Canon lens advice

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by cc, Dec 17, 2003.

  1. cc

    cc Guest

    Canon has a rebate program going on until the end of January and I
    thought I might take advantage of it, since all I have for lenses right
    now are the 28-80 and 80-200 zoom lenses that came in the kit with my
    film SLR, and they don't seem to produce as sharp results as I would
    like. I have looked for online reviews of the lenses but there really
    aren't that many. Most of the reviews are about cameras and such.

    I would like to know whether zoom lenses are really inferior to non-zoom
    (I'm sure there's a name for those) lenses in terms of sharpness and
    colour rendition etc. The zoom lenses I have don't seem to be very sharp
    but maybe I'm making some sort of mistake when I'm taking pictures. I
    have read that kit lenses aren't all that good anyway.

    The camera I used before I got the Canon was a manual Olympus SLR with a
    few different lenses, mostly with a single focal length, and I was very
    happy with the sharpness and focus of the pictures, and I got many
    compliments. Unfortunately the shutters on the 2 Olympus bodies I had
    failed and I got tired of taking them to get fixed. Since on any given
    vacation I seem to come back with at least 1000 photos (and that's an
    underestimate), I am spending a lot of film and developing and it seems
    that digital is the way to go. In the new year when stores actually have
    it in stock again I'm planning to buy a 10D.

    I would like to be able to take high quality photos which I could
    eventually perhaps sell when I get to be a good enough photographer. In
    other words, I want not to be limited by my equipment. I mostly take
    pictures outdoors of buildings, animals, landscapes, citiscapes,
    statues, etc., pretty much anything that would seem to make a good
    subject (and some abstract stuff too). My indoor shots have mostly been
    limited to cute pictures of my cat, the year's Christmas tree, and the
    odd.trip to a museum or fancy church when on vacation.

    I would appreciate any comments anyone might have about the following
    lenses and how they perform in the Canon 10D. If you would recommend
    different lenses than these please tell me. Please keep in mind that I
    don't want to spend more than $2000 total on lenses (before rebate) and
    the first lens is more than half that.

    400mm f/5.6 L USM - this is one that I'm pretty certain of getting
    because I have seen some absolutely stunning images taken with this
    lens, and actually I have found a few (very good) reviews of it. I'm
    mostly wanting to know which lenses I should get as companions to this one.

    20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - Since the 10D has the 1.6x focal ratio it seems
    important to get some kind of wide angle lens. Is this zoom lens less
    sharp than one with a single focal length, and should I consider a
    different one, or does the larger range of focal length make up for any
    decrease in sharpness?

    75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM - I've read good things about this lens on this
    newsgroups. I guess it would replace the 80-200 lens I already have. It
    would probably be the lens that is in the camera most of the time
    because of its versatility. Is this a good choice for that purpose?

    135mm f/2.8 with soft focus - I thought I might like to try some outdoor
    portrait photography. Is this a good lens for that or is there a better
    lens for that purpose? I have read that this lens is also good for
    landscapes, and it's nice and sharp at the 0 softness setting. If my
    calculations are correct this lens would be equivalent to a 216mm lens.
    That might be a bit long for portrait work.

    I would very much appreciate any and all comments about the above lenses
    or recommendations of any other lenses which I might find useful.

    Thanks.
     
    cc, Dec 17, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "cc" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Canon has a rebate program going on until the end of January and I
    > thought I might take advantage of it, since all I have for lenses right
    > now are the 28-80 and 80-200 zoom lenses that came in the kit with my
    > film SLR, and they don't seem to produce as sharp results as I would


    I have the 80-200, and it's quite good, but not upto top quality standards. The
    28-80 was best in its 1st version, but since then it's been made cheaper, and it
    shows.

    > I would like to know whether zoom lenses are really inferior to non-zoom
    > (I'm sure there's a name for those) lenses in terms of sharpness and
    > colour rendition etc. The zoom lenses I have don't seem to be very sharp
    > but maybe I'm making some sort of mistake when I'm taking pictures. I
    > have read that kit lenses aren't all that good anyway.


    I can show you sharp pictures from both zoom and prime lenses. See website
    below.

    > The camera I used before I got the Canon was a manual Olympus SLR with a
    > few different lenses, mostly with a single focal length, and I was very
    > happy with the sharpness and focus of the pictures, and I got many


    Olympus lenses were (nearly) all built for professional use. Pity about their
    cheaper bodies.

    > compliments. Unfortunately the shutters on the 2 Olympus bodies I had
    > failed and I got tired of taking them to get fixed. Since on any given
    > vacation I seem to come back with at least 1000 photos (and that's an
    > underestimate), I am spending a lot of film and developing and it seems
    > that digital is the way to go. In the new year when stores actually have
    > it in stock again I'm planning to buy a 10D.


