspective, and still have a very high quality image. Either of the possibilities you mention are a lot of money and a lot of bulk and weight to carry around for what would probably be a very small percentage of your landscape shots. The 70-200 f/2.8 costs (and weighs) so much more than the 70-200 f/4 because the extra stop of light and shallow depth of field capability at f/2.8 is so valuable to photographers who shoot weddings, portraits, events, etc. Most landscape shooters would rarely if ever use the f/2.8 aperture. I would not spend the money for that lens and a 2X TC to shoot landscapes. If you decide you need the 400mm, I think the 100-400mm would definitely be the better way to go. For the money you'd save with the 100-400 versus the 70-200 f/2.8 plus 2X TC, you could keep the 70-200 f/4 and carry it when you want to travel light. And I'd guess you'd get slightly better IQ from 201-400mm with the 100-400 than with the 70-200 f/2.8 plus a 2X TC. For shooting birds you would probably get faster and more accurate autofocus with the 100-400 as well. </p>

<p>If you want to start shooting a lot of birds and particularly birds in flight, that's a different story. That's what I use the 400mm f/5.6 (with and without the 1.4 TC) for 95% of the time and I love it. When shooting birds you can almost never have too much reach unless you're in a zoo or a rookery, and I think most bird photographers would say 400mm is about the starting point.</p>

<p>If weight and money are no object, you could consider the new 200-400mm f/4 IS extender with the built in 1.4 TC that takes you to 560mm with the flip of a switch; it retails for about $11,500. And the focal length won't overlap your 70-200!</p>

<p>Dave T, from what I've read the primary advantages of the Canon 100-400 versus the Sigma 80-400 (if you can find a good one used) are much faster autofocus and better image quality wide open, both of little if any value to you based on the type of photography you do. The comments and photos I've seen from a guy who tested both extensively and posted comparison photos (I wish I could find it for you but can't) showed no significant difference in image quality between them in the f/8 - f/16 aperture range. So there's some information to support your desire to spend less money.</p>