[Bob Cole]

[Michael Mahoney Jr.] “Anybody in the Cleveland, Ohio area need help with anything? Send any jobs my way, even internships – I need to get my face out there.”

How do we get in touch with you? I have a freelance lead for you.

Bob C bob “at” r c o l e “dot” c o m

[Bob Cole]

[Liam Hall] “It’s particularly handy during interviews where it gets rid of all those annoying micro vibrations and shakes that transmit their way up the pan handle or if you’re doing a pull-focus without a follow-focus.”

Interesting.

Liam, what do you find most useful about the 70-200? Quite a large lens – I imagine it’s on a tripod or monopod, mostly, anyway, right?

another aspect to IS: On Philip Bloom’s web page about lens selection, he states that IS helps with reducing rolling shutter artifacts.

[Bob Cole]

[Bob Cole] “I also tried to get a sense of whether the 24-105 is “parfocal,” that is, whether the lens stays in focus (at manual setting) when you zoom out. Hard to tell, because the max. aperture is f/4 and zooming out to 24mm, the DOF is quite large. But it seems acceptable.”

Correction: Further research on the Internet yields this list of Canon parfocal zooms; the 24-105 is not on the list.

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III
EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6

[Bob Cole]

I tested a Canon 24-105mm IS lens on my Canon 60d today, with and without image stabilization.

It was a very hurried and non-scientific test, but at 105mm, the IS footage is steadier. It’s actually kind of remarkable. Not a huge difference, but definitely visible.

I also tried to get a sense of whether the 24-105 is “parfocal,” that is, whether the lens stays in focus (at manual setting) when you zoom out. Hard to tell, because the max. aperture is f/4 and zooming out to 24mm, the DOF is quite large. But it seems acceptable.

All things being equal, I think an IS lens is a good idea. I am still looking for recommendations for a specific lens. Ideally I’d like a fast (f/1.4 or faster) 50mm, or else a “normal zoom” (e.g. 24-105 or 24-70) with at least f/2.8, with IS. The 24-105 seems excellent, but f/4 gives too much DOF. I don’t think there is anything in the Canon line which fills the bill – is anyone aware of another lens that is closer to what I’m looking for?

Thanks.

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

Warm-up is vital, even after 100 hours. I’ve often seen the purple look when first turning on my Diva. I wonder, though, whether it gives you a false impression to look at fluoro tube, esp. a mix of tungstens and daylights. The light that falls on the subject has always been fine.

Keep us informed how it goes.

Bob c

[Bob Cole]

[Brent Dunn] “Typically I don’t us IS when I’m on a tripod,”

I went to the local camera store this morning to test an IS lens – will report when I get a chance to see the results.

The Canon expert there told me that IS should be turned off when the camera is on a tripod – that IS could actually induce shake in that situation. I didn’t have time to ask him why or how.

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

Happy (belated) Australia Day!

Thanks for the insights. Did you find IS helpful at all focal lengths of the 24-105mm zoom, or just the longer ones?

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

Thanks for the report.

I bought the shoulder mount also, though I’m not as far along as you as far as the battery mount or quick release. I’m interested in DM’s dual BP-U60 mount (I think they can add a D-tap), though I’m not sure it will provide enough power for the camera plus an on-camera light.

You must have mounted the camera to the shoulder mount further forward than I did; I couldn’t access the camera’s battery compartment the way I configured it. Perhaps if you powered the camera from your AB battery, you could also move the camera further back on the mount and improve the front-heaviness.

Bob C

[Bob Cole]

Good news. Thank you Craig.

Bob

[Bob Cole]

If the camera’s back focus needs adjustment, even the greater depth of focus that a short focal length gives you may not make the image sharp. As for peaking giving you a false indication of focus, I suspect that the resolving power on edges at wide angle is not fine enough for the peaking function to work conclusively.

I’d be very curious to know, from the other EX1/EX1R users out there, how many have had an issue with back focus (aka “flange adjustment”). I had a problem, but quickly fixed it before testing extensively, so I don’t really know the answer to this question: if a camera has a back focus issue (defined as “at telephoto, it’s in focus, and at wide angles, it is out of focus”), is it EVER possible to overcome it by using a smaller aperture?

Bob C