Need lenses

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Max, Mar 29, 2012.

  1. Max

    Max Guest

    I recently purchased a Canon EOS 60D (very slightly used and at a good
    price)
    I would like some recommendations for two Canon lenses:
    a "wide" zoom and a tele zoom.

    Max
    Max, Mar 29, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Max

    eatmorepies Guest

    "Max" <> wrote in message
    news:4f749285$0$2251$c3e8da3$...
    >I recently purchased a Canon EOS 60D (very slightly used and at a good
    >price)
    > I would like some recommendations for two Canon lenses:
    > a "wide" zoom and a tele zoom.
    >
    > Max
    >


    Any of the 70-200mm L lenses will do the trick. You may think them expensive
    as the cheapest may cost as much as your used body but they will allow the
    camera to produce the images it's capable of.

    My first DSLR was a 350D. On it, I used the consumer lenses I already owned.
    Then I saw some 350D images on the net that were technically so much better
    than anything I could produce - sharper, more saturated colours - much more
    punchy. I emailed the guy and asked how he got such results with the same
    camera. He didn't use the same camera, he used the same body with a good
    lens on it a 70-200mm f2.8L. I bought one and was overwhelmed with the
    quality of the images.

    They are expensive. But that same lens, which cost me £707 new in 2006 was
    sold last month on eBay for £693 (about 635 after eBay fees). Those
    professional lenses hold their value so well.

    The 70-200mm starts around £450. If you can stretch to it buy the 70-200mm
    f4L IS - it is astounding.

    John
    eatmorepies, Mar 29, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Max

    Max Guest

    "eatmorepies" wrote in message news:...


    "Max" <> wrote in message
    news:4f749285$0$2251$c3e8da3$...
    >I recently purchased a Canon EOS 60D (very slightly used and at a good
    >price)
    > I would like some recommendations for two Canon lenses:
    > a "wide" zoom and a tele zoom.
    >
    > Max
    >


    Any of the 70-200mm L lenses will do the trick. You may think them expensive
    as the cheapest may cost as much as your used body but they will allow the
    camera to produce the images it's capable of.

    My first DSLR was a 350D. On it, I used the consumer lenses I already owned.
    Then I saw some 350D images on the net that were technically so much better
    than anything I could produce - sharper, more saturated colours - much more
    punchy. I emailed the guy and asked how he got such results with the same
    camera. He didn't use the same camera, he used the same body with a good
    lens on it a 70-200mm f2.8L. I bought one and was overwhelmed with the
    quality of the images.

    They are expensive. But that same lens, which cost me £707 new in 2006 was
    sold last month on eBay for £693 (about 635 after eBay fees). Those
    professional lenses hold their value so well.

    The 70-200mm starts around £450. If you can stretch to it buy the 70-200mm
    f4L IS - it is astounding.

    John

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Thanks for the info. I'm looking at this one:

    http://tinyurl.com/67e3xrb

    It seems to fit my needs.

    Now I need to decide on a "wide" zoom; maybe 18-55 or 18-135.

    Max
    Max, Mar 30, 2012
    #3
  4. Max

    otter Guest

    On Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:56:31 PM UTC-5, Max wrote:
    > "eatmorepies" wrote in message news:...
    >
    >
    > "Max" <> wrote in message
    > news:4f749285$0$2251$c3e8da3$...
    > >I recently purchased a Canon EOS 60D (very slightly used and at a good
    > >price)
    > > I would like some recommendations for two Canon lenses:
    > > a "wide" zoom and a tele zoom.
    > >
    > > Max
    > >

