«

With only 1 large card you are putting all your eggs in one basket and
should that card fail, be damaged or lost your out every photo you have
taken on your n-week vacation. That's one advantage of having 2 smaller
cards.

Harold Silber wrote:
> Good day
> I am getting a Canon EOS-10D with a 24 to 85mm canon lens . However I am
> looking to do quite a bit of sports photography so therefore I am looking to
> get a 70 to 300mm lens. I was about to get the Canon 70 - 300 usm III until
> I read all the reviews on the performance of this lens. What about a Sigma,
> Tamron or any other canon zoom . The price range I am looking at is no more
> then about 350 USD. I hear the 28 to 300 new Tamron lens produces great
> results.
> I have also read that some of the Sigma lens have to be modified in order to
> work with the 10D.
> Finally, is it better to buy a 1 gig compact flash card or a 512mb card .
> I await your comments ....
>
> Cheers
> Harold
> Johannesburg, South Africa
>
>

Ryan Li <> writes:

> In article <>,
> Paul Repacholi <> wrote:
>> "Harold Silber" <> writes:
>
>> > I am getting a Canon EOS-10D with a 24 to 85mm canon lens .
>
>> Also get rid of the zoom you have, and get a 50 f1.8 or 1.4.

> Err... why? The Canon 24-85mm is a fine lens. How is he supposed to
> shoot wide angle with a 50mm prime lens??

OK, or a 24/28/35 instead. Get used to what a good lens should do
rather than the zooms that give very iffy to ordiinary results unless
you drop a serious wedge of readys.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (0 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 15:26:50 +0100, in <>, Ryan Li
<> said:

>In article <>,
> Paul Repacholi <> wrote:
>> "Harold Silber" <> writes:
>
>> > I am getting a Canon EOS-10D with a 24 to 85mm canon lens .
>
>> Also get rid of the zoom you have, and get a 50 f1.8 or 1.4.
>
>Err... why? The Canon 24-85mm is a fine lens.

/Which/ 24-85mm are you referring to?

> How is he supposed to shoot
>wide angle with a 50mm prime lens??

To the best of my knowledge, lack of wide angle lenses is not considered
to be a leading cause of death in photographers.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 19:52:51 GMT, in
<>, Sandy Canetti
<> said:

>Speaking of telephoto zoom lenses for sports photography, I've been
>trying to decide between a fixed length 300mm lens or a telephoto.
>The Canon Telephoto EF 300mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus
>Lens runs new in the neighborhood of $3,800, yet the Canon Ef
>100-400mm f/ 4.5/5.6L USM runs only around $1,400. Both have image
>stabilzers. What is the primary difference that accounts for such a
>huge price gap?

The f/1:2.8 vs f/1:4.5-5.6 factor. Try taking a shot of something that's
moving, at 5.6 instead of 2.8, & you'll soon see why people are willing
to pay the extra price.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

In article <bgkilb$cis$>, Lionel <> wrote:

> >Speaking of telephoto zoom lenses for sports photography, I've been
> >trying to decide between a fixed length 300mm lens or a telephoto.
> >The Canon Telephoto EF 300mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus
> >Lens runs new in the neighborhood of $3,800, yet the Canon Ef
> >100-400mm f/ 4.5/5.6L USM runs only around $1,400. Both have image
> >stabilzers. What is the primary difference that accounts for such a
> >huge price gap?
>
> The f/1:2.8 vs f/1:4.5-5.6 factor. Try taking a shot of something that's
> moving, at 5.6 instead of 2.8, & you'll soon see why people are willing
> to pay the extra price.

Also (at least judging from mtf charts since I haven't had the
opportunity to try one) the 300/2.8 is way sharper than even L zooms.

--
David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science

On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:24:56 -0700, in
<eppstein->, David Eppstein
<> said:

>Also (at least judging from mtf charts since I haven't had the
>opportunity to try one) the 300/2.8 is way sharper than even L zooms.

Yes, that's what I would expect too. Looking at PhotoDo's MTF listings
for Canon lenses, the standard primes have ratings typically at least a
point (about 20-30%) better than the 'L' zooms. I've certainly found
this to be true with the lenses I own (which include several standard
primes & two 'L' series zooms).

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Sandy Canetti <> wrote in message news:<>. ..

> Speaking of telephoto zoom lenses for sports photography, I've been
> trying to decide between a fixed length 300mm lens or a telephoto.
> The Canon Telephoto EF 300mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus
> Lens runs new in the neighborhood of $3,800, yet the Canon Ef
> 100-400mm f/ 4.5/5.6L USM runs only around $1,400. Both have image
> stabilzers. What is the primary difference that accounts for such a
> huge price gap?

the 2.8 vs. 4.5 apperture, consequently the size and quality of the
images

If you get the EF 300/4 L IS, it will only cut a $1500 hole in your
pocket... and unless you're pro, that's what I would and probably will
soon get


I am not too convinced about the 100-400. It's not a bad lens, it
succedes the 100-300/5.6L but it still nowhere near the L primes or
(IMHO) the 70-200/4L 70-200/2.8L

The speed. You could probably get a 300mm f4 or f4.5 lens for not that
much. It will also be much ligher than a 300mm f2.8. I have a 200mm f3
lens as well as a 200mm f4 lens. The f3 lens is MUCH heavier and bulkier
than the f4 one.

Bernhard Mayer wrote:

> Sandy Canetti <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
>
> > Speaking of telephoto zoom lenses for sports photography, I've been
> > trying to decide between a fixed length 300mm lens or a telephoto.
> > The Canon Telephoto EF 300mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus
> > Lens runs new in the neighborhood of $3,800, yet the Canon Ef
> > 100-400mm f/ 4.5/5.6L USM runs only around $1,400. Both have image
> > stabilzers. What is the primary difference that accounts for such a
> > huge price gap?
>
> the 2.8 vs. 4.5 apperture, consequently the size and quality of the
> images
>
> If you get the EF 300/4 L IS, it will only cut a $1500 hole in your
> pocket... and unless you're pro, that's what I would and probably will
> soon get
>
> I am not too convinced about the 100-400. It's not a bad lens, it
> succedes the 100-300/5.6L but it still nowhere near the L primes or
> (IMHO) the 70-200/4L 70-200/2.8L

On 3 Aug 2003 22:42:02 -0700, in
< >,
(Bernhard Mayer) said:

>I am not too convinced about the 100-400. It's not a bad lens, it
>succedes the 100-300/5.6L

It'd have to be pretty good to beat the 100-300/5.6L. I've got one of
those, & it's a really nice lens.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

On 3 Aug 2003 22:42:02 -0700, (Bernhard Mayer)
wrote:

>Sandy Canetti <> wrote in message news:<>. ..
>
>> Speaking of telephoto zoom lenses for sports photography, I've been
>> trying to decide between a fixed length 300mm lens or a telephoto.
>> The Canon Telephoto EF 300mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus
>> Lens runs new in the neighborhood of $3,800, yet the Canon Ef
>> 100-400mm f/ 4.5/5.6L USM runs only around $1,400. Both have image
>> stabilzers. What is the primary difference that accounts for such a
>> huge price gap?
>
>the 2.8 vs. 4.5 apperture, consequently the size and quality of the
>images

wait a minute, I'm confused here. Maybe there is more of a difference
between digital and film than I realized. How would aperture affect
quality? The only thing a smaller aperture should mean is that since
you are letting less light in, you need to adjust your shutter speed
accordingly. This should only affect depth-of-field. Or am I
oversimplifying?