Call me old fashion - still like my AE1 w/black body, power winder... wanted the databack but couldn't afford it in the late '70s

Forgot what lens I have but I did sell my wifes AE1 /silver body a few years ago on Ebay.

Still using it to take pictures of court houses around Indiana (something my grandfather did with a box camera!).

Use a Powershot S2 IS for most of my basic pics.

 

You're old fashioned!

OK, now what?

 

I know, I wish I could afford the 16-35, but then I'd have to sell my MINI.

I have been considering going full frame at some point, but the price of the efs lenses is so attractive also. Hmmm, I think you just reinforced my decision to keep saving my pennies for the 17-40. Maybe I'll have the chance to buy it by the time we travel to the west coast. this fall. A very nice gentleman let us use one on our last trip there, and I absolutely loved it, especially for landscapes. Maybe I can finally do some nice panoramas this time.

 

TBH, one of my favorite lenses is the Sigma 12-24. It's not fast (practically it's f5.6), but it's a fullframe lens and so will work on every camera you stick it to. The IQ is not up to the EF 16-35L, but it's less than half the price. It would be a great landscape/architectural zoom if that's what you want.
I'm not down on the 17-40L, but it's only f4.0, and it seems like a funky focal range -- a bit out of date for FF cameras, useless for 1.3x bodies and too restrictive for 1.6x bodies.

JMO

 

I hear you, but I don't do a lot of superwide work... maybe later, my goal is to get a decent fisheye and defish the results for things like caves and small places like that. The f5.6 would kill it for me though, I do a lot of dark sky work and one stop is enough to double my one hour exposure to two.

The 40mm on the 17-40 is indeed kinda short, but with the 50mm I have, and the 70-200 zoom I can still cover the full range pretty well, with minor leg work. Keep in mind also that for full frame the 17-40 is pretty darn wide.

Btw, there was a 16-xx sigma mentioned once that sounded decent. I'm not crazy about the sigma glass color cast (bit too yellow for my taste), but I can work with that. Anyone know that lens and have an opinion to share?

 

I'm slinging around the following:

Canon EOS 30D Digital Body
Canon Elan 7n 35mm Film Body


Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8
Quantaray AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 High-Speed for Canon EOS (Hate this lens)

I want to pick up a quality fisheye lens, more lighting units and a warehouse for which to setup a studio within to take pictures of things as small as a watch and at least as large as a MINI.

Of course, wanting and reality can often be two different things...

 

I recently upgraded from my dated Powershot G1.

Canon Digital Rebel XSI + 18-55mm IS kit lens
Canon EF 50mm f1.4 + hood
20GB worth of Sandisk Extreme III SDHC cards
Some 58mm filters and cleaning supplies in a LowePro SlingShot 200 AW bag

Shopping around for a telephoto lens at the moment.

Still not sure whether to put a UV filter on the 50mm. I've heard reasons for and against UV filters. The hood is on there all the time for some protection.

 

Oooh, another club I can join.

Old skool:
Canon A-1 35mm body and motor drive
Canon 50mm f1.4 FD lens
Tamron 28mm f2.8 lens
Tokina 80-200mm f4.5-5.6 tele zoom lens
Canon fixed and bounce speedlites (numbers escape me right now)
lots of filters, gels, remotes and accessories

Canon early Sure-Shot model 35mm

Digitals:
Canon S-230 Elph 3.2mp (recently died due top faulty CCD
Canon S3-IS 6mp 12x optical zoom (fantastic all-around camera)
Canon 30D 8.5mp body
Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS lens
Canon 580EX flash
Lots of filters, gels, etc
Manfrotto tripod and monopod

I am lusting for the EF 100-400 L lens. One day when money aint so tight (hopefully)

 

I shoot with a 5D and a G7. Prior to that, a 10D (digital), an A2E and an Elan (35mm film SLRs) Before that a Nikon N2000, and before that some really old stuff.

The 17-40L used to be one of my all time favorite lenses, until I got the 16-35L since I was doing more interior work (jets and interiors) and I wanted the extra light and speed. For the money, the 17-40L is a superb value. And it's lighter.

 

Ooooh, I wanna join!

 

Well I missed this club but I suppose I'll join in if that's ok.

Gear:
Canon 20D 28-135mmIS USM | 50mm 1.8 | 35mm 2.0 | 24mm 2.8
Canon 10D 28-200mm USM
Canon Rebel XT 28-135mmIS USM | 50mm 1.8 | 18-55mm
(2x) Canon 580EX
Canon SD1000 (Running CHDK of course)
Canon Rebel Ti (film)

(2x) Lowepro Slingers
Tamrac Sling Bag

Manfrotto Monopod
(2x) Tripods that I forget who there made by...something cheap but with levels...

