Moose wrote:
>>
>>But I have not counted the 17-85/4-5.6 as being in the game. It's
>>exactly the right focal length range and, as you say, the 20D is two
>>stops faster than the E-1 for equivalent image noise. Fine for taking
>>pictures... once the focus is achieved.
>>
>
> Ahhh, a previously unstated criterion. Caught me off guard there. :-)
>
Thought I had but apparently didn't make it clear. My focusing problem
is expemplified here: <http://www.chucknorcutt.com/party.php> This shot
is lit with two studio flashes bounced off the ceiling of the tent and a
Sunpak 522 on the camera. Before the flashes fired the only light in
the place was from the "christmas tree" lights above making it near
impossible for humans or cameras to focus. This particular shot
probably only worked because of the tremendous DOF of the A1. The A1
manages to catch a lot of stuff when it's too dark to focus by keeping
the effective fl under 50mm and the lens manually focused at 2 meters.
>
> A couple of questions.
>
> Have you tried a lens like that on the 20D? I just don't find the Tamron
> Di 28-300/3.5-6.3 to be particularly hard to see through. dpreview said,
> "The EOS 20D gets an all new (not seen on any other SLR) nine point AF
> system which has its AF points in a diamond pattern. It's quite
> noticeably faster than than the EOS 10D (and thus my 300D) and has
> better low light working range (-0.5 EV compared to 0.5 EV)."
>
> My bet would be that the 20D will focus better, and certainly faster, in
> light low enough that I'd have trouble focusing manually with an f2.8
> lens. (I was wrong about my statement about focus trouble at 300/5.6 in
> a dim room, it's actually f6.3. Some shots focused fine, by the way,
> where the light was a bit brighter and/or there was more contrast in the
> subject.) Any chance of trying out the 20D with this or a similar
> aperture range lens?
A friend has a 20D and 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS lens. I haven't so far but I
need to try them together under dark conditions. It will make a good
test case to see if I really need to spring all that dough for 2.8
glass. There's more than money involved too. I've used his 70-200/2.8
briefly and it's like carrying a ton of bricks after awhile.
>
> And related to that, how often do you expect to be focusing manually
> with such a lens? It's not the kind of lens I would use for shots
> needing manual focus. I usually carry along a macro lens or a Zuiko
> 50/1.4 (just like a faster, closer focusing 85/2 on the 300D and fits in
> a pocket, adapter attached.) for such things.
I hope to never have to focus it manually at all. I want it to
autofocus in the (near) dark. I have two or three Zuiko 50/1.4's but I
don't think they're suitable for the type of work in the link above.
But maybe they are. I've never tried it.
Chuck Norcutt
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|