    I'm pleased with my 10D.

    >
    > 400mm f/5.6 L USM - this is one that I'm pretty certain of getting
    > because I have seen some absolutely stunning images taken with this
    > lens, and actually I have found a few (very good) reviews of it. I'm
    > mostly wanting to know which lenses I should get as companions to this one.


    This lens has a good reputation.

    > 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - Since the 10D has the 1.6x focal ratio it seems
    > important to get some kind of wide angle lens. Is this zoom lens less
    > sharp than one with a single focal length, and should I consider a
    > different one, or does the larger range of focal length make up for any
    > decrease in sharpness?


    I've just bought the 20 f2.8 for sort of wide-angle on the 10D. (=32mm)

    > 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM - I've read good things about this lens on this
    > newsgroups. I guess it would replace the 80-200 lens I already have. It
    > would probably be the lens that is in the camera most of the time
    > because of its versatility. Is this a good choice for that purpose?


    Probably not as sharp as the 80-200. Try the old 100-300L if you can find one.

    > 135mm f/2.8 with soft focus - I thought I might like to try some outdoor
    > portrait photography. Is this a good lens for that or is there a better
    > lens for that purpose? I have read that this lens is also good for
    > landscapes, and it's nice and sharp at the 0 softness setting. If my
    > calculations are correct this lens would be equivalent to a 216mm lens.
    > That might be a bit long for portrait work.


    Try a 50 (=80) or the 85 f1.8. (=~135 )

    > I would very much appreciate any and all comments about the above lenses
    > or recommendations of any other lenses which I might find useful.
    >
    > Thanks.


    Visit the Canon SLR lens forum
    http://www.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1029
    at www.dpreview.com for more detailed replies to your queries.

    --
    M Stewart
    Milton Keynes, UK
    www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
    http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ms1938/
     
    Malcolm Stewart, Dec 17, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. cc

    Don Coon Guest

    Point #1: Reviews of lenses

    A compilation of lens quality based on reviews:
    http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm
    Same web site but this time user reviews:
    http://www.photozone.de/
    Another seires of user review from PhotographyReview:
    http://www.photographyreview.com/Lenses/PSC_3787crx.aspx
    Finally, more user ratings from Fred Miranda's site:
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showgallery.php?cat=27

    From these sites you should be able to get a pretty good assessment of the
    lenses you listed. Don't trust any single source or any individual's
    recommendation. People tend to rate what they own higher than what they no
    little about : )

    Point #1: Are zooms really inferior to primes (non-zooms)?

    As a general statement, absolutely. A look at the first site will easily
    confirm that. Zooms by their very nature involve compromises in design and
    construction. The longer the zoom range, the worse the lens with few
    exceptions. An 11X 28-300 will be significantly less sharp than say a 3X
    24-70.



    "cc" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Canon has a rebate program going on until the end of January and I
    > thought I might take advantage of it, since all I have for lenses right
    > now are the 28-80 and 80-200 zoom lenses that came in the kit with my
    > film SLR, and they don't seem to produce as sharp results as I would
    > like. I have looked for online reviews of the lenses but there really
    > aren't that many. Most of the reviews are about cameras and such.


    > I would like to know whether zoom lenses are really inferior to non-zoom
    > (I'm sure there's a name for those) lenses in terms of sharpness and
    > colour rendition etc. The zoom lenses I have don't seem to be very sharp
    > but maybe I'm making some sort of mistake when I'm taking pictures. I
    > have read that kit lenses aren't all that good anyway.

    SNIP

    > 400mm f/5.6 L USM - this is one that I'm pretty certain of getting
    > because I have seen some absolutely stunning images taken with this
    > lens, and actually I have found a few (very good) reviews of it. I'm
    > mostly wanting to know which lenses I should get as companions to this

    one.

    Being a Prime and sporting "L" glass this lens is naturally rated "Good"
    (3.56 of 5) by PhotoZone but within its category it's merely average. I
    count 5 "Outstandings", 7 "Excellent", 7 "Very Goods" and 9 "Goods" ---
    given this wealth of ratings I didn't bother with the rest. But at $1060US
    you've shot half your budget on a f/5.6 lens. Remember that this will be a
    whopping 640mm lens on a 10D! For comparison the high rated 70-200 F/4 L is
    rated 4.17 "Very Good" yet costs only $560. On the 10D it's a 112-320mm
    lens.

    > 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - Since the 10D has the 1.6x focal ratio it seems
    > important to get some kind of wide angle lens. Is this zoom lens less
    > sharp than one with a single focal length, and should I consider a
    > different one, or does the larger range of focal length make up for any
    > decrease in sharpness?


