Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > lzoom lens for EOS-10d

Reply
Thread Tools

lzoom lens for EOS-10d

 
 
Rob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2003
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
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul Repacholi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2003
Ryan Li <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Paul Repacholi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "Harold Silber" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lionel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2003
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 15:26:50 +0100, in <(E-Mail Removed)>, Ryan Li
<(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Paul Repacholi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "Harold Silber" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lionel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 19:52:51 GMT, in
<(E-Mail Removed)>, Sandy Canetti
<(E-Mail Removed)> 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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Eppstein
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003
In article <bgkilb$cis$(E-Mail Removed)>, Lionel <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lionel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:24:56 -0700, in
<(E-Mail Removed)>, David Eppstein
<(E-Mail Removed)> 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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bernhard Mayer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003
Sandy Canetti <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>. ..

> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
JK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003
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 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>. ..
>
> > 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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Lionel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003
On 3 Aug 2003 22:42:02 -0700, in
<(E-Mail Removed) >, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
(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
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandy Canetti
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003
On 3 Aug 2003 22:42:02 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (Bernhard Mayer)
wrote:

>Sandy Canetti <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>. ..
>
>> 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?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DIGITAL LENS VS REGULAR LENS silvio Digital Photography 1 06-16-2004 04:25 AM
Canon 10D lens Nikon Lens SteveJ Digital Photography 29 06-14-2004 12:52 AM
Anyone use the Kodak DX6340 Lens Adapter and Telephoto Lens? Amyotte Digital Photography 3 02-11-2004 10:25 PM
Good everyday lens for Digital Rebel -- kit lens, 17-40mm f/4L, or...? Mike Kozlowski Digital Photography 5 12-30-2003 08:04 AM
Tamron lens *is* crap --> interesting lens comparison! Beowulf Digital Photography 12 08-24-2003 05:21 PM



Advertisments