Took some advise.......

[MARINERMAGNUM]

And the 17-40 got here today.

Found a minty specimen built this year-used on evilbay. Looks new. Guess the guy was straight up with me. It was a buy it now deal that popped up when I was refreshing the page. $500 + $10 s&h. He has ordered a new Nikon D700 and is dumping all his Canon stuff.

Just going over some RAW images and it looks like I lucked out and got a very sharp one. Alot sharper than my previous one anyway. Whatever it is,it works-like the camera just took it in and said "ya,I'll work with ya" I've had some new lenses that I knew were good,but it seemed like when the camera was ziggin' the lens was zaggin' This sucker doesn't need as much contrast to lock on as the last one. Cranked off some test shots around the house at 1/60th handheld,and I was very impressed! Feels like a feather after walking around with the big white chunka-lunkas hangin on yer neck!

Now,to get out and use it! [i hope]

[Paul]

Nice. You should be very happy with that mama jamma.

[Steve Foss]

Glad you got a new tool that's a better copy than your old tool, MM.

Gotta love it when someone trashes their investment of one brand to go over to the other. That means good prices for folks like us! Never understood defection like that. Make a brand choice and stick with it, IMO. With Nikon or Canon DSLR bodies it's like a neck-and-neck horse race. Depending on the stride at the moment, one is ahead, then the other is ahead, than the other is ahead . . . and in the end who cares? We ALL win.

Just glad you are happy with the copy you got. It's a great lens, a much better value than the 16-35 unless you do a lot of low-light performance or indoor sports photography, and at a GREAT price!

The fact that you say you "lucked out" and got a sharp one makes me wonder if the 17-40 isn't getting the same inaccurate online rep as the 100-400 in terms of unevenness of quality.

[finnbay]

Glad you like your new glass. I was just telling Steve on Thursday when we went out, that I am constantly being amazed at how sharp the 17-40 can be. I use it for portrait photography at times, and it can be TOO sharp. Gotta use a little softening to flatter the facial lines at times!

[Steve Foss]

I've been using it more and more for flower/plant photography, too. Macro ain't the only way to photograph a blossom.

[Dbl]

Glad you got a new tool that's a better copy than your old tool, MM.

Gotta love it when someone trashes their investment of one brand to go over to the other. That means good prices for folks like us! Never understood defection like that. Make a brand choice and stick with it, IMO. With Nikon or Canon DSLR bodies it's like a neck-and-neck horse race. Depending on the stride at the moment, one is ahead, then the other is ahead, than the other is ahead . . . and in the end who cares? We ALL win.

Just glad you are happy with the copy you got. It's a great lens, a much better value than the 16-35 unless you do a lot of low-light performance or indoor sports photography, and at a GREAT price!

The fact that you say you "lucked out" and got a sharp one makes me wonder if the 17-40 isn't getting the same inaccurate online rep as the 100-400 in terms of unevenness of quality.

You know I just have to comment on this one. First off in the sports world lots of folks are making the switch. Canon royally screwed up with the Mark III. Guys that depend on their camera to do work in low light, fast changing focus situations are just plain not happy with the Mark III. Simple as that, there have been many defections to Nikon with very large media companies and from small individual users. There are also users that are happy with the camera, but Ron Galbraith who has probably written and tested this camera more than anyone else outside of Canon as of two days ago says and I quote;

"In bright sunlight on warmer days in particular, the camera delivers an unacceptably low percentage of in-focus frames. The EOS-1D Mark II N's auto focus, by comparison, is awesome."

Financially it makes no sense to most of us, but when your finances depend on getting "the shot" at the peak moment and your equipment is not up to the task, well I can understand the motivation to use a camera that gives you the best chance of obtaining that no matter the brand. For the average camera user, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to chase technology, but if you have a lot of money to invest in a hobby how you choose to spend it well I guess that is up to the individual.

Nikon is also making it very easy for large users of equipment to make the switch because they are offering VERY attractive packaging to make the switch, even taking the old equipment in on trade. The rest of us will never see that kind of pricing but if it was available to me I would be giving it some serious thought.

