JohnMWright

<p>I've had similar thoughts, but I've seen mixed reviews. I could be off-base, but from all the information I've read, it sounds like the off-brand ones like Rokinon and Bower are inferior, and the one labeled Samyang (as tested by Photozone) is outstanding.</p>

<p>I also found a site at one point where someone had a lens profile for photoshop to corrects the distortion (on a 5D2). The corrected samples looked good. </p>

<p>I spent $10 on ebay for a metal tripod ring for my 100 USM. You have to tighten it securely, but for $10, I can't complain. That'll save you quite a bit over shelling out for a new lens... </p>

<p>I had an older (no IS) 300mm f/4L and the 1.4x II. It was a good combo, but... the older 300 doesn't focus very close, having to add/remove the TC is slow, and focusing was very slow with the TC in place. Without IS, for me it was a tripod- or beanbag-only lens.</p>

<p>I replaced that with the 100-400 in early 2012. Now I have IS, much faster focusing, the convenience of zoom, and closer focus. I tested the zoom with a very solid tripod, and live view (mirror up) and found the optics are on par wide open with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS at f/4 (I consider this an excellent result).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I just sold my 50D for the 5D3. The 5D3 AF spanks the 50D. Since you said sports, I say do the body upgrade. And save for the 70-200 II. </p>

<p>Further, while I had no complaints about the 50D image quality, the 5D3 is head and shoulders better. Better features, better AF, better IQ. I don't even miss the reach.</p>

<p>The 5D3 is the first body where I really felt it helped to read the manual. </p>

<p>I agree that the reputation of being soft is undeserved. But it did require rethinking how I use the camera (learning curve).</p>

<p>At 1/15s you will see vibration from the mirror, along with any other slight disturbance. I noticed mirror vibration up to and including 1/250s with my lens, on a tripod, which is why I went for at least 1/1000s. With calibrated AF and fast shutter speeds, my lens is quite sharp. </p>

<p>To test the optics, try this: <br>

Use a solid tripod,<br>

lock the mirror,<br>

focus manually ( do you have liveview with the T1i? If so, use it, if not, I suggest you vary the focus slightly in several images because it is very hard to see precise focus with current AF screens),<br>

use a remote release. <br>

You can use a flash to eliminate any vibration. Pick the sharpest image. <br>

And, if you shoot indoors, don't put the tripod on carpet, it isn't steady enough.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>When I bought my 100-400, I found a couple of problems. First, I failed to check focusing accuracy before I took it out in the field, and found it backfocused on my 50D. After fixing that, I had to get used to using the IS, and I give it a second to settle down before I shoot (I have to anticipate action a little better). And finally, since I was forced to go hand-held due to having impatient people with me (no time for a tripod), I started using shutter priority. I try not to let it go below 1/1000, and prefer 1/2000. My keeper rate increased dramatically. </p>

<p>Interestingly, I barely needed MFA with my 5D3.</p>

 

<p>If you take me with you, I'll carry the rest of your lenses and you won't have to decide. ;-)</p>

<p>I'd actually lean towards a lightweight kit... 16-35, 50, 100. If you had a 70-200 f/4, I'd trade that for the macro.</p>

<p>You can try primes without switching your camera. The only limitation with primes on a crop sensor (DX) is on the wide end. I don't see a point in switching brands however, even if you decide full-frame (FX) is the way to go.</p>

<p>When I think of primes, I think of faster apertures, and often, better bokeh. However, some zooms are just as good or better than many primes. Quality differences aren't likely to be noticed unless you apply the best possible technique.</p>

<p>There is no reason not to have both primes and zooms. When I go on family outings, I generally select a zoom because there are certain family members with a very low tolerance of waiting while I switch lenses. If I choose a prime, there is a specific goal in my mind, and I have to accept that I'm not likely to be able to switch lenses whenever I want.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hmmm, I just gave up my 300 f/4 for the convenience of the 100-400. ;-) </p>

<p>Yes, the 300 is a great lens. If it is the right focal length for you, you'll love it.</p>

