Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 9, 2003, 3:52 PM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
What about the Canon 75-300 IS USM
I have nothing against it, it's more affordable of course but at f/5.6 you'll need more daylight!

IS will help to shoot handheld at lower shutter speed, but then for action shot you can't afford slower shutter speed! ie the subject move and not the camera where IS can detect... but then if you use a tripod, you'll defeat (or disable) the IS which is like not having it.

USM is cool, but I have a few reservations about IS over just larger aperture lenses (and DOF). The only down side in faster lenses is they tend to be very massive due to the larger glass to bring in more light (ie more speed)!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2003, 5:41 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46
Default

I don't plan on using a tripod, and I was hoping to spend less than $500 for the lens. I thought that compensation for a slower lens would be the fact that I can push the 10D to ISO 400 (or higher?) without encountering a noise problem.

Because my kids go to a small high school and I'm the unofficial sports photographer, I get to wander the sidelines so I'm never too far away. A telephoto to 320mm (200mm time 1.6) should be all that I need, in fact, from a practical point of view, will I be able to get sharp pictures at 320mm? Don't you get a lot of camera movement at 320mm?

Jeff
Jeff Mirkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2003, 8:13 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 29
Default

[quote="Jeff Mirkin" Don't you get a lot of camera movement at 320mm?[/quote]

Depends on how steady you are, but you'll probably get some. You said no tripod...maybe consider a monopod? My 2cents... If you can afford it, go with one of the f/2.8 lenses above. If not get something like the 75-300 4-5.6. It'll work, but 6 months or a year from now you'll find yourself wishing you spent that little bit more. I do. Or... despite it sounding like you've decided on the 10D...I'd go with the 300D and put the extra $ toward the lens.

Either way - have a great time!
ACSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2003, 8:42 PM   #14
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
I thought that compensation for a slower lens would be the fact that I can push the 10D to ISO 400 (or higher?) without encountering a noise problem.
Well... it goes both way if you push the camera ISO to 400 an f/2.8 would still get you a faster speed than a slower lens, and depending on what you try to capture that could make the difference!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2003, 3:45 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 46
Default

With all of the above great input I'm leaning towards the 10D and a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 APO lens. I have a couple of more questions:

1. For the heck of it I've been looking at the Nikon D100. Is it true that, as good as the Nikon is, the 10D provides better out-of-the-camera images (before post-proscessing)? I enjoy post-processing but don't want to HAVE to do it for every image, every time. Is it a difference that any of us amateur photographers would really notice? Is the Nikon worth looking at?

2. The 10D has been out for almost a year and the D100 almost 2 years. Might there be something coming out in early 2004 that would 'knock their socks off' that I should wait for?

Thanks for your continued help.

Jeff
Jeff Mirkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2003, 4:19 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

Ok, here's a Canon lens bias. Take it for what it is worth :-)

1. Having IS is useful, even when there is enough light. You can still get more stable and sharper images. You can keep the same lower shutter speed at longer focal range, and still get sharp images handheld. Some Canon lenses have two IS modes. One for stationary subjects and one for moving subjects where you're panning. Personally I cannot imagine life without IS anymore.

2. I really like the fact that my camera body and lens are both made by Canon. If there is ever a *system* issue (front / back focus is one of those) then I can send my whole setup to Canon and have it fixed. In fact, I just did that and my AF system is now more accurate than it was. You're not going to get Canon to fix a Sigma lens for you. At higher focal lengths the DOF becomes smaller and therefore accurate AF is even more important.

3. The 70-200L F4.0 is a $600 lens, and very good.

4. Stay away from Canon's 75-300 zoom.

5. I haven't seen the 100-400L brought up. It's higher F stop at the long end might not be what you want though.

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2003, 5:20 PM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Here's my take on getting Canon to look @ focusing problems... Would a $70 EF-50mm f/1.8 (which everyone should own) and a 10D/300D make a *system* if anyone has a front back/focus issue? Isn't it true that the problem/adjustments are in the bodies (how else would you interchange a specifically adjusted and matched lens with another camera)?

Problem solved: The distance from the AF sensors in the viewing screen (or sensor plane) to the lens mount is identical by design with any lenses.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2003, 5:29 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

NHL, your assumption is wrong. Canon does not specifically adjust a lens to fit a certain camera body. Canon's calibration procedure has been detailed by Chuck Westfall on other boards. I can try to find the link.

Basically Canon adjusts lenses and bodies separately from each other:

* The body has AF parameters. They check those, and adjust the body to be within factory specifications.
* The lens has its own AF parameters. They check those, and also adjust those to specifications.

Once both the lens and the body are within factory specifications, your AF system will work fine.

If you have a body that has a tendency to front focus, and a lens that has a tendency to back focus these two can cancel each other out. If you have another lens that tends to front focus, and use it with this body, the net result is obviously front focus. If you send just your body to Canon, it'll come back adjusted. But now your first lens that appeared to work fine will back-focus, and the second lens that was front focussing will work fine.

Thus in order to get your whole system setup calibrated you will need to have all your lenses and your body adjusted. You could try to have that done by sending your body to Canon and all your lenses to Sigma, but I rather send it all to Canon.

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2003, 6:54 PM   #19
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Barthold

Quote:
NHL, your assumption is wrong. Canon does not specifically adjust a lens to fit a certain camera body
Exactly! The body is where all the smartness are: the AF sensors and control etc... The lens is basically a "dumb" device even though it transmits aperture, focal lenght, and on some lenses distance data to the camera, but it can not front or back focus as a unit by itself!

This is a closed loop system: The camera normally step the lens in one direction or the other until the AF sensors in the camera detect that the projected image is in focus in the viewfinder/focusing screen. Now this where an adjustment is neccesary: the path the projected image takes to the film plane sensor is different when the mirror is lifted up than when it's bended 45 degree to the AF sensors. This is where an adjustment is required to resolve the difference between the two...

Think about it, on other AF cameras like Nikon or Minolta they just have a mechanical screw (except on newer lenses) from the camera to the lens turning the focusing mechanism one way on the other until the pictures come into focus as detected by the AF sensor in the camera. Canon just does it electrically only that's all... Why scare people away from 3rd party lenses? Numerous people here as well as on other sites have excellent results with 3rd party lenses in focal lenghts combination that Canon doesn't even offer... Isn't it a bonus that they are more affordable as well?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2003, 7:38 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

Like i said initially, it is only my opinion :-) Also, we are singling out the th AF issues that were talked about so much, but I think my general point is valid. Dealing with only one vendor and not two when you have problems is typically way more convenient.

Back to the specifics:

The lens could back or front focus by itself if it doesn't respond correctly to the (correct) signals from the camera body. For example, if the camera tells the lens to step the focussing mechanism forward 1 unit (whatever the unit is) but it steps 1.2 units, then the lens is wrong, not the camera. I am not sure I believe your statement that a lens is a 'dumb' device. There is smarts built-in, and those smarts could be a bit off. Right?

Thus I still believe that just sending in your body to Canon will not resolve all AF issues.

I'll go dig out Chuck's posting on this too.

Barthold

PS Yes, Canon charges a lot for their lenses, and therefore third party lenses are very attractive. No argument there :-)
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35 AM.