OK guys not to start a big fight but I simply had to do this. I read Jerryc41's post a while back where he compared his images with and without a protective filter and I was a bit shocked. I have been a photographer for over 25 years and I have tried pretty much all of the major flavors of filters and have recently, after some serious research, switched out everything for Hoya HD series filters. I do choose to use a protective filter since my work takes me to some nasty places to take pic's and I have, on many occasions, had the end of a lens saved by a simple filter. Now you can fume and fuss all you like and toss out things like using a lens cap or a lens hood and I will counter that I can't because I shoot sports and you need to be ready at the blink of an eye and I do use lens hoods at all times but that won't change your mind and you certainly are not going to change mine so we should agree to disagree and to each his own. All that aside if my images are being seriously effected I don't want them on there. I have tested this and I have never seen a detectable difference but Jerry's images did get me wondering so I did my own simple test.

To test I took two images a few seconds apart first with and then without the filter. Aside from the filter there was no changes to anything else. I simply placed my Canon 5d MkII on my tripod and attached a 16-35mm f/2.8L II lens set to 35mm. I set the ISO to 100, the aperture to f/22 and the shutter to 1/30's for a proper exposure all manual of course. I focused on infinity, locked the mirror up and fired with a wireless remote for good sharpness. I shot in RAW as well as .jpg Large Fine and compared the images straight out of the camera in Lightroom 4.3 with zero PP. I blew the images up to a 100% crop and did a side-by-side comparison of the two images on my Eizo 27" IPS Monitor which is very high resolution and could not see any difference. In fact if I somehow mixed the two up I would not be able to tell which was which. Here they are in the .jpg format, we'll see if they post as they appear on my computer monitor, what do you guys think?

With the Hoya HD Protector in place


With the filter removed a few seconds later

There ya go, hell they have software to create softness in portraits haha.

HAHAHAHA "down to the subatomic particles" sorry but that cracked me up. Try shooting a real beautiful but older famous actress and use the words "sharp" and see what happens

:shock: :shock: :shock:

Well not to jack this thread too far of topic but I have been stalking the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 for some time now and just as I ordered one from Adorama they announced the new version (Mark III). I mean I actually ordered it and within an hour stumbled upon a post on another Canon forum. After looking at the new version and the direction Sigma is going with their "new global vision" I decided to hit that pause button and wait. The 35mm f/1.4 is the first of these new lenses to be released and as has been said it is getting rave reviews so I'm hoping the new 120-300 will be as awesome.

They now have it available for pre-order at B&H and Adorama so I just put my name in the hopper for one of the first ones (what the heck they have a kickin warranty right?) I have used one of the Mark II versions of this lens and it simply rocks. I recently shot a big football game with it and one of the other guys was shooting the Nikon 100-400 f/4.0 which is a sweet lens (carbon fiber lens hood way sexy) but kind of slow. He asked what I was using and when I told him he had never heard of it. I felt sorry for him when the rain started and the light got real low :mrgreen:

I have many Canon "L" lenses and a few Sigmas as well and I consider the Siggy's to be first class glass. When the new 120-300 gets here I will be sure to report on its performance to the UHH group, its supposed to ship on March 16th. fingers crossed. :thumbup:

Aside from composition (faces) I would say that the "washed out" look you describe to me looks like blur. I would say it was motion blur but it looks more like ghosting from a slow flash sync. Did your on camera flash fire? I don't see alot on noise so your ISO seems acceptable, did you do any processing with the image at all?

As for the background your subjects are far enough away from it but your aperture of f/4.5 is too small for the effect you are looking to achieve. I'm not sure if your 70-200 is the f/2.8 model but if it is try opening that baby up since the larger the aperture (remember smaller F/stop #) the shallower your depth of field is going to be (yep this is why the pro's use the big buck lenses). This will give you the "fuzzy" background you are looking for which is actually a "blurry" background know as "Bokeh". A large aperture will also allow more light into the camera that will allow you to increase your shutter speed which will freeze the action better and minimize motion blur. All that will produce a sharper image with a nice Bokeh which makes your subjects more isolated from the background and standout well.

I would suggest that you shoot in Aperture Priority Mode, open the lens up as wide as you can and crank the ISO until you get at least a 1/500's Shutter Speed. Get back as far as you can since the longer the focal length the more pronounced the bokeh effect will be which will isolate the background even better. Since your color is off a bit If your shooting in .jpg then you need to figure out your white balance by either shooting a grey card and using it for a manual balance, trying the other modes for artificial lighting, or setting auto and fixing it in post later, although in .jpg your limited to the amount you can fix, which is why so many pro's shoot in RAW. And if your on camera flash is firing turn it off for now as that is a whole other conversation. The "demon" is getting sufficient Shutter Speed while holding the ISO to a level that does not produce too much noise which looks like a fine grainy effect in the images. Since your camera seems to do well at ISO 4000 (which is up there) if you use fast lenses (f/2.8 or faster) you should be able to get some awesome shots just practice practice practice while trying EVERYTHING!!!

