All digital cameras start out by shooting a RAW file. So the question really should be whether or not to convert that file to JPEG in-camera, or later in post-processing.

RAW files contain all the data the camera can record at the time of exposure. A great deal of that data is discarded when the file is converted to JPEG. If you do that in-camera, there's no recovering the discarded data... ever. If you do it in post-processing, so long as you keep the RAW file, you can always go back and process differently later, if you wish.

RAW files are actually a TIFF image file, along with other proprietary information such as the settings of the camera (color/tint, sharpening, contrast, etc.), plus an embedded "preview" JPEG that's used for display on the camera's LCD and to calculate the histogram.

I almost always shoot RAW. It's fast and easy to convert the files to a usable format (JPEG, PNG, PDF, PSD, DNG or TIFF, for example) with Lightroom or other softwares, including free softwares bundled with the camera. Primarily I want to retain as much info as possible for more flexibility using the image in the future (For the same reason I also always shoot Adobe RGB rather than the narrower sRGB format, although I usually have to convert to the latter for printing or online display. If my cameras could do ProPhoto RGB, I'd use that instead.)

If shooting JPEGS straigh from the camera, the camera's settings are more critical... have to be much more exact before making the image. There just isn't anywhere near as much latitude to adjust a JPEG file later, if needed, as there is with a RAW file.

The main reasons I might have for shooting JPEGs would be a very short deadline or immediate printing needs. In that case, I'd shoot RAW + JPEG in order to have both. This takes up a lot more memory than shooting one or the other (and RAW alone takes up a lot more space than JPEG files)... but memory and hard drive storage space is relatively cheap these days. Personally I have enough memory cards to capture upwards of 5000 images a day, and I have four NAS devices loaded with many terrabytes worth of hard drives, so I see no reason to keep to the smaller files to conserve space.

I nearly always do post-processing in 16 bit and for my best and highest quality prints, use TIFFs at 16 bit, though the vast majority of printing is with 8 bit JPEGs. But I often just don't know how an image will finally be used... and I try to make as many different uses as possible with any image, to generate more revenue without more work. You can always down rez and image, change it's format or color space to something smaller. It's much harder, can even be impossible, to go the other direction and up rez an image... you just can't add back the data that's been discarded.

RAW makes a lot more sense for me.

Post-processing doesn't need to be difficult or intimidating or time consuming. Someone who doesn't have a high volume requirement can start out with a relatively easy to use and inexpensive program such as Photoshop Elements, if they don't simply use the softwares supplied by the camera manufacturer.

One way to get up to speed and learn to do post-processing is to shoot RAW + JPEG. Then see if you can improve upon the JPEG, post-processing the RAW... When you can do that consistently, you might then want to only shoot RAWs.

If not already doing so, I also would encourage people to get at least basic monitor and printer calibration set up, though. It's important and will pay for itself in paper and ink savings fairly rapidly.

I have both the 70-200/2.8 IS "Mark I" and the 70-200/4 IS... and I've used other versions. I mostly shoot sports events and this is probably my most used lens, which is why I have two.

Both the versions I use are excellent lenses. In fact, all five of the Canon 70-200s are top notch. So, which ones are you asking about? Four are in current production: f4 with and without IS, and f2.8 with and without IS (the current f2.8 IS is the "Mark II", which has set a new price level among these lenses). Only the f2.8 IS original version (Mark I) has been recently discontinued but is still an excellent lens, widely available used and can even occasionally be found new.

- The 70-200/2.8 non-IS is the oldest of the bunch and the later models tend to be a bit sharper.

- The 70-200/4 non-IS and the 70-200/2.8 IS give similar quality, but of course the lens with the larger aperture can potentially blur down backgrounda a bit more.

- The 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II are the best of the bunch, with the newest version (the Mark II) being the cream of the crop. Both these lenses have newer versions of IS that are a bit more effective and both offer top IQ. The f2.8 lens probably is a wee bit the sharper lens and, of course, has the strongest potential background blur.

But really all five are very capable, you have to really look for differences in images made with them. It is more down to the differences in features... IS vs non-IS, f4 vs f2.8, size and weight considerations.

I swear by IS on these focal lengths (and longer), particularly using the lenses on crop cameras a lot. Some will say that IS isn't needed for sports like I shoot, but I can tell you from using these and other IS lenses for as much as ten years or more, that there have been plenty of shots I wouldn't have gotten or would have struggled to get as easily, without IS. Tho it's nice to have on any lens, I don't go looking for IS on shorter lenses, but anything 100mm and longer it's especially nice to have and would always be my preference (macro lenses excepted).