    >
    > Any of the 70-200mm L lenses will do the trick. You may think them expensive
    > as the cheapest may cost as much as your used body but they will allow the
    > camera to produce the images it's capable of.
    >
    > My first DSLR was a 350D. On it, I used the consumer lenses I already owned.
    > Then I saw some 350D images on the net that were technically so much better
    > than anything I could produce - sharper, more saturated colours - much more
    > punchy. I emailed the guy and asked how he got such results with the same
    > camera. He didn't use the same camera, he used the same body with a good
    > lens on it a 70-200mm f2.8L. I bought one and was overwhelmed with the
    > quality of the images.
    >
    > They are expensive. But that same lens, which cost me £707 new in 2006 was
    > sold last month on eBay for £693 (about 635 after eBay fees). Those
    > professional lenses hold their value so well.
    >
    > The 70-200mm starts around £450. If you can stretch to it buy the 70-200mm
    > f4L IS - it is astounding.
    >
    > John
    >
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >
    > Thanks for the info. I'm looking at this one:
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/67e3xrb
    >
    > It seems to fit my needs.
    >
    > Now I need to decide on a "wide" zoom; maybe 18-55 or 18-135.
    >
    > Max


    The EF-S 17-55 f2.8 is generally regarded as excellent. There are other choices, though. Only you can decide.

    For the tele, the 70-200 f4L is an excellent lens at a reasonable price (compared to the f2.8L).

    But, again, it is your money and your choice. You can always buy cheaper to begin with and then sell to trade up.
    otter, Mar 30, 2012
    #4
  5. Max

    eatmorepies Guest

    eatmorepies, Mar 30, 2012
    #5
  6. Max <> wrote:
    > I recently purchased a Canon EOS 60D (very slightly used and at a good
    > price)
    > I would like some recommendations for two Canon lenses:
    > a "wide" zoom and a tele zoom.


    How wide, how tele and how high is the budget?

    For example, there's the 10-22 EF-S as an ultrawide --- wide
    enough?

    Do you need fast lenses? Or would lighter, slower lenses be
    OK?

    Do you need them to have little gap between their ranges?

    Could you be interested in a 50mm (the f/1.8 is Canon's
    cheapest lens, but optically good)? Very usable for low
    light photography ...

    Do you actually need a tele zoom, or would a tele non-zoom
    (say one of 85mm, 100mm, 135, 200mm, 300mm, ...) be 'good
    enough' (optically they are usually better, they just don't
    have the zoom range, obviously ...).

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 30, 2012
    #6
  7. Max

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > >
    > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > >
    > > Thanks for the info. I'm looking at this one:
    > >
    > > http://tinyurl.com/67e3xrb
    > >
    > > It seems to fit my needs.
    > >
    > > Now I need to decide on a "wide" zoom; maybe 18-55 or 18-135.
    > >
    > > Max

    >
    > And here's a review of that lens.
    >
    > http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
    >
    > John


    Personally I've got the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and it is my least
    favorite lens. The biggest annoyance is the lack of full-time manual
    focusing--if it's in autofocus you have to switch off autofocus to focus
    manually--one of these days I'm going to forget and force the damned
    thing and bust it. The zoom creeps (well, actually it leaps) I'm
    forever hitting the stabilizer control instead of the autofocus (they're
    right next to each other). The front element rotates. Focus is
    horribly slow. It's just a miserable thing to work with. If I had
    realized how bad it was I'd have saved my money and gone with the 55-
    250, which is just as bad but at least it doesn't pretend to be anything
    but a cheap lens.

    I realize this sounds like carping and for casual use it is but when you
    shoot a few hundred images a day it gets to be real annoying real fast.

    In the same price range as the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, Tamron has a lens
    with similar specifications that addresses most of the annoyances.
    That's the SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD. Optical performance is
    similar, there's full-time manual focus and the front element doesn't
    rotate. The autofocus and IS switches are still close together, but
    since it has full-time manual there's seldom any need to use the
    autofocus switch. Whether the focus is any faster and whether the zoom
    creeps I don't know. If I had it to do over again I'd go for the
    Tamron. The only downside is that it has 62mm filter mount which means
    I'd need to add another polarizer to my collection.