You are right that it benefits all of us when these camera wars are in full force. Look at how advanced these cameras have become in a very short amount of time. 8 to 10 years ago most of us could only dream of owning a digital SLR. Now look at what is available, it is amazing! Canon will catch up again, I have no doubt at all which is really one reason I am not a fan of chasing technology or first generation cameras. A year or two back everyone was switching to Canon because of the lack of clean high ISO with Nikon!

Steve we will disagree till the cows come home on the 100-400 and the 17-40. I certainly believe that these are among two of Canons more inconsistent copies of lenses. I had a very soft copy of a 100-400, I have shot a couple of very sharp copies as well so don't get me wrong there is no doubt that their are many good lenses. It is one of the most argued about lenses on the internet with those defending it to the death and about an equal camp saying it doesn't even make a good paper weight!

When I bought my 17-40 I shot three copies right out of the box and two of the three were noticeably soft with one inconsistent with focus. I am but one small buyer in the vast camera world and if I see inconsistency that makes me wonder if I am just plain bad luck or there are not a few quality control issues with equipment.

The internet and forums in particular have been a bonanza in getting information out. The problem is whether it is good information. Just look at this site, tons of very valuable information to be had...if you take the time to sift through and with further research and personal experience. IMHO the 17-40 and the 100-400 are two lenses that I absolutely would not buy unless I take it for a test drive on my camera. For some that is not easy, but I am fortunate in being able to have that option if I choose with every lens purchase.

So is it an inaccurate on line rep? It might be but my personal experience and so it seems MM's bears out that there are differences. Just more food for thought. Now with that I'm going fishing.

[Steve Foss]

Well thought out and well presented, Dan.

My point about online reps wasn't well stated. On photo forums I've seen any number of lenses (not just the two mentioned here) trashed by people who didn't bother to stick through the learning curve before saying they got a bad copy, and online forums often can be places where those comments get passed on as gospel and set in stone. I don't see those things happening here on HSO/FM, and I like that.

I do believe some of that rush to judgment has happened with both these lenses. Though I certainly acknowledge some variability in quality, I think it gets overstated, but that's just my take.

And we are at opposite ends on our direct experiences with these two lenses. I've now shot five copies of the 100-400, with four being quite sharp and one only very slightly softer, and three copies of the 17-40, with all three being excellent. Because of the online rep particularly of the 100-400 softness wide open at 400mm, I've borrowed quite a few copies from excursion clients just to take a burst or two and judge sharpness. Has that good luck with these lenses colored my judgment and led me to dismiss some of the claims of uneven quality? Surely it has, and it's my fault for letting that happen.

I also agree that Canon badly goofed with the Mk3. My comment to MM about all of us winning when folks dump one brand to chase technology and go to another brand was not aimed at action sports pros, whose needs for top-end focus performance are the most intense in the professional photographic community, but at the other 98 percent of DSLR users. Canon's premature release of the Mk3 was just dumb, and at the same time, with the D300, D700 and D3, Nikon has sprinted to close the gap and, many say, edge ahead of Canon. But of course Canon will respond, as it always does. In the end, we are all rewarded by this race.

MM, sorry man. You posted a nice post about being happy with a new lens and look what we went and did to your thread. Happy you got a good one, and look forward to seeing your shots with it!

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Some good info here folks-thanks guys.

I still think it's 95% technique and 5% equip.

I've done some research on alot of the online forum posters bashing different lenses,and you would be amazed at what you find out!

Alot of them will be bashing a lens,and I look back at their post history,and 3 posts back they are asking "what is ISO?" or "what does TV stand for?" or "is RAW better than jpeg?" LMAO! Ya,they are experienced enough to bash a lens!

Being mechanically minded as I am, I still think a some bodies and lenses just "hook up" and work in sync. Like using just the right bullet in a rifle,or just the right arrow in a bow. The AF in the body might be a smidge off,but the USM in the lens you try is a smidge the other direction-so they meld. Does that sound stupid? or plausible?

[machohorn]

This is way over my head, thanks guys now I am really confused. I will just go back and re read my manual. all kidding aside, You guys are all very professional and to disagree is common nature, Thats what I like about this whole forum, you always get more then one view point.

[Steve Foss]

machohorn, we agree completely on the commonness of disagreement.