The f4 lenses are about 2/3 the size and 2/3 the weight of the f2.8 lenses. If size and weight are a consideration, you might want to go to a store that carries them and compare.

The f2.8 lenses are all originally supplied with a tripod mounting ring (removeable). The f4 lenses do not include that ring and it's sold separately (also removeable, of course). Last time I looked, this accounted for about $160 of the difference between the price of the lenses. The f4 lenses use Canon Tripod Ring A II (w). There are third party clones that sell for considerably less than the Canon OEM. Can't say how well the clones fit... I have the Canon OEM ring on my f4 IS.

Some like one tripod ring over the other.... The f4 ring is hinged, making it more easily removed (can be done without unmounting the lens). But it doesn't tighten down as snugly as the f2.8 tripod ring.

The f2.8 lenses have "tulip" lens hoods. The f4 do not, they use a standard hood design. All of the 70-200s are L-series lenses, so the hood is included.

The f2.8 lenses use 77mm filters and the f4 lenses use 67mm.

I don't tend to use my 70-200s for portraits a whole lot. More often I use a prime lens for that purpose (most typically 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 on crop cameras, 85/1.8 and 135/2L on full frame). On crop sensor cameras, I sometimes use 24-70/2.8 for portraits, when I need a zoom. But if a 70-200 zoom will work better for you, then the Canons are all good choices ranging from very, very good image quality to excllent and real "workhorses" with top quality build.

Have fun shopping!

Yes!

Soon as I got a full frame camera, I lost 25 lbs, got back my "six pack abs" (as opposed to the old "pony keg" ), regrew a luxurious head of hair, won the lottery, bought a Ferarri, started dating super models, jetsetting around with big name movie stars and high tech billionaires... oh, and finally saw world peace and the end of hunger.

Yeah, when I was listing and selling, I made the mistake of letting some of the other folks in our office know that I was also an experienced photographer. I got asked to do a lot of "favors". Typically, as soon as I mentioned a modest fee for my services they left me alone and headed off with their P&S cameras.

OTOH, I also was in more than a few homes where the last thing you wanted was good, clear photos! :roll:

Realtors with cameras... That's often a recipe for disaster. Sort of like soccer moms with cameras. (I can get away with that inflammatory comment only because I'm a former real estate agent myself.) Best money spent would probably to hire a pro to shoot it for you... properly.

Interior architectural photography used to be a real art. I know one of the best in the business and back in the days of film he typically spent hours setting up lighting for a couple shots that took a minute or two (had a van full of gear, even replaced the bulbs in the home/office's existing lighting to insure correct color throughout).

It's a bit easier now with digital. One reason so much effort was put into lighting with film was to balance interior and exterior light levels, so that the windows wouldn't just be blown out highlights. Now with digital you can simply take two shots... one exposure for the interior, one for the exterior lighting as seen through the windows... then combine the best of each in post-processing.

The Tokina 11-16/2.8 is the only f2.8 lens in the ultrawide category for APS-C crop cameras.... BUT you give up much focal length range in order to get that slightly larger aperture, which you don't really need for architectural photography. You'll likely always need to stop the lens down for max depth of field, defeating the whole purpose of an f2.8 lens. And then, if you want to use reasonable ISO, this will force you to use slower shutter speeds... Instead of f2.8, you will need a tripod. A remote camera release might be handy, too. Study up on hyperfocal focusing distances, too.

If using advanced, manual lighting, it can be easier to use a zoom with non-variable aperture. It's a pain to set up a shot with a lot of lighting, having everthing set for a specific aperture, only to have the aperture change when you zoom the lens! Among the third party ultrawides for crop cameras, there are three fixed aperture zooms: Tokina 11-16/2.8, Tokina 12-24/4 and the Sigma 10-20/3.5. Since you are using a Nikon, you also can consider the 12-24/4 DX Nikkor.

If only using TTL metered/controlled portable flash and/or ambient light, a variable aperture zoom should work fine. There are several of those: Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 10-20 (the cheaper version), Tamron 10-24mm. As a Nikon shooter, you also could choose the 10-24mm Nikkor. (Canon shooters should look at the EF-S 10-22mm.)