    It's an average 3.22 lens but, in quality and price it's to the 3.26 20mm
    prime. A hot lens in this category is the 17-40 f4 L rated 3.74 but it runs
    about twice as much at $725. Remember here that 20mm = 32mm on the 10D; 17mm
    = 27mm. I own the 17-40 and it's a very sharp lens.

    > 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM - I've read good things about this lens on this
    > newsgroups. I guess it would replace the 80-200 lens I already have. It
    > would probably be the lens that is in the camera most of the time
    > because of its versatility. Is this a good choice for that purpose?


    The 75-300 is a "sub-average" 2.62 lens. It's OK but just OK. If you get
    one get the Image Stabizer version. I have one but just picked up a Sigma
    100-300 EX rated 4.17 and it blows it away with ease. But again it's a $700
    lens vs. $400 for the 75-300 USM IS.

    >
    > 135mm f/2.8 with soft focus - I thought I might like to try some outdoor
    > portrait photography. Is this a good lens for that or is there a better
    > lens for that purpose? I have read that this lens is also good for
    > landscapes, and it's nice and sharp at the 0 softness setting. If my
    > calculations are correct this lens would be equivalent to a 216mm lens.
    > That might be a bit long for portrait work.


    Can't comments much on this one.

    I would recommend that you forget the rebates in making your decision and
    focus (pun intended) on assembling a set of good lenses that will cover the
    entire range you expect to shoot.

    A popular setup:

    Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM @ $400 rated "Good" at 3.25. This lens is
    probably one of the most popular lenses with 10D owners due to its quality,
    price and zoom range. It's a 45-218mm lens on the 10D ,aking it a good
    "walk-around" lens.

    Canon 50mm f1.8 II @ $70 is a no-brainer. It's rated 3.91 "Very Good" and
    make an almost perfect portrait lens at 80mm on a 10D. Very sharp!

    Add the 17-40mm f4L @ about $750 and the 70-200 f4L at $560 and you've
    covered everything from 17 to 200 (27-320 on a 10D) for $1780. Use the
    change to buy a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter if you still feel the need for more
    range.

    Best of Luck!
     
    Don Coon, Dec 17, 2003
    #3
  4. cc

    Ed E. Guest

    Non-zoom lenses are called primes. They're usually sharper than a zoom lens
    at the matching focal length. The lenses you mentioned are average. Check
    out http://www.photographyreview.com for some end-user lens ratings. And
    don't rule out the 70-200mm f/4.0 lens (or the f/2.8 if it isn't too
    expensive.)
     
    Ed E., Dec 17, 2003
    #4
  5. cc

    JK Guest

    cc wrote:

    > Canon has a rebate program going on until the end of January and I
    > thought I might take advantage of it, since all I have for lenses right
    > now are the 28-80 and 80-200 zoom lenses that came in the kit with my
    > film SLR, and they don't seem to produce as sharp results as I would
    > like. I have looked for online reviews of the lenses but there really
    > aren't that many. Most of the reviews are about cameras and such.
    >
    > I would like to know whether zoom lenses are really inferior to non-zoom
    > (I'm sure there's a name for those) lenses in terms of sharpness and
    > colour rendition etc. The zoom lenses I have don't seem to be very sharp
    > but maybe I'm making some sort of mistake when I'm taking pictures. I
    > have read that kit lenses aren't all that good anyway.
    >
    > The camera I used before I got the Canon was a manual Olympus SLR with a
    > few different lenses, mostly with a single focal length, and I was very
    > happy with the sharpness and focus of the pictures, and I got many
    > compliments. Unfortunately the shutters on the 2 Olympus bodies I had
    > failed and I got tired of taking them to get fixed. Since on any given
    > vacation I seem to come back with at least 1000 photos (and that's an
    > underestimate), I am spending a lot of film and developing and it seems
    > that digital is the way to go. In the new year when stores actually have
    > it in stock again I'm planning to buy a 10D.
    >
    > I would like to be able to take high quality photos which I could
    > eventually perhaps sell when I get to be a good enough photographer. In
    > other words, I want not to be limited by my equipment. I mostly take
    > pictures outdoors of buildings, animals, landscapes, citiscapes,
    > statues, etc., pretty much anything that would seem to make a good
    > subject (and some abstract stuff too). My indoor shots have mostly been
    > limited to cute pictures of my cat, the year's Christmas tree, and the
    > odd.trip to a museum or fancy church when on vacation.
    >
    > I would appreciate any comments anyone might have about the following
    > lenses and how they perform in the Canon 10D. If you would recommend
    > different lenses than these please tell me. Please keep in mind that I
    > don't want to spend more than $2000 total on lenses (before rebate) and
    > the first lens is more than half that.
    >
    > 400mm f/5.6 L USM - this is one that I'm pretty certain of getting
    > because I have seen some absolutely stunning images taken with this
    > lens, and actually I have found a few (very good) reviews of it. I'm
    > mostly wanting to know which lenses I should get as companions to this one.
    >
    > 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - Since the 10D has the 1.6x focal ratio it seems
    > important to get some kind of wide angle lens. Is this zoom lens less
    > sharp than one with a single focal length, and should I consider a
    > different one, or does the larger range of focal length make up for any
    > decrease in sharpness?