In fact, I'd venture to say that disagreement is one of the more important aspects of sharing information. We all tend to view the world through the filter of our experience, and since many of our experiences are different, it's no surprise that different folks have different ways of approaching the same topic.

And those differences offer a much more rich source of info than when everyone sings from the same hymnal.

[machohorn]

STf or Steve if thats ok, What I truely mean is the pics are great. I just picked up a xsi and have taken a few pics, so I journey here for tips. When I was in Ely over the 4th. I was kindaa lookin for you trollin the streets or jungle hoping to have a chance meet with you. I have a long ways to go lol and there is quite a few things on the camera that I am playing with trying to learn, you know when to use this or that and what to set it to. If I can ask a favor, next time you shoot when you post your pic and say things like F -1.3 can you explain why? and what the difference it makes. This is where I am having trouble understanding.

[Steve Foss]

machohorn, no prob at all. You can call me anything but late for dinner.

I was shooting the July 4th parade, but that was about my only in-Ely photography over the 4th.

I remember a discussion we had on the interlocking nature of camera iso, shutter speed and aperture awhile back. I'll try to search to find that, and if I can locate it I'll bump it back to the top. If not, I'll post another one.

[machohorn]

Thanks Steve,

[Dbl]

mchohorn, if you don't mind here is brief outline of those numbers.

ISO - refers to the light sensitivity of your cameras sensor. The higher the ISO number the greater the less light that you need to get your photo.

Aperture - Is the number you see such as F 2.8. It refers to the opening in the lens that allows the light to enter the camera and get to the sensor. Here is the funny part, the lower the number, such as f2.8 the larger the opening is! The higher the number the smaller the aperture is. So when you see stopping down in aperture it means the number is larger or a smaller opening. If you see open up the aperture this means a lower number or larger opening.

Shutter speed - This is the number you see usually in a fraction, such as 1/60s. This number refers to how long the shutter in the camera is open allowing light to get to your sensor. Higher numbers or faster shutter speeds such as 1/2000s means less light getting to the sensor.

You can see all three work together to get your photo taken. If it is a bright sunny day you will use a lower ISO, a smaller aperture(bigger number) and higher shutter speed. If it is cloudy and you need more light on your subject you will want a higher ISO, larger aperture(smaller number) and slower shutter speed.

One other thing that aperture will control for us is Depth of Field or DOF. This refers to how much of the subject is in focus. So a larger aperture(small number) will give us a smaller DOF and a smaller aperture(large number) gives us a larger DOF. The distance to the subject, the lens focal length and your aperture all affect how much of your subject is in focus.

So if I am taking a close up picture of a flower I may want to use a smaller aperture(large number) to get more of the flower in focus. This means I may need a higher ISO and a slower shutter speed to get enough light on my subject. If I am taking a portrait for instance I may be further away with a medium length lens so I may want to use a larger aperture to give me a shallow DOF so that only the subject is in focus and the background is fuzzy. This concentrates our eye on the subject and not the background.

There are tables and on line calculators that will tell you what your DOF will be for a distance, lens, and aperture. Many cameras also have a DOF preview button as well that can give you a rough idea of what you photo will look like.

This is just a basic explanation there is a lot of great info in the net if you want to get more information.

[Steve Foss]

Thanks Dan! I searched for the previous discussion but couldn't find it, probably because like this one it's embedded in a different type of topic.

Do you think it makes sense to break your post out into its own thread so it'll be easy to find and bump to the top whenever someone has Qs about the basics of exposure?

[Dbl]

Seems reasonable. Feel free to add to it and we could maybe get permission to sticky? This was a quick explaination.

[Steve Foss]

Yeah, I think, sticky or not, there's a lot to add over time, and there will be more questions about the ins and outs. It should at some point have enough solid and detailed info to become a great authoritative source on exposure for our members.

[finnbay]

stfcatfish and Dbl - always the teachers!

[Steve Foss]

stfcatfish and Dbl - always the teachers!

If that's not the pot calling the kettles black!

[Dbl]

Originally Posted By: finnbay

stfcatfish and Dbl - always the teachers!

If that's not the pot calling the kettles black!

DITTO!