[NA] Camera lenses

[Brian Austin]

I've got a Canon EOS 20D digital camera. It is an incredible camera with clarity and resolution that actually outperforms standard film in my opinion. At the moment, the only good lens I've got is the standard 28-70mm zoom EF that comes with it. I've got a poor quality 100-300mm zoom but it won't work with the new digital's autofocus.

I'm looking at a mid-range telephoto zoom, preferably Canon USM with the Image Stabilizer. Can't decide which range, however. I've found 70-300 and 75-300 (newer?), both USM and IS. I've also seen the 28-300 USM/IS. Zowie, that's quite a range but it's also almost $2K by itself. Or maybe 100-400? How heavy is that one?

The lens would be used for airshows, some nature/wildlife shots, occasional candids, and while flying.

Any suggestions? While cost is an issue, I'm kind of a long term, make the investment and get it over with type of purchaser.

Thanks!

 

[Len Lanetti]

Brian,

Hopefully Harley will chime in as he has more expertise but a few observations

You already have the wide angle covered with an existing lens. Do you need/want the ability to go from wide angle to tele-photo in one zoom lens?

While the digital images are getting close to film images, film images are superior especially when making enlargements. Is it possible that the issues with your existing long lens are just inherent in digital technology.

What is the physical length and weight of that 300mm zoom lens? You may need a tripod to hold the camera and/or possibly a support for the lens.

Also, that focal lenght may not work well for taking pictures in flight. Too much vibration.

You might want to check the going rate for a nice used 35mm film SLR with a similar lens. Add a good scanner to your PC to capture the images digitally.

Len

 

[Brian Austin]

Brian,

Hopefully Harley will chime in as he has more expertise but a few observations

You already have the wide angle covered with an existing lens. Do you need/want the ability to go from wide angle to tele-photo in one zoom lens?

Not really necessary.

While the digital images are getting close to film images, film images are superior especially when making enlargements. Is it possible that the issues with your existing long lens are just inherent in digital technology.

Digital is surpassing film quality at this point. My prints (from my usual lab) from the digital came out with the same quality as usual...but I can see MUCH more on the screen, including very, very detailed zoom. Of course, each pic is between 5 and 7Mb a piece.

The long lens is a Quantaray, which is typically on the inferior side of the quality range.

What is the physical length and weight of that 300mm zoom lens? You may need a tripod to hold the camera and/or possibly a support for the lens.

Haven't checked but the 300mm seems at the outside edge of requiring a tripod. The 100-400 has a separate tripod mount.

Also, that focal lenght may not work well for taking pictures in flight. Too much vibration.

That's why I want the Image Stabilizer (IS). Very cool technology that takes some of the jitter out of handheld shots.

You might want to check the going rate for a nice used 35mm film SLR with a similar lens. Add a good scanner to your PC to capture the images digitally.

Len

I've got three good film SLRs already. I've been taking photos for years, just haven't jumped into the high-end realm. For a brief period of my eclectic work life, I was studying to go pro.

I can get one of my 20D images blown up to poster size before I start having quality issues. It's a 8.2 megapixel camera, currently at the top end of the amateur/semi-pro cameras. The big boys are in the 12K megapixel if I remember correctly...but you pay for it, too.

 

[Len Lanetti]

Digital is surpassing film quality at this point.

---SNIP---

I can get one of my 20D images blown up to poster size before I start having quality issues. It's a 8.2 megapixel camera, currently at the top end of the amateur/semi-pro cameras. The big boys are in the 12K megapixel if I remember correctly...but you pay for it, too.

Ahhhh, ....Nevermind... :<)

Len

 

[Robert]

Brian,
Good choice, I have a 10D. The lenses I have include a 100-400 IS, and 70-200 2.8 (*non stabilised version) There is an IS version of the 70-200 that I would recommend (I need to trade up). Once you get used to the stabilised lenses, it is difficult to go back, especially for lower light shots where you forgot the tripod. The two that I have are heavy after walking around a ramp at an airshow, and you will collect comments due to the size and white color of them, but I would not give them up. If you want to try IS, but not go for the 100-400, try the 28-135 IS lens, it is a much more manageable weight for long times.