    The zoom ratio is quite small, so there really isn't even much of a
    point getting this zoom. Why not get a 24mm f2.8 lens instead?

    >
    >
    > 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM - I've read good things about this lens on this
    > newsgroups. I guess it would replace the 80-200 lens I already have.


    A slow 75mm-300 zoom seems kind of silly for the 10D(especially
    due to the 1.6x factor), unless you plan to always carry a tripod.
    Since you already have an 80-200 mm lens(is it an f2.8, f3.5, f4,
    or slower than those?) I suggest that you use that.

    > It
    > would probably be the lens that is in the camera most of the time
    > because of its versatility. Is this a good choice for that purpose?
    >
    > 135mm f/2.8 with soft focus - I thought I might like to try some outdoor
    > portrait photography. Is this a good lens for that or is there a better
    > lens for that purpose?


    135mm on the 10D (keep in mind the 1.6x factor!) is too much of a telephoto
    for portraits. A 50mm f1.8 would be a nice cheap portrait lens for the 10D.
    If you want more telephoto, an 85mm f2.8 lens would be another choice
    for a portrait lens using a 10D.

    > I have read that this lens is also good for
    > landscapes, and it's nice and sharp at the 0 softness setting. If my
    > calculations are correct this lens would be equivalent to a 216mm lens.
    > That might be a bit long for portrait work.


    More than a bit. 80mm -135mm equivalent is the ideal range for a portrait lens.
    A 50mm lens on the 10D acts like an 80mm lens.

    >
    >
    > I would very much appreciate any and all comments about the above lenses
    > or recommendations of any other lenses which I might find useful.
    >
    > Thanks.
     
    JK, Dec 17, 2003
    #5
  6. I have the 20-35 and have been quite pleased with it. It was the only
    affordable lens that would give close to a 28mm perspective without
    breaking the bank.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Dec 18, 2003
    #6
  7. cc

    MarkH Guest

    JK <> wrote in news::

    >> 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM - I've read good things about this lens on
    >> this newsgroups. I guess it would replace the 80-200 lens I already
    >> have.

    >
    > A slow 75mm-300 zoom seems kind of silly for the 10D(especially
    > due to the 1.6x factor), unless you plan to always carry a tripod.
    > Since you already have an 80-200 mm lens(is it an f2.8, f3.5, f4,
    > or slower than those?) I suggest that you use that.


    I have the 75-300 III f4-5.6 USM lens for my 10D. I don’t usually carry a
    tripod to use it with. In good light like on a sunny day I have no trouble
    getting 1/800sec or faster (even in the middle of winter).

    Since the OP is asking about sharpness I wouldn’t recommend this lens, it’s
    not too bad but most other lenses are sharper. Also it is useless on an
    overcast day or any low light situation unless you use a tripod. It is
    alright for good light where you want to print at only 4x6 or put the
    pictures on the web, but I wouldn’t claim that it is a sharp lens.




    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
     
    MarkH, Dec 18, 2003
    #7
  8. cc

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <aB2Eb.415928$ao4.1350646@attbi_s51>,
    coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com says...
    > Being a Prime and sporting "L" glass this lens is naturally rated "Good"
    > (3.56 of 5) by PhotoZone but within its category it's merely average. I
    > count 5 "Outstandings", 7 "Excellent", 7 "Very Goods" and 9 "Goods" ---
    > given this wealth of ratings I didn't bother with the rest. But at $1060US
    > you've shot half your budget on a f/5.6 lens. Remember that this will be a
    > whopping 640mm lens on a 10D! For comparison the high rated 70-200 F/4 L is
    > rated 4.17 "Very Good" yet costs only $560. On the 10D it's a 112-320mm
    > lens.


    I can second the recommendation of the 70-200 f/4L. I have it and it's a
    fantastic lens. Most will tell you that it's slightly sharper than the
    2.8 version of the 70-200 which costs twice as much. Of course you are
    sacrificing one stop by going with the f/4 but the noise at high ISOs is
    so low on the 10D, I don't find that this is a problem.

