Dear Canonians,I come from the EOS XTi world and have upgraded to 5D, long story as to why...First off, after checking the slrgear.com site, it seems full frame is very unforgiving to even L lenses--do any lenses seem to be the best match for it for zoom and prime?I am contemplating the 24 - 105 and 24 1.4Also, now that I fully upgraded everything I have, since I have PS3 should I even consider a polarizer filter at all for some shots? I have always had a UV filter and then a polarizer for great picture effects, but I am told you can do the same effects with a polarizer on PhotoShop 3. Any ideas?Thank You!

GBrachoSJ7wrote:Dear Canonians,I come from the EOS XTi world and have upgraded to 5D, long story as to why...First off, after checking the slrgear.com site, it seems full frame is very unforgiving to even L lenses--do any lenses seem to be the best match for it for zoom and prime?I am contemplating the 24 - 105 and 24 1.4Also, now that I fully upgraded everything I have, since I have PS3 should I even consider a polarizer filter at all for some shots? I have always had a UV filter and then a polarizer for great picture effects, but I am told you can do the same effects with a polarizer on PhotoShop 3. Any ideas?Thank You!1) As with most bodies, the L lenses produce sharper pictures. The 85 1.8 and 100 usm are sharp also.2) 24-105 is a great lens, as is the 24 1.4. Just make sure you figure out what is more important to you, range or speed. Remember, the 24-105 is a slow lens.3) You can't really reproduce polarizer filter via CS3, I mean you may be able to boost greens and blues, but polarizers also cut reflection (i.e. you can shoot into store windows, water, etc...). You cant fix reflections on CS3.

I don't use a UV filter on L lenses--not as sharp. Use a lens hood instead.I don't think you can duplicate a polarizer in PS. I have read that one can't and I can't in PS or Lightroom. -- Dave (former deg222)

I wonder how a Sony PS3 system relates to polarisers.The effect of a polariser cannot be duplicated by software, because software cannot easily suppress reflections once an image has been recorded. There is software from B+W that attempts to do this, but it is not a proper polarisation effect. To duplicate the polarisation effect requires inputting additional data and combining image layers in segments, not something that you will be doing with one-click functions in Adobe Photoshop.

While Photoshop filters exist that attempt to emualte polarizers, they're completely unable to do that. Circular polarizers don't just make the sky more blue (which a software filter can definitely do) but they also block specific angles of light (which a software filter cannot do). So get a good circular polarizer for your new lens.As for the lenses, you should tell us a bit about what you primarily intend to shoot. I'm guessing if you're considering the 24mm lens, you will mainly shoot landscapes?

I have been using the 5D since shortly after its initial release and have used the 17-35mm f/2.8 (got it used and it was abused and unacceptably soft), 16-35mm f/2.8 (I), 28-135mm IS (a hold-over from when I had the 10D), 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 35mm f/1.4L and 85mm f/1.2L(I)Once I tried fast primes I didn't want to go back to zooms much except for the 70-200 which I still mount when I need more reach.All of the lenses mentioned above can perform great, however the best lenses retain excellent sharpness wide open.There are oodles of lens reviews on the net -Keep in mind that > 90% of my photography happens in poorly lit rock and roll clubs so wide apertures are a must and I rarely have the opportunity to use ISOsIf your photos are taken under less extreme conditions you may be satisfied with lesser lenses, but man oh man those fast primes are truly a slice of heaven.I suggest reading lens reviews and borrowing or renting candidate lenses and seeing if you like them enough to fork out hard earned cash.You are going to love that 5D! It is still a winner.

Keep in mind that > 90% of my photography happens in poorly lit rock and roll clubs so wide apertures are a must and I rarely have the opportunity to use ISOs 'corner case' that stresses lens performance to the extreme.If your photos are taken under less extreme conditions you may be satisfied with lesser lenses, but man oh man those fast primes are truly a slice of heaven.You are going to love that 5D! It is still a winner.Thank you for your comments on the lenses. Some of my work is both indoors with poor lighting and some outdoor with zoom needed. I do wonder what did you mean by"my experiences tend to be a 'corner case' that stresses lens performance to the extreme"And yes, the 5D is a winner. -

Well, it is a little difficult to put into words, but at the risk of extreme nerdiness here goes:Imagine a graph that on the vertical axis has increasing ISO (starting at 100 and ranging up to 1600) and on the horizontal axis has increasing f stop starting at f/1.2 and increasing to a much larger number. (Lets forget about H and L ISO settings for now)Now if you plotted a point on this graph at every combination of ISO and f stop photographers really used when taking photos with the 5D, you would end up with a bunch of points that define an area. Ill call this area 'the box'.Generalizing and averaging using data from lots and lots of photographers, I would guess that most of the time, the 'average photographer' tends to shoot low to mid range ISOs and medium aperture settings. Maybe ISO 200 and f/8 would be the most common - That is just a wild guess but I think you get the idea. Other settings would be used too, but with less frequency.In general, the 'average' settings would tend to be located away from the edges of the box, and the truly crazy settings involving extremes of ISO or f stop would be in the box's corners.Plotting the ISO and f stop values for my photography would place points near the high ISO and low f stop corner of the box. ISO 1600 and f/1.2 for instance.Hence, it is a 'corner case' or 'extreme case' and may not be representative of the settings most photographers commonly use most of the time. Many photographers may never use these settings.Sorry about the engineering jargon. In my field it is important to ensure that un necessary or highly unusual test conditions do not drive the cost of the product design to unacceptably high values. Often times I am given poorly thought out sets of requirements that are not representative of what is really needed.If I were to actually design a product to perform under these 'corner case' conditions it would typically drive the design complexity and cost to unacceptably high levels that is if the 'corner case' was not realistic or needed.On the other hand, if the crazy test cases are truly representative of what the customer needs, then so be it. We can design for that too but get your wallet out!It is vital to understand the difference between what is needed and what is not needed and work to elicit a realistic set of requirements.If your needs as a photographer are in the middle of the box, spending a fortune on lenses or camera bodies who's prices are driven by 'corner cases' you wont ever experience may not be a good idea as you are paying for a level of performance you don't need.Understanding what is truly a need, and what is simply a 'want' is pretty important.(Even if you want it all!)

Thank you. Sometimes my photography goes into the "corners" as well when I get artsy or do not want to interrupt jazz players while they are jamming away at a jazz session.