<p>There are two advantages of the 18 mpix sensors over the 15mp (I had a 50D for years). One, at higher ISOs, the noise on the 18 mpix sensor is roughly 1 stop better in raw. Two, Canon has improved the banding/pattern issues. </p>

<p>At web sizes, and relatively small prints like 8x12", I don't think that difference will matter very much.</p>

<p>Also, I found that both noise ninja and ACR (haven't tried others) noise reduction is excellent. I have some ISO 1600 shots from my 50D that look very very close to ISO 100.</p>

 

<p>Glad it worked out OK!</p>

<p>I'm gonna guess the mount between the lens and adapter is the problem. If you can grip the mount itself, it should come off, if I'm right. The rubber pads that are used to remove slippery jar lids might do the trick. I hope!</p>

<p>I don't understand why you can't get the D800? </p>

<p>Take a look at lensrentals.com and rent a D700 or D800 for the vacation.</p>

<p>Quite a history there! Great collection.</p>

<p>Candi,<br>

A tele for weddings... no brainer from my point of view. 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. Pair that with either the 17-55 or the 24-70.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Get someone to pose in place for you, use the zoom to "measure" the focal length you need, and buy the lens closest to that (I'd err on the wider side). </p>

<p>Keep the 85mm, it will make great head shots.</p>

<p>BTW, the 50mm f/1.4 is quite nice, if that length works for you.</p>

<p>Or, if you don't need the very fast aperture of f/1.8, perhaps you should look into a higher end zoom like the 24-70 f/2.8, or 17-55 f/2.8.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I used to do RAW + JPEG because I thought viewing JPGs would be much faster, but I discovered that Irfanview (free, works on Windows) can view the internal JPG embedded in the RAW files, and now I only shoot RAW. I can sort through the the files quickly with Irfanview, and send the images I'd like to edit to Photoshop with a keystroke. It sends the RAW to photoshop of course, so ACR comes up. This works when I have a few keepers out of however many I shot. When I need a batch process I tend to use DPP.</p>

 

<p>The 15-85 is an excellent lens. I never noticed much distortion at 15mm, even when I tested the lens on a map against the wall. It is sharp, contrasty, the IS works very well, and it is compact. I just wish it was f/4 constant (at least). </p>

<p>I found myself always wanting a wider angle when I was limited to 17mm. But I didn't want to carry another lens, and I know from experience that I almost never want wider than a 24mm (FF equivalent) view. My purpose was family outings and landscapes, and the 15-85 fits those needs very well without having to change lenses often. I've found friends and family are intolerant of frequent lens changes.</p>

<p>But, if the main topic is portraits, I'd keep the f/2.8 zoom.</p>

<p>No matter what else you get, a fast prime is a great idea. I'm quite happy with my 50 f/1.4. I'm thinking about getting the 28mm f/1.8 for low light in tighter quarters indoors.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This is from my 15-85: http://www.photo.net/photo/15254672</p>

<p>My 15-85 is sharp wide open, and nearly to the corners (just the very edges fall off a bit). If you don't need the speed, it is a great lens. I have no zoom creep. Bokeh is neutral. It's worth buying.</p>

 

<p>With the 5D3, Canon did exactly what I hoped for. </p>

 

<p>I've had a 20D and 50D. Thanks to my film background, I use shadows as compositional elements and I have never noticed banding or noise in the shadows. I read about the "problem" here years ago, and setup a shot so I could see it, and then never noticed it again in my real shooting. Except once in a studio shot where I messed up the lighting. ;-) So I'm not concerned about it. I'm really excited to get my hands on a 5D3 for all the improvements. </p>

<p>But I am curious, and this is a serious question, for those of you who care about shadow noise and banding and detail, what types of shots do you take where it is an issue? How often is it an issue?</p>

 

<p>Oscar and Jack... interesting find there, good to know.</p>

<p>Minolta and Leica shared a lot of tech back in the 70s. Compare the XE-7 with the R3, for example. I wasn't aware that the later Rs were related to the XD-11 (which happens to be my favorite Minolta).</p>

<p>The Leica is on top because the XD-11 does not have 3 contacts for the winder.</p>

<p>100mm macro</p>