    > It's an average 3.22 lens but, in quality and price it's to the 3.26 20mm
    > prime. A hot lens in this category is the 17-40 f4 L rated 3.74 but it runs
    > about twice as much at $725. Remember here that 20mm = 32mm on the 10D; 17mm
    > = 27mm. I own the 17-40 and it's a very sharp lens.


    Actually you can get the 17-40 for $680 from www.17photo.com -- a great
    deal on a fantastic lens. This one is my next purchase.

    > The 75-300 is a "sub-average" 2.62 lens. It's OK but just OK. If you get
    > one get the Image Stabizer version. I have one but just picked up a Sigma
    > 100-300 EX rated 4.17 and it blows it away with ease. But again it's a $700
    > lens vs. $400 for the 75-300 USM IS.


    Yep, the 75-300 isn't up to the standards of the 28-135 for instance. If
    you need a cheap zoom with IS, it's OK but there are better lenses out
    there with comparable focal lengths.

    > > 135mm f/2.8 with soft focus - I thought I might like to try some outdoor
    > > portrait photography. Is this a good lens for that or is there a better
    > > lens for that purpose? I have read that this lens is also good for
    > > landscapes, and it's nice and sharp at the 0 softness setting. If my
    > > calculations are correct this lens would be equivalent to a 216mm lens.
    > > That might be a bit long for portrait work.

    >
    > Can't comments much on this one.


    Me either but IMHO a soft focus lens is pointless with digital since you
    can do soft focus to YOUR liking in your image editor.

    > I would recommend that you forget the rebates in making your decision and
    > focus (pun intended) on assembling a set of good lenses that will cover the
    > entire range you expect to shoot.


    As usual, excellent advice Don.

    > A popular setup:
    >
    > Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM @ $400 rated "Good" at 3.25. This lens is
    > probably one of the most popular lenses with 10D owners due to its quality,
    > price and zoom range. It's a 45-218mm lens on the 10D ,aking it a good
    > "walk-around" lens.


    My most used lens. Highly recommended and a steal at $400. Canon could
    slap an L label on this lens and sell it for significantly more IMHO.

    > Canon 50mm f1.8 II @ $70 is a no-brainer. It's rated 3.91 "Very Good" and
    > make an almost perfect portrait lens at 80mm on a 10D. Very sharp!


    Yep, every 10D owner should have the 50/1.8.

    > Add the 17-40mm f4L @ about $750 and the 70-200 f4L at $560 and you've
    > covered everything from 17 to 200 (27-320 on a 10D) for $1780. Use the
    > change to buy a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter if you still feel the need for more
    > range.


    Sounds like a winner to me Don! :)

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    Canon 10D
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    http://www.twphotography.net
    __________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Dec 18, 2003
    #8
  9. cc

    Don Coon Guest


    > JK <> wrote in news::
    >
    > >> 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM - I've read good things about this lens on
    > >> this newsgroups. I guess it would replace the 80-200 lens I already
    > >> have.

    > >
    > > A slow 75mm-300 zoom seems kind of silly for the 10D(especially
    > > due to the 1.6x factor), unless you plan to always carry a tripod.
    > > Since you already have an 80-200 mm lens(is it an f2.8, f3.5, f4,
    > > or slower than those?) I suggest that you use that.


    The Image Stabilized version of the 75-300 can easily be used hand-held.
    "IS" is the eqivalent of up to 2 full stops. However, its sharpness is
    below average per PhotoZone and confirmed by personal use. Sharpness is
    worse at the 300mm end. It retails for $429 (less a $30 rebate); the SHARP
    Canon 70-200 f4 L is relatively a steal at about $560.
     
    Don Coon, Dec 18, 2003
    #9
  10. "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    news:qTiEb.586930$Tr4.1560977@attbi_s03...

    > the SHARP Canon 70-200 f4 L is relatively a steal at about $560.


    A better idea is both incredibly fast and incredibly sharp...

    http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=587759/prsrt=1/ut=da911932b7333cca

    With the 1.4X EX teleconverter, it's the same speed as the Canon at 280mm.
    And if the 1 stop difference between the Sigma and the Canon isn't a big
    deal, the Sigma will go to 400mm. The Sigma is better built too.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 18, 2003
    #10
  11. cc

    Don Coon Guest

    "Todd Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <aB2Eb.415928$ao4.1350646@attbi_s51>,
    > coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com says...
    > > Being a Prime and sporting "L" glass this lens is naturally rated "Good"
    > > (3.56 of 5) by PhotoZone but within its category it's merely average. I
    > > count 5 "Outstandings", 7 "Excellent", 7 "Very Goods" and 9 "Goods" ---
    > > given this wealth of ratings I didn't bother with the rest. But at

    $1060US
    > > you've shot half your budget on a f/5.6 lens. Remember that this will be

    a
    > > whopping 640mm lens on a 10D! For comparison the high rated 70-200 F/4

    L is
    > > rated 4.17 "Very Good" yet costs only $560. On the 10D it's a 112-320mm
    > > lens.