A relatively inexpensive prime lens you might want to consider is the Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8. This is a manual focus, manual aperture only lens, but that shouldn't be a problem for interior architectural photography. My biggest concern with this lens would be it's tendancy to render "moustache" distortion in the middle of the image. That can be a problem with the straight lines of architecture. It is correctable in many softwares, though. And this lens is far, far less expensive than any of the alternatives including OEM manufacturer counterparts (Nikon 14/2.8, Nikon 14-24/2.8, Canon 14/2.8 II). Aside from the distortion, many think the Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 is a "better" lens optically, too... sharper and with less vignetting. Note: it sells under both Samyang and Rokinon names, also as a Bower and ProOptic (Adorama house brand). It's all the same lens. It even sells labelled as a Vivitar 13mm (actual focal length is somewhere in between 13 and 14mm, so it can be rounded off either way).

The 14/2.8 is a "full frame" lens, but would give close to a 90 degree angle of view of a 21mm lens on a DX Nikon camera (22.4mm on a Canon crop camera).

Finally, there is also the Sigma 12-24. This is another "full frame" capable lens, and as such it's fairly expensive. It would be fully usable, but somewhat of a waste of money if only used on a crop sensor camera.

Another alternative is to use less radically wide lenses, take multiple shots and stitch them together. This can be done to minimize perspective distortions and wide angle curvatures.

I shoot Canon instead of Nikon, and on my crop sensor cameras I use the Tokina 12-24/4 and Canon's excellent EF-S 10-22mm. If I shot a lot of architectural, I'd invest in the incredible EF 17/4L Tilt-Shift and shoot anything very important on "full frame".

EDIT: Someone noted, and it's true... if you are considering either of the Tokina ultrawide zooms, be sure to check. The "Mark II" versions in Nikon mount have a built-in focus motor. The earlier version did not and will only autofocus on certain Nikon cameras (that have their own AF drive mechanism). I'm not sure which of the Nikon cameras have the AF drive and which don't... but often if you see unusually low price on either of the Tokina zooms, it's the earlier version without the built-in focus motor.

What the #)$*!

I followed that link and when I tried to close it, it started spawning page after page faster than I could close them! Finally got it to stop after closing and restarting this and some other pages.

I don't recommend those "add on" lenses, anyway. If people are "too small" with 18mm lens, then they are going to be even smaller at 18mm with this add-on... and resolution will go in the tank. So not only will people be small, you also won't be able to enlarge them much in the final image.

The problem is, your 18mm is already a "wide" lens. In order to encompass an even wider angle of view, you will need an ultrawide lens. And if people are "too small" in your images with 18mm, they will be even smaller with a wider lens. Still, the only way you will get the entire group into a shot is to use a wider lens.

There are few inexpensive truly ultrawide solutions....

One of the cheapest at about $325 is the Rokinon 14mm lens. It's manual focus and manual aperture only, but costs over $1000 less than a Nikkor of comparable focal length (and about $1800 less than a comparable Canon lens). And it's not really hard to focus manually, depth of field is so deep some error isn't even noticeable. You do have to manually stop it down, before taking your shots.

The Rokinon 14mm also sells under a bunch of other brand names, all the same lens. You'll find it as a Samyang, Bower, ProOptic (Adorama house brand), and more. Even the Vivitar 13mm is the exact same lens. (Likely the true focal length is something in between 13 and 14mm, so it can be rounded off either up or down.)

The Rokinon/Samyang/etc. lens does have some inherent "moustache" distortion. Not surprising considering how extreme this lens is, and it's relatively low price. This disotrion can largely be corrected in post processing. Folks have posted profiles for this lens online, for use in some of the more common image editing softwares. Or you can correct it manually.

An autofocus/zoom alternative might be a used Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20mm lens. New these lenses are a lot more than you want to spend, but used you might find them for about the same price as the Rokinon 14mm. Note: the earlier, cheaper Tokina in Nikon mount didn't have a built-in AF motor... so if your camera doesn't have the AF drive built into it, you'd end up manually focusing that particular lens. Later "Mark II" version of the Tokina does include the AF drive in the lens.

The problem with using any wide angle lens for portraiture is that there are a couple inherent, unavoidable distortion effects that can make people - in particular - look really odd and are next to impossible to correct in post-processing. Get too close to folks with a ultrawide and you will see peoples' noses look large, while their ears look small. This is perspective distortion. It can be used humorously, you've probably seen that done. But it's often not desirable for individual or group portraiture.

Another wide angle effect might be called the "Hellboy" or "Elephant leg" look... where people postioned close to the edge of the image are distorted so that one arm looks a lot larger than the other (or legs, near the bottom of a vertically oriented shot, look like an elephant's). This is anamorphic distortion and also is often not desirable in portraits.