    If price is no object, Canon also has a 70-300 L lens which addresses
    most of the shortcomings and has better optical performance, but it's
    three times the price.
    J. Clarke, Mar 30, 2012
    #7
  8. Max

    Wally Guest

    On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:32:46 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    >says...
    >> >
    >> > Thanks for the info. I'm looking at this one:
    >> >
    >> > http://tinyurl.com/67e3xrb
    >> >
    >> > It seems to fit my needs.
    >> >
    >> > Now I need to decide on a "wide" zoom; maybe 18-55 or 18-135.
    >> >
    >> > Max

    >>
    >> And here's a review of that lens.
    >>
    >> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
    >>
    >> John

    >
    >Personally I've got the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and it is my least
    >favorite lens. The biggest annoyance is the lack of full-time manual
    >focusing--if it's in autofocus you have to switch off autofocus to focus
    >manually--one of these days I'm going to forget and force the damned
    >thing and bust it. The zoom creeps (well, actually it leaps)


    If the zoom creeps, then you must have the old version that hasn't
    been fixed. That version also suffers from poor sharpness when used in
    portrait mode. Get it fixed and both issues will go away.

    http://tinyurl.com/cykewp2
    http://www.photographyblog.com/news/canon_ef_70_300_f_4_56_is_usm_lens_service_notice/

    The 70-300mm is probably a suitable choice for the OP. Its sharpness
    is well short of L performance, but it is adequately sharp for most
    uses if you are not a pro. It is a reasonable price. It is light and
    compact, and those are significant advantages if you are on the go.

    As an aside, the 70-300mm works as a great long focal length macro
    lens when fitted with the 500D closeup attachment.

    Wally
    Wally, Mar 30, 2012
    #8
  9. Max

    Max Guest

    "J. Clarke" wrote in message
    news:...

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > >
    > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > >
    > > Thanks for the info. I'm looking at this one:
    > >
    > > http://tinyurl.com/67e3xrb
    > >
    > > It seems to fit my needs.
    > >
    > > Now I need to decide on a "wide" zoom; maybe 18-55 or 18-135.
    > >
    > > Max

    >
    > And here's a review of that lens.
    >
    > http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
    >
    > John


    Personally I've got the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and it is my least
    favorite lens. The biggest annoyance is the lack of full-time manual
    focusing--if it's in autofocus you have to switch off autofocus to focus
    manually--one of these days I'm going to forget and force the damned
    thing and bust it. The zoom creeps (well, actually it leaps) I'm
    forever hitting the stabilizer control instead of the autofocus (they're
    right next to each other). The front element rotates. Focus is
    horribly slow. It's just a miserable thing to work with. If I had
    realized how bad it was I'd have saved my money and gone with the 55-
    250, which is just as bad but at least it doesn't pretend to be anything
    but a cheap lens.

    I realize this sounds like carping and for casual use it is but when you
    shoot a few hundred images a day it gets to be real annoying real fast.

    In the same price range as the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, Tamron has a lens
    with similar specifications that addresses most of the annoyances.
    That's the SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD. Optical performance is
    similar, there's full-time manual focus and the front element doesn't
    rotate. The autofocus and IS switches are still close together, but
    since it has full-time manual there's seldom any need to use the
    autofocus switch. Whether the focus is any faster and whether the zoom
    creeps I don't know. If I had it to do over again I'd go for the
    Tamron. The only downside is that it has 62mm filter mount which means
    I'd need to add another polarizer to my collection.

    If price is no object, Canon also has a 70-300 L lens which addresses
    most of the shortcomings and has better optical performance, but it's
    three times the price.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Thanks for the info. Price *is* a consideration. I am an amateur
    photographer and have no illusions about winning any contests.
    We travel in an RV and I like to have photo "memories".
    I will take a serious look at the Tamron.
    Again, Thanks.

    Max
    Max, Mar 30, 2012
    #9
  10. "Max" <> writes:

    > "J. Clarke" wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >>
    >> >
    >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >> >
    >> > Thanks for the info. I'm looking at this one:
    >> >
    >> > http://tinyurl.com/67e3xrb
    >> >
    >> > It seems to fit my needs.
    >> >
    >> > Now I need to decide on a "wide" zoom; maybe 18-55 or 18-135.
    >> >
    >> > Max

    >>
    >> And here's a review of that lens.
    >>
    >> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
    >>
    >> John

    >
    > Personally I've got the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and it is my least
    > favorite lens. The biggest annoyance is the lack of full-time manual
    > focusing--if it's in autofocus you have to switch off autofocus to focus
    > manually--one of these days I'm going to forget and force the damned
    > thing and bust it.