    >
    > I can second the recommendation of the 70-200 f/4L. I have it and it's a
    > fantastic lens. Most will tell you that it's slightly sharper than the
    > 2.8 version of the 70-200 which costs twice as much. Of course you are
    > sacrificing one stop by going with the f/4 but the noise at high ISOs is
    > so low on the 10D, I don't find that this is a problem.
    >
    > > It's an average 3.22 lens but, in quality and price it's to the 3.26

    20mm
    > > prime. A hot lens in this category is the 17-40 f4 L rated 3.74 but it

    runs
    > > about twice as much at $725. Remember here that 20mm = 32mm on the 10D;

    17mm
    > > = 27mm. I own the 17-40 and it's a very sharp lens.

    >
    > Actually you can get the 17-40 for $680 from www.17photo.com -- a great
    > deal on a fantastic lens. This one is my next purchase.
    >
    > > The 75-300 is a "sub-average" 2.62 lens. It's OK but just OK. If you

    get
    > > one get the Image Stabizer version. I have one but just picked up a

    Sigma
    > > 100-300 EX rated 4.17 and it blows it away with ease. But again it's a

    $700
    > > lens vs. $400 for the 75-300 USM IS.

    >
    > Yep, the 75-300 isn't up to the standards of the 28-135 for instance. If
    > you need a cheap zoom with IS, it's OK but there are better lenses out
    > there with comparable focal lengths.
    >
    > > > 135mm f/2.8 with soft focus - I thought I might like to try some

    outdoor
    > > > portrait photography. Is this a good lens for that or is there a

    better
    > > > lens for that purpose? I have read that this lens is also good for
    > > > landscapes, and it's nice and sharp at the 0 softness setting. If my
    > > > calculations are correct this lens would be equivalent to a 216mm

    lens.
    > > > That might be a bit long for portrait work.

    > >
    > > Can't comments much on this one.

    >
    > Me either but IMHO a soft focus lens is pointless with digital since you
    > can do soft focus to YOUR liking in your image editor.
    >
    > > I would recommend that you forget the rebates in making your decision

    and
    > > focus (pun intended) on assembling a set of good lenses that will cover

    the
    > > entire range you expect to shoot.

    >
    > As usual, excellent advice Don.
    >
    > > A popular setup:
    > >
    > > Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM @ $400 rated "Good" at 3.25. This lens is
    > > probably one of the most popular lenses with 10D owners due to its

    quality,
    > > price and zoom range. It's a 45-218mm lens on the 10D ,aking it a good
    > > "walk-around" lens.

    >
    > My most used lens. Highly recommended and a steal at $400. Canon could
    > slap an L label on this lens and sell it for significantly more IMHO.
    >
    > > Canon 50mm f1.8 II @ $70 is a no-brainer. It's rated 3.91 "Very Good"

    and
    > > make an almost perfect portrait lens at 80mm on a 10D. Very sharp!

    >
    > Yep, every 10D owner should have the 50/1.8.
    >
    > > Add the 17-40mm f4L @ about $750 and the 70-200 f4L at $560 and you've
    > > covered everything from 17 to 200 (27-320 on a 10D) for $1780. Use

    the
    > > change to buy a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter if you still feel the need for

    more
    > > range.

    >
    > Sounds like a winner to me Don! :)


    Hello Todd!

    My price shown on the 17-40mm f4L is a little high since I did it from
    memory. I paid $700 at B&H. However, I did snatch up a like-new Sigma
    100-300 EX HSM for $650 vs. $839 at B&H. It's rated right up there with the
    70-200 f4L but it's a big boy! Sharp, sharp, sharp!

    Happy holidays!

    PS- Wife says the Sigma's my Christmas present : )
     
    Don Coon, Dec 18, 2003
    #11
  12. cc

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <%5jEb.390962$Dw6.1243320@attbi_s02>,
    coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com says...
    > Hello Todd!
    >
    > My price shown on the 17-40mm f4L is a little high since I did it from
    > memory. I paid $700 at B&H. However, I did snatch up a like-new Sigma
    > 100-300 EX HSM for $650 vs. $839 at B&H. It's rated right up there with the
    > 70-200 f4L but it's a big boy! Sharp, sharp, sharp!
    >
    > Happy holidays!
    >
    > PS- Wife says the Sigma's my Christmas present : )
    >


    I have heard a lot of really good things about the Sigma 100-300. It's
    only about $100 less than the 50-500 which I have also heard great
    things about, but the 100-300 is 3.26 pounds vs. 4.1 for the 50-500. I
    would guess that either would really need to be used with a tripod
    unless you just need your workout for the day. That's one thing I love
    about my 70-200 -- a 320mm equivalent focal length and it doesn't weigh
    much more than my 28-135. I love the 1.6 crop factor :)

    You have any sample pics on the web from the 100-300?