To get the least distortion, most realistic looking and nicest perspective in portraits, short telephotos are best to use.... 50mm to 85mm are ideal on a crop sensor camera (DX) such as yours. However, you need more working space with these.

Considering your situation... if you can't get people to move into a more favorable space that allows you to use a longer focal length.... what you might want to try is take multiple shots and then combine them as a "panorama" later with software. All you have to do is take a series of shots allowing plenty of overlap. Many softwares can automatically combine the multiple images into a single, larger image. I use Photoshop Photomerge personally, but there are lots of other similar tools built into softwares today.

You still can get some edge distortion effects with a panorama, if you use a really wide focal length to take the initial shots. For example, this panorama was made using three shots made from one position, using a 12mm focal length on a crop camera (Tokina 12-24mm lens and Canon 7D camera... note: the large "blank" area in the center is deliberate, to allow room for a banner headline)...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8323/8138377843_58a9b189d9_z.jpg

You can minimize the curvature and perspective distortions by moving parallel to your subjects and taking each shot from about the same distance, all with a less wide angle lens, instead of standing in one place and pivoting with an ultrawide (as was done for the above photo). You might need to take more than three images to be combined, using a shorter focal length. (Search for "Gigapan" images, to see this carried to the extreme... 200 and more images made with short to moderate telephoto lens combined into one massive panoramic image.)

Of course, you'll have to alert your subjects and ask them to be patient while you take a short series of shots. And you'll need some sort of software to combine the images. Be sure to give images plenty of overlap, try to light them evenly (best to use "M" if at all possible, and lock in your exposure settings), and frame somewhat loosely so that there's room to trim the edges of the final composite image.

Hope this helps!

You state that it's an "old public graveyard"... but I have to question that. If it is, truly, public property... no problem.

But most cemetaries I'm aware of are privately owned... not public. Even those, if shooting from the public domain such as a sidewalk or roadway that runs alongside the graveyard, there should be no problem. If private, you might be able to get permission to go onto the property and photograph, would be wise to do so. You might then need permission from any living relatives of headstones that you photograph, that aren't normally visible from the public right of way.

But so long as you are shooting from public right of way, no problem.

I found this out years ago when I was managing an advertising department at a newspaper, including a photo department. We had two highly competitive funeral homes in town, both of whom advertised quite a bit with us.

One wanted to put together an ad using a photo taken by one of my photographers, of their competitor's crematorium, in an ad with a headline something like "Don't send your dear departed to a junkyard". The competitor's crematorium was located right in the middle of an automotive junkyard, complete with rusting old heaps all around it and in a "bad" part of town!

I checked with our attorneys and was told we could run the photo. It was taken from public right of way (a nearby roadway) and in plain sight. So "Bring on the lawsuits, we can use the work!"

In the end, we ran the ad... several times. And never got sued.

The problem is that 16mm or 17mm isn't really very wide on your crop sensor D300. I had a 17-35/2.8 (Canon) that I used happily with film cameras, but it wasn't anywhere near wide enough after I converted to crop sensor digital in 2004. I replaced it with one of the lenses mentioned below. The 14-24mm Nikkor is a fantastic lens and, no, you hardly have to be a pro to use it! But, putting aside the high cost, even 14mm falls a bit short when used on a crop sensor camera.

In general I'm not a fan of compromising today based on the possibility that someday, maybe, you might go to a full frame camera. Get what you need now to shoot with what you have now. Chances are you can use the lens a couple years and, if you do switch to FF, sell it and recoup much of your cost today.

If you don't want to spend the money on the Nikkor 12-24/4 DX, you might consider the Tokina 12-24/4 (I suspect they're the same lens anyway.... I know for certain that the Pentax is). This is the lens I replaced my 17-35/2.8L with, and it reminded me a lot of that older lens.

Or there is the Tokina 11-16/2.8... it's the only f2.8 lens in the class. Not something I ever needed, but some folks want the larger aperture. It's possibly sharper than the Toki 12-24, but also is a lot more prone to flare... plus to get f2.8 you end up with a pretty narrow range of focal lengths.

Both the Toki lenses are well made and able to use standard 77mm filters. They have fast focusing. (I'm not sure, but there might be earlier, less expensive versions of them in the Nikon mount, without a built-in focus motor. It's up to you and whether or not your camera can use the lenses without the built-in focus motor.)