    Interesting. Full-time manual focus is something that my main lenses
    now have -- but I've never, ever, used it intentionally. In fact, I
    kind of consider it a danger -- I can bump the focus by mistake, so I
    have to be careful where my hands go on the lens.

    The only place I've wanted it is on my macro lens -- which doesn't have it.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 30, 2012
    #10
  11. Max

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>, says...
    >
    > "Max" <> writes:
    >
    > > "J. Clarke" wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >
    > > In article <>,
    > > says...
    > >>
    > >> >
    > >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > >> >
    > >> > Thanks for the info. I'm looking at this one:
    > >> >
    > >> > http://tinyurl.com/67e3xrb
    > >> >
    > >> > It seems to fit my needs.
    > >> >
    > >> > Now I need to decide on a "wide" zoom; maybe 18-55 or 18-135.
    > >> >
    > >> > Max
    > >>
    > >> And here's a review of that lens.
    > >>
    > >> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
    > >>
    > >> John

    > >
    > > Personally I've got the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and it is my least
    > > favorite lens. The biggest annoyance is the lack of full-time manual
    > > focusing--if it's in autofocus you have to switch off autofocus to focus
    > > manually--one of these days I'm going to forget and force the damned
    > > thing and bust it.

    >
    > Interesting. Full-time manual focus is something that my main lenses
    > now have -- but I've never, ever, used it intentionally. In fact, I
    > kind of consider it a danger -- I can bump the focus by mistake, so I
    > have to be careful where my hands go on the lens.
    >
    > The only place I've wanted it is on my macro lens -- which doesn't have it.


    Haven't really had that problem. Generally if I want to use manual
    focus I have to hunt a bit for the ring, except on the 100 macro.
    J. Clarke, Mar 31, 2012
    #11
  12. Max

    Max Guest

    "Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
    news:eek:...

    Max <> wrote:
    >> I recently purchased a Canon EOS 60D (very slightly used and at a good
    >> price)
    >> I would like some recommendations for two Canon lenses:
    >> a "wide" zoom and a tele zoom.


    >How wide, how tele and how high is the budget?


    Equivalent to a 28 in a 35MM SLR on the wide end and slightly beyond the
    wide end of an appropriate telephoto zoom.
    The budget isn't *necessarily* a serious consideration but how logical would
    it be to spend an inordinate amount of money on lenses to go with the
    particular camera I have?
    As I mentioned in a previous post, I am not a professional photographer but
    my wife and I travel around the country a lot and I take a lot of pictures.

    >For example, there's the 10-22 EF-S as an ultrawide --- wide
    >enough?


    Wider than I anticipate using.

    >Do you need fast lenses? Or would lighter, slower lenses be
    >OK?


    I believe my agenda would rule out the need for a "fast" lens and lightness
    would be an overriding consideration.

    >Do you need them to have little gap between their ranges?


    Not necessarily.

    >Could you be interested in a 50mm (the f/1.8 is Canon's
    >cheapest lens, but optically good)? Very usable for low
    >light photography ...


    Possibly, at some point in the future.

    >Do you actually need a tele zoom, or would a tele non-zoom
    >(say one of 85mm, 100mm, 135, 200mm, 300mm, ...) be 'good
    >enough' (optically they are usually better, they just don't
    >have the zoom range, obviously ...).


    For my purposes I think I would be better equipped with zoom lenses. While
    compromises in optical quality are a consideration I doubt that they would
    be significant enough to disappoint me.

    >Wolfgang


    Thank you for your insightful input.

