Com-Central.net

Armyjunk2 -

Here are examples of the expodisc in action at CFB Borden.

The first photo was taken using my camera's flash white balance. Dig the green!

The second was taken using the custom white balance set using the expodisc.

Good shooting to you!

Very good point! Are you shooting JPEG or RAW?
If you shoot RAW you can adjust and tweak white balance at a later stage.

At one point I tried custom white balance, but got mixed results at Thun SHP because the light changes even within the same room (it's a mix of natural and artificial light). Now I am shooting RAW all the time.

Massimo

BTW Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you shouldn't try to get the proper white balance while you are shooting. I am just saying that if you shot JPEG you can't properly tweak or change it at a later stage.

Massimo

Nice, now I have to go someplace with the green lights and test this thing...and thanks

Massimo -

I shoot mostly in JPEG as I really don't want to have to spend the time doing post-processing in Photoshop.

I have had good luck making minor adjustments to the JPEGs using Photoshop (if necessary) but have chosen to take the capture it in camera approach over shooting RAW and working in PS.

I did spend a lot of time experimenting with the settings for the Canon JPEG engine in my 50D and have finally settled on a custom set that gets the results I've been looking for - (The default settings were always dissapointing.)

Different strokes for different folks.

In a few museums we have had to take and set custom white balances for almost every vehicle/aircraft due to difficult combinations of lighting sources!
Sometimes we end up using the Kelvin settings to get the photo to look right.

Cheers,
VB

In a few museums we have had to take and set custom white balances for almost every vehicle/aircraft due to difficult combinations of lighting sources!

The moment I realized you may end up doing that, I moved to RAW

Massimo

Now, since we are talking about this, what kind of lenses you are mounting on the 50D?

Massimo

I have a Nikon D40 with the standard 18-55mm lens, which works well for what I like to shoot. It works well in close quarters.

I am not familiar with Nikon gear. I have been using Canon since the film days, back at the time I went with Canon because my fellow plane spotters made me tried their cameras. Then, when I moved to digital, I stick with Canon in order to reuse my lenses.

Massimo

My main lens for museums and statics is the Canon 17-55mm f2.8. It is a fantastic lens!

I also have the 28-135mm and the 100-400mm L.

All of the lenses are image stabilized and are worth every penny!

Makes me feel really with my Sony Cyber Shot pocket camera

Joe, The best camera in the world is the one you have with you....

I heard great things about the 17-55mm f2.8. The range it covers is ideal for the typical AFV places.

For many years my main lens was a 28-105 dating back to my film camera. Last year I've replaced it with a 24-105 L. I also have a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and I've got a Tokina 16-50 f2.8 just a few weeks ago, to cover the gap between the two.

For longer range I have a Canon 70-300, it's good value for money (kind of like the 28-135), but not amazing. It's hard to justify something better, since I don't use it that often. But maybe next year I would replace it with a 70-200L.

In July there will be a great airshow, celebrating Swiss Aviation's 100th anniversary. I wish I could have your 100-400mm L
I will try to rent one, but, unlike in the USA, lens rent isn't common here. I would use such a glass barely once a year, so buying one isn't a good option.
What's your experience with the 100-400, can you hand-hold the beast easily?

I agree on the benefit of image stabilization, I've seen it in action, both the 24-105 and the 70-300 are stabilized. For shorter lens is less critical.

I think you are very well covered, you may try exploring some wider angle, either Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 would be worth a try. I took the Tokina since it's f2.8, while the Canon is f/3.5-4.5 and it's solid as a tank (unlike some Sigma or Tamron glass).

Massimo

I hear the 70-200L is one of the best lenses ever made by Canon. I'd love to get one, but.....

We've been thinking about adding an ultra-wide to our collection. My wife is looking at the 7-14mm for her Panasonic G1 and I've been looking at the Canon 10-22 as well as the Tokinas and Tamrons.

I am interested in your opinion/experience with the Tokina lenses. Can you post some samples (or are any of your forum posts) shot with the Tokina lenses? A photo store here in Charlotte has the Tokina 10-24 for rent for $25 a day. I may rent it for our tank hunting expedition next week.

The 100-400 is easily hand-holdable. I've had great results at airshows, zoos and aviaries. It is pin sharp - even at the long end. The only downside has been its 6 ft minimum focusing distance when shooting Hummingbirds! It IS heavy, but the 70-200 f2.8 is heavier!

For the upcoming Thunder Over Michigan airshow we are attending in August, I am thinking of buying the BUSHHAWK shoulder rig. I tried one out a few years ago and it made panning with the planes MUCH easier. The gent that let me try it swore that using the rig gave him MANY more sharp shots.

Cheers!

I am very happy with Tokina's lens. They aren't the typical third party glass, build quality is superior to Sigma or Tamron, and pretty often the price is almost like Canon. Tokina's 11-16 is around 600 USD, Canon 10-22 is 730 USD (I feel Tokina has an edge here). Even the 16-50 isn't that much cheaper than Canon 17-55, and it doesn't have image stabilization.

I never tried Tokina 10-24, at f/3.5-4.5 is much slower than the two I have, but it should give you an idea about their build quality. What I like most about my Tokina lens is the f/2.8, they perform great in difficult light conditions. They also have very little distortion, a problem that affect many wide and ultra-wide glass.

Something as wide as the 11-16 lets you capture large piece of equipment, like this bridgelayer:
www.com-central.net/in...ic&t=12584

It also works great whenever there is little space around. See the page below, the older shots were taken with an old 28-105... No way to grab the whole tank. The newer pics were taken with Tokina's 11-16:
www.preservedtanks.com...8&Select=4

Both scenarios are very common across AFV and plane museums.

Ultra-wide lens allows also for some interesting composition, most StuG III shots here are from the 24-105 (there is plenty of space in Thun outdoor), but this one is from 11-16:
www.preservedtanks.com...t=4&Page=9

Another 11-16 shot:
www.preservedtanks.com...t=4&Page=1

This set on Flickr was taken using Tokina 16-50, I will post more shots next month:
www.flickr.com/photos/...118620588/

All in all, if you are looking for something wider than your excellent 17-55, Tokina's 11-16 is a good candidate and it doesn't overlap what you already have. I guess the only contender would be Canon 10-22.

Two reviews worth reading (from indipendent websites):
www.photozone.de/canon...6_28_canon
photo.net/equipment/tokina/11-16/

As for the 70-200L, I was thinking about the f/4.0 IS version, the f/2.8 IS is two times heavier and expensive... I've seen the benefits of image stabilization, so I would pick the f/4.0 stabilized instead of the f/2.8 not stabilized; I hand-hold 99.9% of the times. Anyway, it wouldn't be any time soon, I am done buying camera equipment for this year

Massimo