Sigma has two versions of 10-20mm. The cheaper has a variable aperture, while the more expensive is an f3.5 throughout the focal length range. Sigma also has the widest available lens for crop camera... an 8-16mm. These are all pretty well made with decent image quality, HSM focus drive. The cheaper 10-20mm uses 77mm filters. The more expensive one uses 82mm. The 8-16mm cannot be fitted with filters, due to a strongly convex front lens element.

Tamron has the widest ranging zoom... 10-24mm. It's one of the least expensive of the bunch. I haven't used it, but hear that it's a bit soft at the 20-24mm end of things, but otherwise okay. It uses 77mm filters.

If you really, really want a full frame capable lens, there's the Sigma 12-24. It's got a lot of distortion, and is rather pricey, but can be used on both crop and full frame. The Siggy 12-24mm is another lens with a strongly protruding front element that precludes using any filters on it.

The STM (Stepper Motor focus drive) on Canon 18-55 and 55-250 is a fairly big deal... It's quieter, faster and more accurate than the micro motor focus drive on the earlier kit lenses.

The 18-55 STM is also an optical improvement over the 18-55 IS, which in turn was an improvement over the original, non-IS version.

Not sure if there were optical improvements to the EF-S 55-250 IS STM, it was already a pretty decent lens in that respect, especially considering it's price. But in addition to the improved AF, the EF-S 55-250 IS STM has a non-rotating front element, which can be nice if you're using a polarizing filter on it. The two earlier versions - 55-250 IS and 55-250 IS II - seemed to mostly just be changes in external cosmetics.

The EF-S 18-135mm Canon "upgrage kit" lens also has evolved a little and supposedly the STM version is improved optically, as well as in AF performance.

The most other two Canon lenses most commonly sold "in kit" with some of the more advanced models are the EF 24-105L IS USM and EF 28-135 IS USM, neither of which started life as kit lenses and both of which are quite good optically. The 24-105 is better built and sealed, as an L-series that costs 3X as much damn well should be. So many of the 28-135s have been sold in kit with 40D, 50D and 60D that the used market is flooded with them and they can be bought lightly used at bargain prices for a lens with such good all around performance. Some don't like the focal lengths of these two lenses on crop sensor cameras, but I do.



Well, today most DSLRs sold are crop sensor, so a "normal" or "standard" lens would need to be a 28mm or 30mm. Plus most buyers demand the convenience of a zoom.

I know a lot of photographers....

I mostly just worry about the females who support significant amounts of facial hair. :-)

(That causes me to look quizzical.)

You may be right about a de-cemented lens or other optical problem internal to the lens.

However, the Tamron SP 500/8 is different from most other manual focus, mirror lenses that used T-mounts (to be exact, the type you are refering to, with the set screws, is a "T2 mount" ).

The Tamron lens instead uses an Adaptall interchangeable mount, which bayonets onto the rear of the lens. This was a proprietary interchangeable mount system that Tamron used in the 1970s and 80s, and it appears the original poster has the correct EOS-Tamron Adaptall mount for the lens.

I always found the image quality of the SP 500/8 to be quite good. But, yeah, my Canon EF 500/4 IS is sharper (damn well better be!). The Tamron doesn't work well with teleconverters, either.

There were a number of top quality Tamron SP lenses that used the Adaptall mounting system. They were quite popular as "pool" lenses at newspapers and magazines, where staff photographers shared them. The interchangeable mount system allowed them to easily be used with different personal camera systems. Besides the 500/8 Cart, 350/5.6 Cat, and 90mm macro mentioned above, there were also excellent SP 24/2.5, 180/2.5, 80-200/2.8, 300/2.8 and 400/4 available. These can still be found, though the last two, in particular, tended to get used pretty hard if they were part of one of those lens pools.

Incidentally, I have heard but never been able to confirm one way or another, that the "T" in T-mount stands for Tamron. Supposedly they invented that interchangeable mounting system, too.... back in the late 1950s or early 1960s. They didn't patent it, so many different lens manufacturers used the T-mount system. I'm not sure if this is true or not, though.

I've had several of those Tamron SP 500mm f8 mirror lenses over the years and IMO they are one of the best mirror lenses I've used. It has minimal "donut bokeh blur" effect that's common with catadoptric lenses. Plus it's amazingly close focusing.

Both these images were made with a Tammy 500mm (on film cameras... i.e. "full frame" )...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7186/6803259708_2cd99dabfb_b.jpg


http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5063/5633942316_2acc010754_b.jpg

As gessman says, it's an Adaptall lens (definitely not a T-mount), which is a proprietary interchangeable mounting system that supported mechanical aperture control and came some years later than the T-mount system, mostly in the 1980s before AF became the norm.