The big toys are the 400, 500 and 600mm lenses, but you can almost buy a plane for one of those. The biggest toy of all is the 1200mm lens, which runs around $50,000.00, is 36 inches long, and weighs 36 pounds. There are a few pictures scattered across the net of people using them, but the rumor is that Canon has only sold around fifty of them. For airshow use, go with a zoom instead of a prime because the plane is going to be changing its distance to you constantly, but the zoom will help you keep the full plane (or part of it) in the viewfinder.

If holding a monster for a while is too much, pick up a decent monopod to help with the weight.

I recommend this site for the forums on lenses, and digital cameras:
http://www.dpreview.com/

Robert

 

[Brian Austin]

Thanks for the feedback, Robert!

 

[Scott]

I have a digital rebel with a 70-300 Sigma lense. Works well and with the 1.5 or 1.6 magnification factor with digital SLRs, its adequate for 90% of what I shoot including Oshkosh and other airshows. The only time I've needed more is with a T38 on a low pass that I couldn't get close enough. I'd recommend a 70-300 IS lense as I don't think a 400mm zoom lense is worth the money. Plus I might be wrong on this, but don't think you could handhold it @ 400mm

Scott

I've got a Canon EOS 20D digital camera. It is an incredible camera with clarity and resolution that actually outperforms standard film in my opinion. At the moment, the only good lens I've got is the standard 28-70mm zoom EF that comes with it. I've got a poor quality 100-300mm zoom but it won't work with the new digital's autofocus.

I'm looking at a mid-range telephoto zoom, preferably Canon USM with the Image Stabilizer. Can't decide which range, however. I've found 70-300 and 75-300 (newer?), both USM and IS. I've also seen the 28-300 USM/IS. Zowie, that's quite a range but it's also almost $2K by itself. Or maybe 100-400? How heavy is that one?

The lens would be used for airshows, some nature/wildlife shots, occasional candids, and while flying.

Any suggestions? While cost is an issue, I'm kind of a long term, make the investment and get it over with type of purchaser.

Thanks!

 

[wsuffa]

Brian,

I've got a Canon digital rebel (a 10D in cheaper cover). I also have a Canon EOS-3. I share the lenses between the two.

Ultimately it will come down to what you want to take pictures of. Remember that the digital sensor effectively multiplies the focal length.

I'm very happy with a 50 mm fixed f1.2 USM lens, 28-200 f3.5-4.5 USM lens and a 24-70 f2.8 non-USM. The USM lenses focus faster, but otherwise, they're pretty good.

Sigma makes good lenses, as does Canon.

 

[Brian Austin]

Checking out B&H's website, the 75-300 (f/4.0-5.6) is only $415? Weight is 24oz. That's with both IS and USM. Seems awfully cheap but I haven't priced these before.

The 70-300 IS/USM with diffractive optics (making it shorter but same weight) is $1100.

The 70-200 IS/USM (f/2.8L) is in the $1600 range. Much more aperture range, though. It's also 3.2 lbs and has a separate tripod mount. I'd really like to stay in the 300mm range, though. If I was going that high in price, I'd probably forego the aperture range, get the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS/USM, shave .2 lbs off the weight and save a few hundred bucks at the same time.

 

[wsuffa]

Checking out B&H's website, the 75-300 (f/4.0-5.6) is only $415? Weight is 24oz. That's with both IS and USM. Seems awfully cheap but I haven't priced these before.

The 70-300 IS/USM with diffractive optics (making it shorter but same weight) is $1100.

The 70-200 IS/USM (f/2.8L) is in the $1600 range. Much more aperture range, though. It's also 3.2 lbs and has a separate tripod mount. I'd really like to stay in the 300mm range, though. If I was going that high in price, I'd probably forego the aperture range, get the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS/USM, shave .2 lbs off the weight and save a few hundred bucks at the same time.

THe 75-300 is about right price-wise at $415. It's a tourist lens.

Price the Sigmas, too.

But since we're spending your money, go for the expensive one

Since you're using a digital camera, beware the multiply factor. It'll make a 300mm lens more like 425mm.

 

[gismo]

Digital is surpassing film quality at this point. My prints (from my usual lab) from the digital came out with the same quality as usual...but I can see MUCH more on the screen, including very, very detailed zoom. Of course, each pic is between 5 and 7Mb a piece.