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    Canon 10D
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    http://www.twphotography.net
    __________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Dec 18, 2003
    #12
  13. cc

    Don Coon Guest

    "Todd Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <%5jEb.390962$Dw6.1243320@attbi_s02>,
    > coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com says...
    > > Hello Todd!
    > >
    > > My price shown on the 17-40mm f4L is a little high since I did it from
    > > memory. I paid $700 at B&H. However, I did snatch up a like-new Sigma
    > > 100-300 EX HSM for $650 vs. $839 at B&H. It's rated right up there with

    the
    > > 70-200 f4L but it's a big boy! Sharp, sharp, sharp!
    > >
    > > Happy holidays!
    > >
    > > PS- Wife says the Sigma's my Christmas present : )
    > >

    >
    > I have heard a lot of really good things about the Sigma 100-300. It's
    > only about $100 less than the 50-500 which I have also heard great
    > things about, but the 100-300 is 3.26 pounds vs. 4.1 for the 50-500. I
    > would guess that either would really need to be used with a tripod
    > unless you just need your workout for the day. That's one thing I love
    > about my 70-200 -- a 320mm equivalent focal length and it doesn't weigh
    > much more than my 28-135. I love the 1.6 crop factor :)
    >
    > You have any sample pics on the web from the 100-300?
    >


    Not yet : ( Weather's been crappy in Michigan since I got it. (Where the
    hell did the sun go?)

    I have a standard test shot for long zooms which I use to compare lenses. I
    live on a small lake about 1/4 mile wide. Straight across is a park with a
    colorful play set in orange, yellow and blues. There's a new wooden sea wall
    I use to see how sharp the wood grain resolves and a few benches, etc. At
    250mm hand-held with sunlight it's all tack sharp then falls off somewhat --
    pretty good for 500 yards! Can't quite make out the numbers on a license
    plate another 100 yards back but much of that has to do with the lack of
    light. I'll have to ask the guy to park his car out of the shadows. Will
    have to wait for my annual winter trip south in January.
     
    Don Coon, Dec 18, 2003
    #13
  14. cc

    MarkH Guest

    "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in
    news:qTiEb.586930$Tr4.1560977@attbi_s03:

    >
    >> JK <> wrote in news::
    >>
    >> >> 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM - I've read good things about this lens
    >> >> on this newsgroups. I guess it would replace the 80-200 lens I
    >> >> already have.
    >> >
    >> > A slow 75mm-300 zoom seems kind of silly for the 10D(especially
    >> > due to the 1.6x factor), unless you plan to always carry a tripod.
    >> > Since you already have an 80-200 mm lens(is it an f2.8, f3.5, f4,
    >> > or slower than those?) I suggest that you use that.

    >
    > The Image Stabilized version of the 75-300 can easily be used
    > hand-held. "IS" is the eqivalent of up to 2 full stops. However, its
    > sharpness is below average per PhotoZone and confirmed by personal
    > use. Sharpness is worse at the 300mm end. It retails for $429 (less a
    > $30 rebate); the SHARP Canon 70-200 f4 L is relatively a steal at
    > about $560.


    Personally I decided against the IS version because it is too expensive for
    a soft lens. My non-IS version may be just as soft, but it was very cheap.
    My intention is to use my 75-300 for the focal range it gives (good light
    or tripod only) until I can afford to get a GOOD replacement. Once I have
    saved enough I intent to buy a 70-200 f2.8L IS and a 1.4x teleconverter,
    once I have that I’ll be glad I didn’t spend too much on my cheap lens.


    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
     
    MarkH, Dec 18, 2003
    #14
  15. cc

    Don Coon Guest

    "MarkH" <> wrote in message
    news:brt58f$h7l$...
    > "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in
    > news:qTiEb.586930$Tr4.1560977@attbi_s03:
    >
    > >
    > >> JK <> wrote in news::
    > >>
    > >> >> 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM - I've read good things about this lens
    > >> >> on this newsgroups. I guess it would replace the 80-200 lens I
    > >> >> already have.
    > >> >
    > >> > A slow 75mm-300 zoom seems kind of silly for the 10D(especially
    > >> > due to the 1.6x factor), unless you plan to always carry a tripod.
    > >> > Since you already have an 80-200 mm lens(is it an f2.8, f3.5, f4,
    > >> > or slower than those?) I suggest that you use that.