    Max
    Max, Mar 31, 2012
    #12
  13. Max

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:00:11 -0600, "Max" <> wrote:
    :
    :
    : "Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
    : news:eek:...
    :
    : Max <> wrote:
    : >> I recently purchased a Canon EOS 60D (very slightly used and at a good
    : >> price)
    : >> I would like some recommendations for two Canon lenses:
    : >> a "wide" zoom and a tele zoom.
    :
    : >How wide, how tele and how high is the budget?
    :
    : Equivalent to a 28 in a 35MM SLR on the wide end and slightly beyond the
    : wide end of an appropriate telephoto zoom.
    : The budget isn't *necessarily* a serious consideration but how logical would
    : it be to spend an inordinate amount of money on lenses to go with the
    : particular camera I have?

    That's a good question. For reasons that have never been explained, Canon left
    autofocus microadjustment off of the 60D. (The 50D did have it.) The more
    lenses you accumulate, and the pickier you get about their performance, the
    more likely you are to find the lack of this feature to be a problem. Even
    Canon's very good lenses and cameras can be affected. Example: A couple of
    years ago I bought my first 7D (a very good camera) and a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (a
    very good lens) to go with it. After my first (rather disastrous) photo shoot
    with this new setup, I discovered that it needed 9 points (out of a possible
    20) of autofocus microadjustment. Without it, the camera/lens combination was
    unusable. If the 7D hadn't had the autofocus microadjustment feature, I would
    have had to send at least the lens back.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Mar 31, 2012
    #13
  14. Max

    Max Guest

    On 3/31/2012 9:56 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:00:11 -0600, "Max"<> wrote:
    > :
    > :
    > : "Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
    > : news:eek:...
    > :
    > : Max<> wrote:
    > :>> I recently purchased a Canon EOS 60D (very slightly used and at a good
    > :>> price)
    > :>> I would like some recommendations for two Canon lenses:
    > :>> a "wide" zoom and a tele zoom.
    > :
    > :>How wide, how tele and how high is the budget?
    > :
    > : Equivalent to a 28 in a 35MM SLR on the wide end and slightly beyond the
    > : wide end of an appropriate telephoto zoom.
    > : The budget isn't *necessarily* a serious consideration but how logical would
    > : it be to spend an inordinate amount of money on lenses to go with the
    > : particular camera I have?
    >
    > That's a good question. For reasons that have never been explained, Canon left
    > autofocus microadjustment off of the 60D. (The 50D did have it.) The more
    > lenses you accumulate, and the pickier you get about their performance, the
    > more likely you are to find the lack of this feature to be a problem. Even
    > Canon's very good lenses and cameras can be affected. Example: A couple of
    > years ago I bought my first 7D (a very good camera) and a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (a
    > very good lens) to go with it. After my first (rather disastrous) photo shoot
    > with this new setup, I discovered that it needed 9 points (out of a possible
    > 20) of autofocus microadjustment. Without it, the camera/lens combination was
    > unusable. If the 7D hadn't had the autofocus microadjustment feature, I would
    > have had to send at least the lens back.
    >
    > Bob


    Interesting phenomenon. I'm glad you mentioned it.
    However, I already *have* the 60D and will have to deal with it as best
    I can. If I need to send a lens or camera to Canon for some sort of
    adjustment I suppose I'll have to deal with it.
    I do appreciate the information.