It may seem that way, but fine grain 35mm film resolution is equivalent to something like 8000x5000 pixels or 40 megapixels so a 12 MP digital still has a ways to go. OTOH the human eye can only resolve about 100-150 dots/inch at a "normal" viewing distance so a 3k x 4k 12 megapixel image can be enlarged to almost 30" x 40" before it gets too grainy. So unless you are cropping out a small part of your digital image and blowing it way up digital works pretty well.

 

[gismo]

Since you're using a digital camera, beware the multiply factor. It'll make a 300mm lens more like 425mm.

Doesn't that vary by camera. It certainly must be a function of the imager active area compared to the frame size of 35 mm film.

 

[Brian Austin]

It may seem that way, but fine grain 35mm film resolution is equivalent to something like 8000x5000 pixels or 40 megapixels so a 12 MP digital still has a ways to go. OTOH the human eye can only resolve about 100-150 dots/inch at a "normal" viewing distance so a 3k x 4k 12 megapixel image can be enlarged to almost 30" x 40" before it gets too grainy. So unless you are cropping out a small part of your digital image and blowing it way up digital works pretty well.

It's also dependent on the paper quality, though.

I've taken photos using both film and digital. Take them to the same lab and print them up...no difference. I suspect I can blow them up to at least 8x10. ISO 400-800 isn't going to look as good past that, depending on cropping and the lighting. Equivalent ISO on the digital, though, is irrelevant. I can control what the ISO is during a digital shot. I get the equivalent light saturation without the grain effect of actual ISO 400 film. It's also nice to be able to switch ISO's per shot vs for the entire roll of film.

 

[Brian Austin]

Doesn't that vary by camera. It certainly must be a function of the imager active area compared to the frame size of 35 mm film.

I've never heard any number except 1.6 for the Canon line. Not sure if it's designed in or a coincidence, though.

 

[poadeleted3]

It's also dependent on the paper quality, though.

I've taken photos using both film and digital. Take them to the same lab and print them up...no difference. I suspect I can blow them up to at least 8x10. ISO 400-800 isn't going to look as good past that, depending on cropping and the lighting. Equivalent ISO on the digital, though, is irrelevant. I can control what the ISO is during a digital shot. I get the equivalent light saturation without the grain effect of actual ISO 400 film. It's also nice to be able to switch ISO's per shot vs for the entire roll of film.

We've gotten several 8x10 prints of some of our nicer pictures made from shots taken with our Kodak 5 megapixel camera, and they are fantastic. Maybe under a maginifying glass one could tell the difference, but I can't. Supposedly we can blow pics taken with our camera up to 13x20, but I haven't tried it yet. I do have a picture taken of my work that I'd like to try it with, just to see how it comes out. I need to find a place that prints that size. Gonna have to quit shopping Wal-mart for my pics LOL.

 

[wsuffa]

Doesn't that vary by camera. It certainly must be a function of the imager active area compared to the frame size of 35 mm film.

Yes, it does. It's the imager active area and the position of the lens relative to the imager. Further or closer to the imager will affect the focal length.

 

[Lawreston]

I've got a Canon EOS 20D digital camera. It is an incredible camera with clarity and resolution that actually outperforms standard film in my opinion. At the moment, the only good lens I've got is the standard 28-70mm zoom EF that comes with it. I've got a poor quality 100-300mm zoom but it won't work with the new digital's autofocus.

I'm looking at a mid-range telephoto zoom, preferably Canon USM with the Image Stabilizer. Can't decide which range, however. I've found 70-300 and 75-300 (newer?), both USM and IS. I've also seen the 28-300 USM/IS. Zowie, that's quite a range but it's also almost $2K by itself. Or maybe 100-400? How heavy is that one?

The lens would be used for airshows, some nature/wildlife shots, occasional candids, and while flying.

Any suggestions? While cost is an issue, I'm kind of a long term, make the investment and get it over with type of purchaser.

Thanks!

Write your specific choice(s) to [email protected]. You will get a bottom-line quote.

HR

 

[Lawreston]

It may seem that way, but fine grain 35mm film resolution is equivalent to something like 8000x5000 pixels or 40 megapixels so a 12 MP digital still has a ways to go. OTOH the human eye can only resolve about 100-150 dots/inch at a "normal" viewing distance so a 3k x 4k 12 megapixel image can be enlarged to almost 30" x 40" before it gets too grainy. So unless you are cropping out a small part of your digital image and blowing it way up digital works pretty well.