No optics are needed in the Adaptall mount, to fit it to Canon EF mount (or many other camera systems). The lenses are designed to be easily adapted to a great many different camera systems.

There is no "set screw", so don't bother looking for one. The original Adaptalls were sold with specific lens max aperture ratings pre-determined, and the later Adaptall-2 had an adjustable max aperture setting inside.... but this doesn't matter with the mirror lens or using it adapted for a modern Canon camera (where there is no mechanical registration of lens max aperture).

I no longer have a 500mm, but currently have 90mm Tamron SP macro Adaptall lens about the same vintage fitted with the exact same Chinese made EOS-Tamron Adaptall mount that you're using, and it works fine. (EDIT: Whoops, not it's not exactly the same... see below.)

In this photo the Canon EOS/EF mount is on the lens, and a Nikon F Adaptall is shown alongside...

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5253/5431808414_f7b31fe45e.jpg

Here's the lens with the Adaptall mount on one of my Canon cameras....

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5017/5453385847_10a2a40bec_z.jpg

And an image made with it...

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5125/5283068575_5d2187dd6f_b.jpg

Looking at your sample images, there might be a problem with your 500mm lens... But first I gotta ask:

Is there any filter on the lens (front or rear, it's possible to mount filters either end)? I can't be sure from your photos, but I think you might have a filter on the rear of the lens.(If memory serves, it uses somthing like 30mm filters rear, and maybe 82mm on front.) If there are filters either place, try again without a filter. Filters can seriously effect image quality and cause problems with AF.

However, I do have to note that the Tamron SP 500mm came with a set of filters for rear mounting... several B&W related, plus one or two neutral density... and it was normally fitted with a clear "sky" filter, when no other filter was being used. It's was always a bit of a pain to change out the rear-mounted filters, because you have to remove the Adaptall mount first. I ended up getting a couple ND's to use on the front instead. I think I left the original "sky" filter in place on the rear.

What shutter speeds are you using in those test shots? What I see also could be due to camera shake, not necessarily a focus issue. I see you are using a tripod, but even so.... are you down around 1/30 or slower? If so, moving targets (car) might blur (subject motion) and you may need to lock up the mirror (can be done with Live View, if your camera has it... or most Canon have mirror lockup alone, buried deeper in the menu).

You mention using a tripod, it's tempting to try to handhold such a reasonably sized lens, but a lot more difficult than it appears. If you ever want to try handheld, you probably should try to use at least 1/500 shutter speed if using a full frame Canon camera.... 1/800 or faster if using one of the APS-C crop sensor models. Bump up your ISO a bit, if needed. I used my Tamron 500mm with film cameras and rarely used less than ISO 200 film with it (I used ISO 50 with other lenses). I often used at least a monopod with this lens... it's not easy to get a steady shot with it.

Using a manual focus lens like this, be sure to first set your camera to One Shot focus mode. To do that, you will need to have one of your AF capable lenses mounted on the camera. Also set up AF so that you are only using the center AF point (depending upon the Canon camera model, that might be the only AF point that will work, with an f8 lens on it). Obviously, this is a manual focus lens, so AF won't focus it... however you can use Focus Confirmation (the red flash of the AF point, the green LED in the viewfinder, and the audible "beep" if you have it enabled).

EDIT: Ack! My bad, I just looked at the photo of your lens showing the mount... It's not the "chipped" version, so you won't be able to use Focus Confirmation. I spent the extra to get the "chipped" adapter (more info about this and adapting many lenses for use on Canon can be found at Bob Atkin's website: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html). Unless you splurge (about $40) for the chipped version of that Adaptall mount, you will have to rely on visually focusing the lens. That's not easy with today's AF cameras... though Live View with it's magnification and third party focus screens for Canon cameras can help (these focus screens aren't cheap and have some negative side effects... Spot Metering no longer works correctly, for example).

If it were the only problem, I wouldn't worry too much about focusing all the way to infinity, since a lens like this is more commonly used at less than it's infinity focus point (which is something more than 100 feet). On many manual focus lenses it's possible to adjust the infinity stop (many AF lenses, and some manual focus, actually travel beyond the infinity stop slightly). This is usually done by removing the rubber grip, and looking for an adjustment. I've never done it on that lens, so can't say for certain.