    Max
    Max, Mar 31, 2012
    #14
  15. Max

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 11:06:52 -0600, Max <> wrote:
    : On 3/31/2012 9:56 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:00:11 -0600, "Max"<> wrote:
    : > :
    : > :
    : > : "Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
    : > : news:eek:...
    : > :
    : > : Max<> wrote:
    : > :>> I recently purchased a Canon EOS 60D (very slightly used and at a good
    : > :>> price)
    : > :>> I would like some recommendations for two Canon lenses:
    : > :>> a "wide" zoom and a tele zoom.
    : > :
    : > :>How wide, how tele and how high is the budget?
    : > :
    : > : Equivalent to a 28 in a 35MM SLR on the wide end and slightly beyond the
    : > : wide end of an appropriate telephoto zoom.
    : > : The budget isn't *necessarily* a serious consideration but how logical would
    : > : it be to spend an inordinate amount of money on lenses to go with the
    : > : particular camera I have?
    : >
    : > That's a good question. For reasons that have never been explained, Canon left
    : > autofocus microadjustment off of the 60D. (The 50D did have it.) The more
    : > lenses you accumulate, and the pickier you get about their performance, the
    : > more likely you are to find the lack of this feature to be a problem. Even
    : > Canon's very good lenses and cameras can be affected. Example: A couple of
    : > years ago I bought my first 7D (a very good camera) and a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (a
    : > very good lens) to go with it. After my first (rather disastrous) photo shoot
    : > with this new setup, I discovered that it needed 9 points (out of a possible
    : > 20) of autofocus microadjustment. Without it, the camera/lens combination was
    : > unusable. If the 7D hadn't had the autofocus microadjustment feature, I would
    : > have had to send at least the lens back.
    : >
    : > Bob
    :
    : Interesting phenomenon. I'm glad you mentioned it.
    : However, I already *have* the 60D and will have to deal with it as best
    : I can. If I need to send a lens or camera to Canon for some sort of
    : adjustment I suppose I'll have to deal with it.
    : I do appreciate the information.

    I didn't mean to suggest that you should jettison your 60D, which I'm sure is
    a fine camera. I'm just saying that the camera's lack of autofocus
    microadjustment may place a limit on how picky you can be about the sharpness
    of the lenses you use. Which in turns means that spending big bucks on
    high-end lenses may not be a sensible course of action. Of course if you're
    planning to keep the lenses longer than the camera, that may be a different
    story.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Apr 1, 2012
    #15
  16. Max

    Max Guest

    "Robert Coe" wrote in message
    news:...

    On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 11:06:52 -0600, Max <> wrote:

    :
    : Interesting phenomenon. I'm glad you mentioned it.
    : However, I already *have* the 60D and will have to deal with it as best
    : I can. If I need to send a lens or camera to Canon for some sort of
    : adjustment I suppose I'll have to deal with it.
    : I do appreciate the information.

    >I didn't mean to suggest that you should jettison your 60D, which I'm sure
    >is
    >a fine camera. I'm just saying that the camera's lack of autofocus
    >microadjustment may place a limit on how picky you can be about the
    >sharpness
    >of the lenses you use. Which in turns means that spending big bucks on

    ..high-end lenses may not be a sensible course of action. Of course if you're
    >planning to keep the lenses longer than the camera, that may be a different
    >story.


    >Bob


    In years past I have invested in cameras that were beyond my ambition to put
    to good use.
    Those cameras included:
    (all Canon)
    FTb
    F1
    A-1
    EF
    In most cases I used Canon lenses; one exception being a Vivitar Series 1.
    (70-210)
    There was a period of time when I settled for lower end cameras (Canon
    SX110, SX10, etc) since they served my purposes.
    Other hobbies and interests kept me from pursuing photography with
    sufficient intensity to develop a deep understanding of it.
    Spending the last 12 years or so traveling has spurred my interest in the
    hobby.
    I doubt, but one seldom knows for sure, that I would take full advantage of
    camera equipment that might be more advanced than the 60D.
    In fact, that particular camera just might be a bit beyond my needs as it
    is.
    Having said that, I still want lenses that are capable of whatever the 60D
    is; not the cheapest but not the best either.
    Budget has less to do with my decisions than talent and intention. ;-)

    Max
    Max, Apr 1, 2012
    #16
  17. Max

    Bruce Guest

    "Max" <> wrote:
    >
    >In years past I have invested in cameras that were beyond my ambition to put
    >to good use.
    >Those cameras included:
    >(all Canon)
    >FTb
    >F1
    >A-1
    >EF
    >In most cases I used Canon lenses; one exception being a Vivitar Series 1.
    >(70-210)



    How much did you invest in tuition?