I'm familiar with a well-known aerial photographer down South. He uses a lot of digital these days but he's still a strong advocate and very frequent user of the Pentax 6 x 7(2.25" x 2.75") film format, "because of its superior performance in edge detail and enlargements."

I bought a Pentax 6 x 7 with a couple lenses not long before I did the deed in my Skyhawk.

HR

 

[corjulo]

Never been a 70 to 300 anything any good. That's too much engineering and requires to many optical compromises. And, for the most part they're way too slow.
I spend 7 years as a working photojournalist, first for UPI then for the Hartford Courant. My bread and butter lenses where all fixed lengths (21, 28 105 and 300 f2.8.) Currently the wide to mid zooms hold up OK and have been widely accepted by Shooter, as have the 80 to 200's f2.8's. But the mid to telephoto really don't test well at all. And at F4 to 5 there really pretty crappy.

Don't get hung up on the mega pixels hype. Learn how to work with the raw data files that store color information in 12 or 16 bit depth. I believe the EOS supports the raw format. 64,000 shades of gray beats the 256 produced by a standard jpeg 8 bit file any day. Also, turn off in camera sharpening. The sharpening tables in Photoshop (7 or higher) are far better then anything on camera. Always sharpen images in LAB mode and not RGB.

 

[Brian Austin]

I'm familiar with a well-known aerial photographer down South. He uses a lot of digital these days but he's still a strong advocate and very frequent user of the Pentax 6 x 7(2.25" x 2.75") film format, "because of its superior performance in edge detail and enlargements."

I bought a Pentax 6 x 7 with a couple lenses not long before I did the deed in my Skyhawk.

HR

Ah, medium format is another story. I'm talking strictly 35mm comparisons here.

No argument on the medium stuff. I toyed with getting into that someday, too.

 

[Brian Austin]

Never been a 70 to 300 anything any good. That's too much engineering and requires to many optical compromises. And, for the most part they're way too slow.
I spend 7 years as a working photojournalist, first for UPI then for the Hartford Courant. My bread and butter lenses where all fixed lengths (21, 28 105 and 300 f2.8.) Currently the wide to mid zooms hold up OK and have been widely accepted by Shooter, as have the 80 to 200's f2.8's. But the mid to telephoto really don't test well at all. And at F4 to 5 there really pretty crappy.

I understand about the compromises involved in zooms vs fixed lengths. The problem is that I take such a wide range of photos and, quite honestly, have a hard time purchasing 4-5 lens vs 2-3 good quality zooms that could cover similar situations. And I also have a tendency to want different focal lengths with a variety of shots, usually fairly fast.

Don't get hung up on the mega pixels hype. Learn how to work with the raw data files that store color information in 12 or 16 bit depth. I believe the EOS supports the raw format. 64,000 shades of gray beats the 256 produced by a standard jpeg 8 bit file any day. Also, turn off in camera sharpening. The sharpening tables in Photoshop (7 or higher) are far better then anything on camera. Always sharpen images in LAB mode and not RGB.

I've been playing with the RAW format lately (yes, EOS supports it). There is a significant difference, that's for sure. Actually, I've been playing with B&W settings lately more than anything else. JPEG vs RAW simply isn't comparable. Photoshop Elements came with the camera and it's all I've used to date.

 

[corjulo]

I understand about the compromises involved in zooms vs fixed lengths. The problem is that I take such a wide range of photos and, quite honestly, have a hard time purchasing 4-5 lens vs 2-3 good quality zooms that could cover similar situations. And I also have a tendency to want different focal lengths with a variety of shots, usually fairly fast.


I've been playing with the RAW format lately (yes, EOS supports it). There is a significant difference, that's for sure. Actually, I've been playing with B&W settings lately more than anything else. JPEG vs RAW simply isn't comparable. Photoshop Elements came with the camera and it's all I've used to date.

You can usually pick a legal copy of Photoshop on Ebay pretty cheap. Especially now that Photoshop is in the middle of a rev. Just make certain your getting either an unregistered, never installed copy or an adobe approved license transfer. Photoshop CS2 is the current version. Photoshop CS included the raw format, its an extra $99 for photoshop 7.