It is also still possible that there's something wrong with the lens itself, that it's got some internal damage. Loose or decentered elements inside.... or separation of elements..... might be causing a problem.


Still, these are pretty durable lenses. Hope you get it sorted out. I sure enjoyed using mine!

BTW: You might be interested to know that there was also a Tamron SP 350mm f5.6 "Cat" lens. It's much less common than the 500mm version. Also, in the mid-1980s there was a Nikkor 500mm that looked amazingly similar to the Tamron 500mm... Holding them side by side, the only differences appeared to be the rubber grip on the focus ring and a permanently installed Nikon AI-S mount on the Nikkor (instead of an Adaptall)... at a time when Nikon swore that they made all their own lenses. :roll:

VERY IMPORTANT EDIT: Just looked at your images again... in particular the image showing the lens and Adaptall from the side. See the two "teal blue/green" dots? Those are the registration points, where you line up the Adaptall to install it onto the lens... but then should turn it clockwise about 1/4 turn until it latches it in place. THE TWO DOTS SHOULD NOT BE ALIGNED THAT WAY, WHEN THE LENS IS BEING USED. If the mount is not fully latched in place, if those dots are still aligned like that, you are risking dropping either the lens or the camera. This also might be why you can't get the lens to focus properly, could cause movement of the camera separate from the lens, and might keep you from focusing to infinity.

I'd try shooting without it for a while and see if you really feel you need it.

Though I often use one on shorter focal lengths, I rarely find need to use a CPL with a telephoto lens. I have a single 52mm drop-in CPL for my Canon 300/2.8 IS and 500/4 IS lenses, but can probably count the number of times I've used it - in ten + years - on my fingers and toes. I think it's just the nature of what I'm shooting with the tele lenses, vs what I'm shooting with the shorter focal lengths.

The CPL is still the most useful of filters. I also have "protection" filters for all my lenses (that can take filters), but only install them when truly necessary, such as when out shooting in a sand storm.

ND filters are also handy, but again I find I'm more likely to use them with wide lenses (i.e., scenic shots). Don't shoot video, but if I did an ND would be even more important, I'm sure.

Graduated ND filters, I used to use a lot for scenic shots. Now I find I can go as well or even better with multiple shots or mult-processing RAW, then combining the best of both in Photoshop. Still carrying around the ND Grads, though I'm not entirely sure why.

Can't imagine NOT using a lens hood. That makes absolutly no sense to me. On rare occasion when one gets in the way, it's easy enough to remove the hood for a couple shots, then put it back on. A hood offers better "protection" than any thin piece of glass could ever possibly give.... Plus better images, even potentially better metering accuracy and AF performance.

With portable flash, the max sync speed of the 6D is 1/180. With studio strobes (and possibly with off-camera flash using radio triggers, too) it's 1/125 or slower.... might be as low as 1/60 or 1/30 with some studio strobe lighting.

The full frame 6D has a much larger shutter than the APS-C crop sensor of the 7D. That larger shutter requires more time to travel across the image area.... hence the lower flash sync speed of the FF camera. It's fairly typical that FF cameras have a lower flash sync speed, compared to crop cameras.

6D also uses a lower specification shutter than 7D (1/4000 max vs 1/8000 and 100K click rated vs 150K). Partly this is done because of the difference in frame rates between the two: 4.5 fps with the 6D, up to 8 fps with the 7D. This assumes the 7D might see more "clicks" faster, due to the much higher frame rate. Plus 6D is designed to be an affordable "entry level" FF model, while the 7D is a "top of the line" APS-C model.

With on-camera flash that's capable of it (430EX for sure, don't know about the Yonguo model)... you can use High Speed Sync (HSS) to be able to use higher shutter speeds, all the way up to the max 1/4000 of your camera. Either put the flash in the hotshoe or connect it wired to it with an off-camera shoe cord, to be able to use HSS.

HSS has some limitations, though. Primarily, it seriously limits the flash's reach. The higher the shutter speed, the less reach you'll get. (Your 430EX should display the max distance on the rear LCD, when set up with HSS.) It also can't be used in combination with Rear Curtain Sync... And won't work when using master/slave setups.

Another response hinted at something else important.... When using flash (or studio strobes) as your main light source, your camera shutter speed really isn't very important. The flash duration itself acts like a shutter, often effectively about 1/720 with portable flash (studio strobes differ... some are slower and some are faster... in fact some are much, much, much faster, for special high speed photography applications).

The camera's shutter speed might be more of a concern if you are mixing ambient light with the flash/strobe. In other words, using the flash as "Fill". Then you have to watch for ghosting effects and such.

