john_blodgett2

I figured out the problem. I forgot the 23 1.4 requires a shift between AF and MF by pushing or pulling the focusing ring. That was the issue, that it was set to MF. Which is curious nonetheless, because the lens would still AF in AF-S mode even with the ring set to MF. Oh well. Problem solved.

<p>I recently got a Fujifilm <a title="Link added by VigLink" href="https://www.neweggbusiness.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9B-30-122-664&nm_mc=afc-cjb2b&cm_mmc=afc-cjb2b-_-Compact+Mirrorless+System+Camera-_-FUJIFILM-_-9B30122664" rel="nofollow">X-E2s</a> with 23 1.4 and am still feeling my way around it.<br /><br />One thing I haven't figured out is why setting the focus control to C puts the <a title="Link added by VigLink" href="http://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras" rel="nofollow">camera</a> into MF mode with focus check enabled.<br /><br />I've reviewed the manual and can't see any explanation for what's going on. Can someone please set me straight? Is there a setting I need to have in place in conjunction with C for continuous AF to work? <br> My camera shipped with firmware v 1.01. Updating to 1.02 did not fix the problem. The 23mm does not (yet) have a firmware update associated with it. </p>

<p>2 D: I'm only looking at lens in nice condition, sold by vendors with return policies to cover my butt. In the past, I've used wide primes instead of a wide-angle zoom, and when I only had one body to use (which happened a lot) it added a great deal of inconvenience when I had to change lenses. So the advantage of a zoom is not so much being able to fine-tune framing, as it is to be ready for the shot. I'm soon buying a second body for this phase of my career, and my plan for most general assignments is wide-angle zoom on one body, 70-200 on the other.</p> <p>I tend not to be an in-your-face photographer, but I think there's a point of close proximity where the size of the lens isn't going to make a huge difference. And one thing I've learned is that people are probably less aware of me in most situations than I think. Of course, it depends on the situation. (As an aside, I was thinking the other day that people are probably more accustomed to being photographed now than when I was shooting film for newspapers, what with the greater ubiquity of cameras.)</p> <p>Anyhow, cost be damned, I might actually spring for a used 16-35 2.8 version II at this point. There are more ringing endorsements for that lens than either version I, the 17-35, or the 20-35.</p>

<p>Sigma's 24-35 2 is on my radar, but I wanted something wider than 24 for the times I need it. (In my experience and given my shooting style, a 20 is sufficiently wider to make a difference.)<br> I didn't realize the 18-35 could work on FF, which I have (6D). I'll have to research that.</p>

<p>Thank you Ed, I'll review your comparison.<br> Having a max aperture of 2.8 is important to me both for available light and DOF considerations. I say this having used my 24-70 4L IS lens in numerous such situations; there are times when I wished I had 2.8 handy. </p>

<p>Thanks Ed. Do you know of a site where people share lens profiles they've created?</p>

<p>I heard the same QC and IQ issues about the 17-35. Back in journalism school, which was before DSLRs, I never could afford the 20-35 but some friends splurged on it, and everyone who did loved it. Of course, that was then. <br> If I wasn't also shopping for another body, I might spring for a used 16-35. But I think I best hold off on that for now.</p>

<p>Thanks Jos, I'll look to see if that profile creator still exists. A friend also mentioned that I might be able to search online for someone who has already created such a profile and chose to share it online with folks such as myself.</p>

<p>Is anyone able to compare, from experience, using the EF 20-35 2.8L and EF 17-35 2.8L USM lenses for photojournalism work? I'm finding that eBay prices are roughly the same. The wider reach and USM of the latter aren't must-have selling points; relative IQ is, though I'm not a pixel-peeper and don't imagine ever printing larger than 11x14 if that.<br /><br />Which lens do you prefer, and why? Does the 17-35 perform better from 20-35 than the 20-35?<br /><br /></p>

<p>I'm thinking about purchasing a Canon EF 20-35 2.8L for photoj work. (And yes, in this price range I am also considering the 17-35 2.8L.)<br> Assuming a lens of this vintage doesn't have a dedicated profile for various image corrections, are there still ways to correct for any discrepancies using software tools?</p>

<p>The 1D IV has a 1.3 crop sensor doesn't it? That would be an issue for me for the times I'd use my wide-angle zoom on the body. The price is probably beyond my current budget as well. </p>

<p>Jos van Ekelen: I have no accessory compatibility to contend with, just interchangeable lenses and flash.<br /> Victor Kunkel: I've thought about getting the grip to provide better balance while using my 70-200 4L, but the 1Ds Mk III offers other build aspects that appeal to me. <br /> Marcus Ian: Thanks for the input on the AF. If I were to get the 1Ds Mk III, it would most often be my tele zoom body, and that's the lens where I could see myself needing AF that can follow movement (even though I'm not a sports shooter anymore). <br /> Ed Avis: I'm looking for a second body, not a backup, so I can shoot two lenses on assignment without having to stop and exchange one for another. Also, a more rugged body might instill more confidence in certain situations. Learning a different menu system is a tradeoff I'd be willing to accept if the other benefits would serve my needs. </p>

<p>Thanks much, I appreciate your insights.</p>

<p>I'm happy enough with the 6D, except for its lack of that rugged feel that appeals to me about the 1D, and if/when I start shooting wider apertures outdoors its top speed of 1/4000 is potentially limiting. I need to decide whether these features in the 1D are worth a tradeoff in IQ. I'd prefer better AF performance, but I'm able to live with what the 6D offers (for now at least). If I were a sports shooter, I'd probably seek out something better, but I'm not so no pressing need. <br> <br />Is the IQ tradeoff you mentioned mostly related to higher ISO sensitivity? </p>

<p>I'm a still-image photojournalist considering a second FF body to complement my 6D. Using KEH as a pricing reference point, three bodies fall into the range I can handle: another 6D, a 1DS Mk III and a 5D Mk II.<br> <br />I'm leaning toward the 1 DS Mk III because of its ruggedness. How might IQ compare to my 6D and the 5D Mk II?</p>