 

[gismo]

Yes, it does. It's the imager active area and the position of the lens relative to the imager. Further or closer to the imager will affect the focal length.

I understand the active area part, but I don't see why the distance from the lens mount to the target surface should matter, that's focusing. If you could change the focal length by changing the lens to target distance you wouldn't need zoom lenses.

 

[Henning]

I've got a Canon EOS 20D digital camera. It is an incredible camera with clarity and resolution that actually outperforms standard film in my opinion. At the moment, the only good lens I've got is the standard 28-70mm zoom EF that comes with it. I've got a poor quality 100-300mm zoom but it won't work with the new digital's autofocus.

I'm looking at a mid-range telephoto zoom, preferably Canon USM with the Image Stabilizer. Can't decide which range, however. I've found 70-300 and 75-300 (newer?), both USM and IS. I've also seen the 28-300 USM/IS. Zowie, that's quite a range but it's also almost $2K by itself. Or maybe 100-400? How heavy is that one?

The lens would be used for airshows, some nature/wildlife shots, occasional candids, and while flying.

Any suggestions? While cost is an issue, I'm kind of a long term, make the investment and get it over with type of purchaser.

Thanks!

Here's my POV although I rarely shoot with anything other than a cheap Panasonic Digital or a Calumet 4x5, when I was shooting 35 type stuff my lens priority went 105 f2.5, 85 3.5 Macro Flat Field, 300 2.8 EDIF, 50 1.2. I don't shoot anything shorter than that myself. I don't use zoom lenses because there is just to much quality loss having to transition through all those elements. I know they're convenient as all heck, but I just can't accept the degradation (which is why I mostly shoot with a 4x5 if I'm shooting for money, either that or I'll rent a medium format camera). My lenses were Nikor, although Cannon makes equally as good of lenses, they just turn the focus ring the other direction. For third party lenses, Sigma IMO makes really good ones. I also don't use AF lenses, just can't have that delay. Most of what I shoot is people, and for that, timing is everything. I wouldn't waste money on image stabilization lenses either. For still photography they just don't do enough to justify their cost. Your money is better spent getting a larger apperature (smaller f#) lens. What's best for you? Find a good camera shop in your area and rent some lenses and see what you like. On the FE2 I used to carry all the time, I had an old 105 2.5 that was used for 98% of all the "around" shots I took. Might try one out, you may be surprised at how versatile it is. I'm thinking of getting that Fuji S2 or S3(if they ever release the thing) because it will take all the old Nikor AI manual focus lenses.

 

[Brian Austin]

Here's my POV although I rarely shoot with anything other than a cheap Panasonic Digital or a Calumet 4x5, when I was shooting 35 type stuff my lens priority went 105 f2.5, 85 3.5 Macro Flat Field, 300 2.8 EDIF, 50 1.2. I don't shoot anything shorter than that myself. I don't use zoom lenses because there is just to much quality loss having to transition through all those elements. I know they're convenient as all heck, but I just can't accept the degradation (which is why I mostly shoot with a 4x5 if I'm shooting for money, either that or I'll rent a medium format camera). My lenses were Nikor, although Cannon makes equally as good of lenses, they just turn the focus ring the other direction. For third party lenses, Sigma IMO makes really good ones. I also don't use AF lenses, just can't have that delay. Most of what I shoot is people, and for that, timing is everything. I wouldn't waste money on image stabilization lenses either. For still photography they just don't do enough to justify their cost. Your money is better spent getting a larger apperature (smaller f#) lens. What's best for you? Find a good camera shop in your area and rent some lenses and see what you like. On the FE2 I used to carry all the time, I had an old 105 2.5 that was used for 98% of all the "around" shots I took. Might try one out, you may be surprised at how versatile it is. I'm thinking of getting that Fuji S2 or S3(if they ever release the thing) because it will take all the old Nikor AI manual focus lenses.

The biggest fixed focal length I've used regularly was a 105mm on an old, manual Minolta. And yes, it's a versatile lens. I had forgotten about it until you mentioned it.

I hadn't considered asking to rent lenses to try them out. Good idea!

I haven't tried the IS technology but I can see it's benefit in some instances. I have a fairly steady hand but I'm curious more than anything. Again, I'll see if I can try before I buy.