On Canon cameras, using portable flash set to ETTL, unless you override it you will automatically get Fill flash if you use any of the auto exposure modes (Av, Tv, P). The camera will set exposure per the ambient light and the flash will fire at reduced output (usually about -1.7 stops). You can override this partially or completely with Flash Exposure Compensation (FEC).

If you use M instead, you'll get Full flash... The camera treats the flash as the only light source. Ambient light can still come into play, though, depending upon the camera's settings (ISO, shutter and aperture).

EDIT: Sorry, responded quickly before realizing there had been four pages of responses already!

A quality tripod isn't cheap... but it's not something you need to "upgrade" every couple years, either. Bought right, it might be a once-in-a-lifetime purchase. Spend the money for a decent "good fitting" tripod. You won't regret it.

I'm only 5' 9", so I don't have any problem with most tripods, but have had a few that seemed pretty short and caused me to stoop a lot (unless I were willing to extend a wobbly center column).

Now I've got three Gitzos and a Bogen (Manfrotto).

Two are Gitzo G1325 without center columns. This is a discontinued model (but Gitzo makes similar models under new model names). The first G1325 I bought new over ten years ago, forget what I paid for it but it certainly wasn't cheap. It's fitted with a Gitzo 1321 leveling platform. Kirk BH-1 ballhead and a Wimberley Sidekick.

The other G1325 I got used a year or so ago, for about $425, already fitted with another G1321 leveling platform. That one now has a $100 Chinese gimbal head (Meike?) on it.

The G1325 tripod itself is 58" tall (normal leg spread setting, legs fully extended). A G1321 leveling platform adds another 2 inches and a "full size" ballhead adds another 4 inches. By the time you put a camera on top of the ballhead, the eyeport is going to be 66 to 68" off the ground, which should be tall enough for most anyone (unless you are an alien and your eyes are top of your head). If still not tall enough, there's a G1318 "rapid" center column available that adds up to 11" more height, makes things a little less rock steady, but much better than many other tripods w/center columns. The G1325 has a three section carbon fiber leg that makes it quite stable.

Note: there are G1325S (short) and G1325V (video) tripods which are shorter. Dimensions above are for the standard model. Some Gitzo also came in extra tall sizes.

My other Gitzo is a G1348 with G1318 center column. I bought this one used, too, for about $340 including the rapid center column. It's similar to the G1325, but has a four section carbon fiber leg. Not quite as stable as the 1325 (add'l section is smaller diameter), but still better than most. And it's both taller and it folds up a little smaller than a G1325.

The G1348 is 66" tall on it's own (fully extended legs, in the normal spread position, w/o center column). By the time you add a full size ballhead and either a leveling platform or a center column to it, it's 72" tall (without column extended). I have a $60 Smith Victor BH-8 ballhead on it, a bargain that's largely equal to the much more expensive Kirk BH-1. If you extended the center column of the G1348, it could accomodate even the tallest photographer comfortably. (I set up this tripod to be able to use the center column reversed for low level macro shots.)

If you prefer, there are geared center columns for these Gitzo models, too. They are metal, rather than carbon fiber, so will add quite a bit of weight. A lot of people, including RRS and others, make accessories for Gitzo tripods.

My old Bogen (now Manfrotto) is currently in storage but is a big beast with a standard pan/tilt head. It's a model 3040 which is also quite tall and sturdy, has a geared center column and leg bracing. It's all aluminum and with a 3047 head on it weighs upwards of 20 lbs. I've probably had it for 30 years... used to haul it around when I was younger, for use with medium format and large format film cameras, but now it's pretty much a studio-only tripod and has been outfitted with a dolly.

I've used others... smaller and larger. It's always a compromise with tripods. Smaller ones are nice when traveling and light to carry around, but often don't stand very tall, aren't particularly sturdy, and might not hold up to regular use. Bigger ones are a lot heavier and don't fold up nearly as compact. And if you want to try to keep weight reasonable yet still get a sturdy tripod, you're looking at carbon fiber and that costs considerably more.

I've noticed that one of Adorama's Flashpoint (house brand) tripods is a pretty close copy of the G1325 or G1348, and seems a really good value, though I haven't personally used them. Someone showed me Feisol tripods recently, which also seemed to closely emulate Gitzo and offered some reasonably priced models. I haven't personallyl used Feisol, 'pods either, though.

Shop around... I'm sure you can find a tripod that's a "good fit".