    >There was a period of time when I settled for lower end cameras (Canon
    >SX110, SX10, etc) since they served my purposes.
    >Other hobbies and interests kept me from pursuing photography with
    >sufficient intensity to develop a deep understanding of it.
    >Spending the last 12 years or so traveling has spurred my interest in the
    >hobby.
    >I doubt, but one seldom knows for sure, that I would take full advantage of
    >camera equipment that might be more advanced than the 60D.
    >In fact, that particular camera just might be a bit beyond my needs as it
    >is.
    >Having said that, I still want lenses that are capable of whatever the 60D
    >is; not the cheapest but not the best either.
    >Budget has less to do with my decisions than talent and intention. ;-)



    How much of your budget is allocated to tuition?
    Bruce, Apr 1, 2012
    #17
  18. Max

    Max Guest

    "Bruce" wrote in message news:...

    "Max" <> wrote:
    >
    >>In years past I have invested in cameras that were beyond my ambition to
    >>put
    >>to good use.
    >>Those cameras included:
    >>(all Canon)
    >>FTb
    >>F1
    >>A-1
    >>EF
    >>In most cases I used Canon lenses; one exception being a Vivitar Series 1.
    >>(70-210)



    >How much did you invest in tuition?


    Very little. I first attended college on the GI bill.
    Later, as I advanced in my profession I acquired an associate's degree in
    Fire Technology. The city paid for the courses.
    In addition I took several courses at the National Fire Academy. The
    federal government paid for those.
    Finally, I took certain required courses to qualify me as a state certified
    dwelling inspector so I could start a business. I paid for those courses.


    >>There was a period of time when I settled for lower end cameras (Canon
    >>SX110, SX10, etc) since they served my purposes.
    >>Other hobbies and interests kept me from pursuing photography with
    >>sufficient intensity to develop a deep understanding of it.
    >>Spending the last 12 years or so traveling has spurred my interest in the
    >>hobby.
    >>I doubt, but one seldom knows for sure, that I would take full advantage
    >>of
    >>camera equipment that might be more advanced than the 60D.
    >>In fact, that particular camera just might be a bit beyond my needs as it
    >>is.
    >>Having said that, I still want lenses that are capable of whatever the 60D
    >>is; not the cheapest but not the best either.
    >>Budget has less to do with my decisions than talent and intention. ;-)



    >How much of your budget is allocated to tuition?


    There must be a motive for your question. Why do you ask?

    Max
    Max, Apr 1, 2012
    #18
  19. Max

    Bruce Guest

    "Max" <> wrote:
    >"Bruce" wrote in message news:...
    >"Max" <> wrote:
    >>>In years past I have invested in cameras that were beyond my ambition to
    >>>put
    >>>to good use.
    >>>Those cameras included:
    >>>(all Canon)
    >>>FTb
    >>>F1
    >>>A-1
    >>>EF
    >>>In most cases I used Canon lenses; one exception being a Vivitar Series 1.
    >>>(70-210)

    >
    >
    >>How much did you invest in tuition?

    >
    >Very little. I first attended college on the GI bill.
    >Later, as I advanced in my profession I acquired an associate's degree in
    >Fire Technology. The city paid for the courses.
    >In addition I took several courses at the National Fire Academy. The
    >federal government paid for those.
    >Finally, I took certain required courses to qualify me as a state certified
    >dwelling inspector so I could start a business. I paid for those courses.
    >
    >
    >>>There was a period of time when I settled for lower end cameras (Canon
    >>>SX110, SX10, etc) since they served my purposes.
    >>>Other hobbies and interests kept me from pursuing photography with
    >>>sufficient intensity to develop a deep understanding of it.
    >>>Spending the last 12 years or so traveling has spurred my interest in the
    >>>hobby.
    >>>I doubt, but one seldom knows for sure, that I would take full advantage
    >>>of
    >>>camera equipment that might be more advanced than the 60D.
    >>>In fact, that particular camera just might be a bit beyond my needs as it
    >>>is.
    >>>Having said that, I still want lenses that are capable of whatever the 60D
    >>>is; not the cheapest but not the best either.
    >>>Budget has less to do with my decisions than talent and intention. ;-)

    >
    >
    >>How much of your budget is allocated to tuition?

    >
    >There must be a motive for your question. Why do you ask?