    > >
    > > The Image Stabilized version of the 75-300 can easily be used
    > > hand-held. "IS" is the eqivalent of up to 2 full stops. However, its
    > > sharpness is below average per PhotoZone and confirmed by personal
    > > use. Sharpness is worse at the 300mm end. It retails for $429 (less a
    > > $30 rebate); the SHARP Canon 70-200 f4 L is relatively a steal at
    > > about $560.

    >
    > Personally I decided against the IS version because it is too expensive

    for
    > a soft lens. My non-IS version may be just as soft, but it was very

    cheap.
    > My intention is to use my 75-300 for the focal range it gives (good light
    > or tripod only) until I can afford to get a GOOD replacement. Once I have
    > saved enough I intent to buy a 70-200 f2.8L IS and a 1.4x teleconverter,
    > once I have that I’ll be glad I didn’t spend too much on my cheap lens.


    Mark,

    I owned the non-IS version for a short while due to a shipping error by B&H.
    Took several shots before I returned it. When I got the IS version I found
    that IS was well worth the extra cost as I could hand hold it at a full
    300mm with ease.

    Also I've heard that the glass in the IS version is not the same as the
    non-IS due to the extra elements neccessary to facilitate IS. Supposedly
    the IS version glass is sharper than the non-IS. I have no direct reference
    to support this supposition.

    FWIW,
    Don
     
    Don Coon, Dec 19, 2003
    #15
  16. "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    news:6XtEb.146989$_M.721736@attbi_s54...

    > I owned the non-IS version for a short while due to a shipping error by

    B&H.
    > Took several shots before I returned it. When I got the IS version I

    found
    > that IS was well worth the extra cost as I could hand hold it at a full
    > 300mm with ease.


    When the pic is blurry either way (Bayer), that really helps.
     
    George Preddy, Dec 21, 2003
    #16
  17. cc

    Guest

    In message <bs55fh$82r$>,
    "George Preddy" <> wrote:

    >"Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    >news:6XtEb.146989$_M.721736@attbi_s54...
    >
    >> I owned the non-IS version for a short while due to a shipping error by

    >B&H.
    >> Took several shots before I returned it. When I got the IS version I

    >found
    >> that IS was well worth the extra cost as I could hand hold it at a full
    >> 300mm with ease.

    >
    >When the pic is blurry either way (Bayer), that really helps.


    You're fabricating the irrelevance. You are full of hot air, as usual.
    You can see the slightest camera instability with a 6MP bayer DSLR, and
    you can see the difference in quality between lenses. The AA filtering
    lowers contrast of high frequencies. The higher the contrast to begin
    with, the higher the contrast after the filtering. You are pathetically
    ignorant of the subjects on which you pontificate daily.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Dec 23, 2003
    #17
  18. cc

    Don Coon Guest


    > "George Preddy" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    > >news:6XtEb.146989$_M.721736@attbi_s54...
    > >
    > >> I owned the non-IS version for a short while due to a shipping error by

    > >B&H.
    > >> Took several shots before I returned it. When I got the IS version I

    > >found
    > >> that IS was well worth the extra cost as I could hand hold it at a full
    > >> 300mm with ease.

    > >
    > >When the pic is blurry either way (Bayer), that really helps.


    You mean "blurry" like your mind? What a piece of work!!
     
    Don Coon, Dec 23, 2003
    #18
  19. <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > In message <bs55fh$82r$>,
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    > >news:6XtEb.146989$_M.721736@attbi_s54...
    > >
    > >> I owned the non-IS version for a short while due to a shipping error by

    > >B&H.
    > >> Took several shots before I returned it. When I got the IS version I

    > >found
    > >> that IS was well worth the extra cost as I could hand hold it at a full
    > >> 300mm with ease.

    > >
    > >When the pic is blurry either way (Bayer), that really helps.

    >
    > You're fabricating the irrelevance. You are full of hot air, as usual.


    Is that supposed to be some sort of response?
     
    George Preddy, Dec 23, 2003
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brian

    Advice please for Canon A40 telephoto lens

    Brian, Dec 31, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    485
    Brian
    Jan 2, 2004
  2. Martin Lyons

    Canon lens advice please

    Martin Lyons, Aug 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    406
    Mitch Alsup
    Aug 24, 2004
  3. compitus

    Canon A80 lens advice please

    compitus, Sep 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    303
    compitus
    Sep 1, 2004
  4. Viktor

    Canon lens advice needed

    Viktor, Dec 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    618
  5. Tom

    Canon 17-85mm IS Lens vs Canon 17-40L Lens

    Tom, May 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    792
    SamSez
    May 21, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page