I AM impressed with the AF on this thing. Once upon a time, I'd have agreed: autofocus couldn't beat me. Now, however, this thing is FAST and accurate. Catching two dogs running around the backyard in 'sport' auto mode with AF on wouldn't have been easy without pre-focusing on a manual camera and predicting the spot they'd be in when I hit the shutter. The picture is straight JPEG, no enhancement (backlit a little too much but I only had the camera for three days at the time ). (Another cool feature: it records absolutely EVERYTHING about the shot, including the current focal length of a zoom lens) ISO 400, F8.0, 1/800s, 55mm

 

[Lawreston]

I hadn't considered asking to rent lenses to try them out. Good idea!

To a retailer, rentals turn into sales. I had a jingle for my store:

"First I'll try it, then I'll buy it; Bowdoin Camera Exchange.
Hmm hmm hmm hmm, hmm hmm hmm hmm; hmm hm hm hm hm hmmmmm."
(The humming was a music bridge for the voice-over)
"First I'll try it, then I'll buy it; Bowdoin Camera Exchange.[/I]

The Bowdoin Four barbershop quartet did the jingles for me: 10 secs., 30 secs., and 60 secs. for radio and television.

Oh, there's more. I was the quartet; first time in Maine media history that Creative Director-Producer, copy-writer, four singers for audio, four actors for video, voice-over announcer, and technical director............ were all one person. And the series was nominated for Broderson(s) in several categories. A Broderson is a statewide advertising award, much like the Clio in New York, et cetera. "Each" singer was dressed alike, except one, he wearing a different tie, hat position, glasses; and somewhat the comic character which is prevalent in barbershop quartet performances. Fun stuff, and people would come into the store and ask, "Where are your brothers?"

Whatever I charged for rental would get credited to the future sale of the rented product, and it was a working promotion.

HR

 

[Iceman]

I just stumbled onto this site...it looks like you guys have a wonderful pilot forum.

There has been some great advice given so far to help on your decision. I too have the 20d (upgraded from the 300d after just 3 months). I plan on keeping the 20d for at least the next 4-5 years.

The first thing you need to look at is your mission profile. Just as we don't charter a jet to get a $100 hamburger it is not efficient to get a 600mm lens to take family pictures.

First you need to look at the range you have right now. You said 28-88, is that a true mm as printed on the lense or the "converted factor for your lens". The 20d, 300d, 10d all have a 1.6 crop factor when calculating lens length. This means that the kit lens included with the 20d 18-55 is actually a 28-88. Canon does make different digital camera with less crop factors. the 1d has a crop of 1.3 and the 1ds does not have a crop factor (the sensor is a full 35mm film size).

Back to lens choice... It sounds like you use the 100mm range quite often which means you might want to get a lens that has a 65mm range in it. A good choice for you might be the 28-135 is. It is fairly cheap and gives good results.

The reason the 75-300 IS lens is so cheap is because it is not a very good lens. Don't waste your money...the 100-300 is actually a better lens optically. If you buy a good lens it will hold its value long after your camera will be worth nothing.

These are my choices for you...

Wide lens if needed- 10-22 canon lense ~650
Normal lens- 24-70 (very good/ heavy) ~1000
28-135 ~350
17-85 IS ~500 (great inexpensive, light, good coverage choice)

Long- 100-300
70-300 DO IS a good small lens ok performance
100-400 is best choice in my opinion ~1200 but heavy
300 is
400

The 70-200 F4 is also a great choice and is fairly light...gives great pictures ~500 It is 5 times the lens of the 75-300 is.

 

[Brian Austin]

The first thing you need to look at is your mission profile. Just as we don't charter a jet to get a $100 hamburger it is not efficient to get a 600mm lens to take family pictures.

It's all over the place. That's half my problem. I think I'm trying to find one lens to do the job of five. I suspect it's not going to work.

First you need to look at the range you have right now. You said 28-88, is that a true mm as printed on the lense or the "converted factor for your lens". The 20d, 300d, 10d all have a 1.6 crop factor when calculating lens length. This means that the kit lens included with the 20d 18-55 is actually a 28-88. Canon does make different digital camera with less crop factors. the 1d has a crop of 1.3 and the 1ds does not have a crop factor (the sensor is a full 35mm film size).