Lots of compact flash cards filters and what not.


I really need to get some better glass like 17-40 or a 28-105 but that costs money and I'm not doing any photo work anymore so alas my budget for camera toys is slim to none...emphasis on none...

 

I have a Canon XSi
Stock Lens (EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens )
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
8 GB Transend SD card


Tolerant wife, daughter and pets.
1 camera hog Cooper.

5 days old, 800 pictures (Thank goodness for digital).

 

I'm currently shopping for a telephoto lens to compliment my 50mm and 18-55 XSi kit lens. Does anybody have any opinions on choosing between the following lenses?

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

They're $550 and $600 at a local dealer and seem to be pretty popular. Is it worth it to even spend that much, or should I just buy the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS for $250?

 

I have a

Canon 40D

Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM
Canon 80 f/1.8

A couple 8gb compact flash cards, polarized filters, tripods (forgot the maker)

Going to get a couple more lenses and of course a flash within the next couple weeks..hopefully before my vacation..

 

Kyle

The trade-off between your lens choices is between reach vs. quality. The L lens is considerably better built than the 70-300mm. If your requirement is reach, then go for the 70-300, where the IS will also help. What you would be gaining in reach, you would be giving up on the the maximum aperture. The 70-300 would be giving up a stop of exposure at the longer end, which would make low light photography a bit difficult, unless you bump up the ISO (possibly increasing grain).

However, if you are willing to get an extender for the 70-200, this will help extend your range.

Personally, I would go for the 70-200, because of better optics and build quality.

 

Yeah, I'm leaning more towards the 70-200. One issue I have is the lens is not as "discrete" with the white housing. I think I can deal without the IS. I would mostly be using this lens outdoors with (hopefully) plenty of light for a faster shutter, and it's another $500 to add IS onto the 70-200. Having the ability to use an extender does sound nice to compensate for the lack of reach when needed.

The 70-300 does more already, but I'm just not sure how much sharpness I'm going to be giving up along the range of aperatures that I will really notice.

Does anybody know what sites are good for finding reviews about lenses? I usually use dpreview for cameras, but their lens database just isn't very diverse yet.

 

Canon SD850 IS
What can I say but it simplified shooting.

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Default.aspx
is about the best especially for Canon lenses although they test third-party lenses with Canon mounts.
I had a 70-300 DO IS -- a lens worthy of your consideration. I have also used the 70-200 f2.8L IS, and it really is worth the extra $s--especially if you are using it with a crop camera. Like all Ls, it'll last longer than your camera body, and probably you.

 

I would go for the 70-200 f/4, one of the all time bargains in the Canon world.

If you are shooting outdoors, the lack of IS will not be an issue.

The 70-200 2.8 IS is very large and heavy. I shoot with a 70-200mm f/4 IS. I owned the non IS version before, but wanted the indoor low light capability.

I used it on my 5D with the Canon 1.4x teleconverter to get a little extra reach, max aperture declines to f/5.6, but still not a problem in outdoor lighting.

Just sold my G7. Now, I am on the hunt for a good compact camera. Always a tough thing to find for me. I find it's a love/hate relationship with any compact camera. I guess it will force me to shoot with my SLR 100% of the time for a while, which is a good thing.

IF you might eventually go to full frame, I'd always recommend sticking with the EF mount lenses over the EF-S mount lenses. Why buy something that can become functionally obsolete with the change of a body?

 

Here is a shot I took at 200mm with the f/4 70-200mm, at wide open aperture, no teleconverter. It's also a test of whether you are a true car enthusiast or not.

 

Thanks for the link. That site is definitely a nice reference.

Nice pics Syco.

I'm pretty much set on the 70-200mm f4L at least. Now I'm debating whether or not to save up for the IS version. Amazon now has the IS version available with their 24 month no interest financing, which kinda helps spread out the cost of an $1100 lens. But they are out of stock at the moment.

 

It's a hard call. Canon knows exactly what they are doing with the pricing.

Seriously, if you are mostly outdoors, just go with the non-IS and save a bundle.

 

There's a car in that photo?

 

These are shot with the 70-200 2.8 IS and a 1DMKII

http://www.photoshelter.com/gallery-...00arS1_WYvnyk/

 

I think his focus was waaaay off ;0 haha. Nice clear shot of the car though.