Now shoot when they face you, get lower to the ground or high up in the stands and shoot down, make sure to get their faces in the midst of a great struggle, and have fun because sports are just so cool to shoot, hope this is of some help :thumbup:

I have two each of both of these cameras and they are very different machines indeed. Its a simple comparison in that the 5D MK2 (Mark II guys I read replies reference both the 5D and the 5D Mark III different animals) has better image quality and far better low light capabilities but not a fast frame rate. The full frame sensor also allows your wide angle lenses to be "wide angle" as there is no 1.6X crop factor. I still find myself simply amazed at some of the images that come out of this camera especially with good lenses.

The 7D has good image quality, descent low light abilities and shoots WAY faster at 8 frames per second. The 1.6X crop factor makes shooting sports (and wildlife I imagine) easier as your lenses get a little focal length boost with no light loss. As for the auto focus I have to say I have absolutely no problem with either camera. I have shot fast moving things with the 5D2 and nailed it just fine. The 7D does have a more advanced autofocus system that makes it easier but honestly I find both work well.

I shoot news, sports, and events as well as weddings and portraiture and I use them for what they are intended. The 5D2 is the go to camera for anything not moving fast and the 7D is the choice for that which does move fast, mostly sports. I use the 7D as a #2 and remote camera these days as I now have a 1D MkIV that is my main sports body. Make an honest assessment of what you will shoot "mostly" and choose either one with confidence as they are both superb cameras. If you have specific questions about either camera feel free to ask me I have a pretty good grasp of both and I actually did read their owners manuals :thumbup:

If you want GREAT and prefer a zoom lens you want either the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II or the 24-70 f/2.8L II lenses. Both are considered to be the sharpest and provide the best color and saturation while offering the least in the way of any type of distortion. I have both and can tell you they are superb.

If the price tag is too high at about $2K for either than you should look for a 24-70 f/2.8L version I they are hitting the market as people sell theirs off to get the new version and the prices on new ones has dropped since the Mark II's release. Likewise there is a Mark I version of the 70-200 f/2.8L but for the stuff you are talking about I think I would grab a 24-70 pretty much a "standard" lens for most shooters.

When you are shooting a portrait of a subject on a dark background you almost always need to use a minimum of a hair or a separation light to make it look half way descent. Between the main light, fill light, hair/separation light and sometimes even a background light or two you need to adjust each one to a certain level which we call "ratios". Having the subject (read client sometimes) sit there while you goof around with each light until it "looks right" (called chimping) can not only look very unprofessional but can also take way way too long to get right. A simple light meter makes the process quick, easy, accurate, and repeatable especially if you have the ratios you like in your head and can adjust your lights with a remote. Shooting with multiple strobes almost requires a light meter to do correctly and I use mine all the time. As for pretty much everywhere else I rely on the meter in the camera, ETTL II flash metering, and the Histogram to see what I am doing.

Another vote for the Sekonic L-358, I spent the money to add the Pocket Wizard Transmitter and then switched to Paul C Buff's Cyber Commander system that has a built in lightmeter. The good news is they both jive exactly :thumbup:

Yes check out the new Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 Mark II it is an amazingly sharp lens in a very useful focal range. I use it for video and its awesome. I saw a stunning improvement over the Mark I version.

I have a 5D2 that I use for the same purposes as you and I love it. I use it all the time for up close sports as well with great results. All the people that snivel about its autofocus need to learn better technique I think. :mrgreen:

I have two 7D's and a 1D MkIV and its a toss up. Like so many here I love the 7D but the MkIV is just that much better in almost every way except video. If you shoot still sports the MkIV is the camera to have until you can afford a 1DX then its game over. Did anyone here ever own a Canon F1? Took me like six months to save up for that baby way back when. :thumbup:

[quote=Boots]

Your gonna love that 12-60. I had every Super High Grade lens they make and I found myself grabbing the 12-60 more than the 14-35... Enjoy it.

As others have said it totally depends on what you are shooting. I have both a 7D and a 5D2 and like others use them for different things. For weddings, portraits, nature type things there is no question that I grab the 5D2. For sports I go for the 7D (I actually have 2 7D's for sports). If you have never used a FF with a truly good lens than you should give it a go as the images are simply gorgeous. I absolutely LOVE my 7D's but if I am shooting anything standing still I don't hesitate to grab the FF camera every time. :thumbup:

No contest, the glass. I shot a girls high school soccer game yesterday and I was using a 1D MkIV which is an amazing camera. I was also using my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II lens and several times I smirked to myself and actually thought "this lens is truly amazing". It never ceases to amaze me with how fast and smooth it can focus or how sharp it can be even wide open. The camera is a big part of the equation but the lens IS the answer...