I've got the 18-55 (misspoke earlier thinking of one of my film camera lenses) that comes with the kit.

Back to lens choice... It sounds like you use the 100mm range quite often which means you might want to get a lens that has a 65mm range in it. A good choice for you might be the 28-135 is. It is fairly cheap and gives good results.

The light bulb just went off. I HAVE a 28-70 on another camera...which equates to 112mm at full zoom.

The reason the 75-300 IS lens is so cheap is because it is not a very good lens. Don't waste your money...the 100-300 is actually a better lens optically. If you buy a good lens it will hold its value long after your camera will be worth nothing.

Yeah, I was reading up on the lens last night. I've already decided not to do that one.

These are my choices for you...

Wide lens if needed- 10-22 canon lense ~650
Normal lens- 24-70 (very good/ heavy) ~1000
28-135 ~350
17-85 IS ~500 (great inexpensive, light, good coverage choice)

Long- 100-300
70-300 DO IS a good small lens ok performance
100-400 is best choice in my opinion ~1200 but heavy
300 is
400

The 70-200 F4 is also a great choice and is fairly light...gives great pictures ~500 It is 5 times the lens of the 75-300 is.

I don't really need a wide lens, at least right now.

I'm going to use the cheaper 28-70 that came with the Rebel 2000 for now. Not the same quality as a L series but it will do for now. That will cover my mid-range stuff.

I'm seriously considering the 100-400 or the 300/2.8L. I'm going to try some lenses out today and see if the IS is really worth it.

Good advice, Chris. Thanks!

 

[Iceman]

I'm seriously considering the 100-400 or the 300/2.8L. I'm going to try some lenses out today and see if the IS is really worth it.

Good advice, Chris. Thanks!

I have the 100-400 IS and I use the lens all the time. For me it was between that lens and the 300F4 IS and carry a 1.4x tel to add length. I wanted the zoom and I have found the image quality to be great.

Keep in mind the 20d has a great iso range you can easily shoot iso800 with no quality reduction/grain which with IS makes the 100-400 hand holdable at even 300-400mm which is like 480-640mm through the camera.

I think above your talking about the 300 F4 IS which is ~1000 the 2.8 version is like 4000 which is definatly above my price range.

 

[Brian Austin]

I have the 100-400 IS and I use the lens all the time. For me it was between that lens and the 300F4 IS and carry a 1.4x tel to add length. I wanted the zoom and I have found the image quality to be great.

Keep in mind the 20d has a great iso range you can easily shoot iso800 with no quality reduction/grain which with IS makes the 100-400 hand holdable at even 300-400mm which is like 480-640mm through the camera.

I think above your talking about the 300 F4 IS which is ~1000 the 2.8 version is like 4000 which is definatly above my price range.

Yeah, I just priced it. You're right, I was thinking the F4.

The local camera store rents these things. I've got my camera and heading there for lunch.

 

[astanley]

Yeah, I just priced it. You're right, I was thinking the F4.

The local camera store rents these things. I've got my camera and heading there for lunch.

My camera motto: Spend more on glass than on the camera. The body can only move the film and meter light; the lens does all the heavily lifing.

I know that is essentially worthless advice, but you get what you pay for

On the Pentax 6x7... I want one of those with a Kodak digital back. Dear lord.

Have you seen the new Nikon D2X? First camera ever to make me rethink that film is superior to digital.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[Brian Austin]

Have you seen the new Nikon D2X? First camera ever to make me rethink that film is superior to digital.

Cheers,

-Andrew

Yeowch! $5K for just the body! A little out of my league.

Skipping lunch but leaving early for the camera shop...

 

[corjulo]

Here's my POV although I rarely shoot with anything other than a cheap Panasonic Digital or a Calumet 4x5, .

Aw..... A purest.

I still regret selling my M3 and Rollie 2.8. Damn Ebay

 

[Henning]

Aw..... A purest.

I still regret selling my M3 and Rollie 2.8. Damn Ebay

Purest ....not hardly, I was just making a living shooting catalogue stuff and portraits (12 weddings, NEVER again ). I always did like my old Leicas which is why I went with the Panasonic. I may still have an old Rollie 2,8 TLR at my folks place, love Rodenstock lenses, I have a 360 Grandagon for the 4X5.