    I apologise. Perhaps I could have made my question clearer by asking
    how much you invested in, and are budgeting for, photographic tuition?
    Bruce, Apr 1, 2012
    #19
  20. Max

    Max Guest

    On 4/1/2012 10:26 AM, Bruce wrote:
    > "Max"<> wrote:
    >> "Bruce" wrote in message news:...
    >> "Max"<> wrote:
    >>>> In years past I have invested in cameras that were beyond my ambition to
    >>>> put
    >>>> to good use.
    >>>> Those cameras included:
    >>>> (all Canon)
    >>>> FTb
    >>>> F1
    >>>> A-1
    >>>> EF
    >>>> In most cases I used Canon lenses; one exception being a Vivitar Series 1.
    >>>> (70-210)

    >>
    >>
    >>> How much did you invest in tuition?

    >>
    >> Very little. I first attended college on the GI bill.
    >> Later, as I advanced in my profession I acquired an associate's degree in
    >> Fire Technology. The city paid for the courses.
    >> In addition I took several courses at the National Fire Academy. The
    >> federal government paid for those.
    >> Finally, I took certain required courses to qualify me as a state certified
    >> dwelling inspector so I could start a business. I paid for those courses.
    >>
    >>
    >>>> There was a period of time when I settled for lower end cameras (Canon
    >>>> SX110, SX10, etc) since they served my purposes.
    >>>> Other hobbies and interests kept me from pursuing photography with
    >>>> sufficient intensity to develop a deep understanding of it.
    >>>> Spending the last 12 years or so traveling has spurred my interest in the
    >>>> hobby.
    >>>> I doubt, but one seldom knows for sure, that I would take full advantage
    >>>> of
    >>>> camera equipment that might be more advanced than the 60D.
    >>>> In fact, that particular camera just might be a bit beyond my needs as it
    >>>> is.
    >>>> Having said that, I still want lenses that are capable of whatever the 60D
    >>>> is; not the cheapest but not the best either.
    >>>> Budget has less to do with my decisions than talent and intention. ;-)

    >>
    >>
    >>> How much of your budget is allocated to tuition?

    >>
    >> There must be a motive for your question. Why do you ask?

    >
    >
    > I apologise. Perhaps I could have made my question clearer by asking
    > how much you invested in, and are budgeting for, photographic tuition?
    >


    No apology needed. I should have been more explicit in explaining my
    intentions concerning photographic gear.
    I have no more ambition than being an amateur.
    First of all I have other hobbies that consume a significant amount of
    my time.
    About 25 years ago I built a 1060 sq.ft. woodworking/metalworking shop.
    I've built cabinets, entertainment centers, tables, chairs, bookcases
    and other similar projects. I often take photos of the projects.
    I also do wrought iron work and welding.
    My projects have paid for my tools, an arrangement with my spouse that
    has allowed me to accumulate somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 to 50K
    worth.
    We travel during the warmer months, usually 4 to 6 month trips.
    I take a lot of pictures. ;-)

    I have learned, if nothing else, that I lack a particular talent for
    taking that sort of photo that many declare as "art" or an "image".
    Some people are born with that talent; some people are able to learn it.
    I seem not to have it and my interest is insufficient to dedicate the
    time to discover whether or not I could "learn" it.
    I'm satisfied to take "snapshots" and share them with friends and family.

    I appreciate your interest in my posts and for any advice and
    suggestions you may have to offer.

    Max, El Paso, TX
    Max, Apr 1, 2012
    #20
    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. jonathan

    stabilizing lenses (what lenses to get w/10D)

    jonathan, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    434
    Ken Alverson
    Oct 6, 2003
  2. Robert

    Lenses for 20D. I have older ef lenses

    Robert, Nov 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    369
    JohnR
    Nov 19, 2004
  3. Russell

    Canon 'L' Lenses V non 'L' Lenses

    Russell, Apr 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    676
    Matt Ion
    Apr 30, 2005
  4. measekite

    Full Frame Lenses vs Small Sensor Lenses

    measekite, Sep 11, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    652
    Mueen Nawaz
    Sep 13, 2006
  5. One4All
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    923
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Jan 14, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page