 

[Brian Austin]

Went to a local camera store and played with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM. Impressive lens on this camera. LOTS of light gathering. It actually brightened up a shot into the corner of the store at about 150mm (not counting the 1.6x factor).

It's also a $1,900 lens. More than I was expecting. They had next to nothing to look at otherwise. I just wanted to try something.

Overall, I was more disappointed with the service. I walked in, camera in hand and really wanted to spend some time trying different lenses out, with the intention to buy. I really, truly try to spend my bucks locally whenever possible, even if it's a $100 more. I figure I'm paying them for their time. Well, this guy didn't seem all that interested in helping. Gave me the box but didn't offer to open it up. I asked if I could try it. "Sure" and he opened it and handed it to me. No explanation of features, no comments on what I want to do with it, no questions on what else I might have. Clearly uninterested in the possibility of a sale. Sheesh. I won't be going back.

Nice lens. I haven't uploaded the photos yet but initially, I really couldn't see much blurring at the 200mm level. It's a fast lens, too. Reviews are good so far from what I've read. I'm leaning toward the Sigma 70-200, though. No IS features but supposedly as good of a lens optically for $800 vs the Canon. Later I'll get a fixed 300mm and a better normal zoom.

 

[Brian Austin]

Okay, I did it. I went to another camera shop, received GREAT service and bought the 70-200 IS USM lens, along with a few accessories.

The difference in service was incredible. I called ahead to see if they had one in IS and non-IS, along with a Sigma comparable model. He had some options but not all. I asked for him when I arrived and he spent 45 minutes with me, explaining the features, comparing different lenses, even telling me that the $500 lens would do most of what I was looking for. We played with ten different lenses on my camera. Almost as much fun as an hour in a Supercub!

So I picked up this lens: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7469

I paid a little extra for it by purchasing locally but the last thing the salesman told me made all the difference: DON'T send it to Canon if you have any problems. Come and see us directly and we'll take care of it for you. We'll give you a loaner if it has to be sent out for repair. Questions, comments, just want some advice, whatever, stop in anytime.

That's the kind of service I was looking for!

 

[Iceman]

WOW...big jump to one of the best lenses that canon makes! Now the problem is you will no longer be happy with anything less quality. Your $50 all plastic kit lens is next in line to be replaced . I have the 24-70 2.8 and it is hard to beat. Another option may be the 17-40 F4 which is lighter and less expensive.

Good luck with your new gear.

I'm going to have to keep an eye out for you on the flight line with your big white lens :dance:.

 

[Brian Austin]

WOW...big jump to one of the best lenses that canon makes! Now the problem is you will no longer be happy with anything less quality. Your $50 all plastic kit lens is next in line to be replaced . I have the 24-70 2.8 and it is hard to beat. Another option may be the 17-40 F4 which is lighter and less expensive.

Good luck with your new gear.

I'm going to have to keep an eye out for you on the flight line with your big white lens :dance:.

Sigh. I know. I'm already disappointed with the kit lens. I've got to get the 580EX flash first, though. And a 1.4x teleconverter. Then replace the kit lens.

I've heard decent stuff about the 28-135 IS. Not sure, though, since I've noticed it's not a "L" type. I'm impressed with the construction on this thing.

I'll be on the flight line, holding my flying money in my hands while taking the pretty pictures. I'm not flying in May because of this purchase!

 

[wsuffa]

So I picked up this lens: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7469

I paid a little extra for it by purchasing locally but the last thing the salesman told me made all the difference: DON'T send it to Canon if you have any problems. Come and see us directly and we'll take care of it for you. We'll give you a loaner if it has to be sent out for repair. Questions, comments, just want some advice, whatever, stop in anytime.

That's the kind of service I was looking for!

Ah, sounds like you got a grey market lens maybe? Does it have a US warranty (besides what the shop gives you?

If not, you did get a good deal.

 

[Brian Austin]

Ah, sounds like you got a grey market lens maybe? Does it have a US warranty (besides what the shop gives you?

If not, you did get a good deal.

No, it's the US warranty. I checked. The only reason they recommend it is because if I do send in the warranty card, they can't help with the warranty stuff if required. The imported stuff is going for mid $1600. The US stuff (online) is maybe another $100 on top. It's not worth the aggravation, imo.