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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 31, 2004, 8:06 PM   #31
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaltenburger
Also, what do you know about the Canon Telephoto EF 135mm f/2.0L? Heard that's very good for indoor action sports.
Probably true, but I wonder why would you need such a lens since your 20-200L f/2.8 is already excellent and would 1-stop make such a difference? IMO for a 20-200L f/4 owner this lens might make sense, but for you an f/1.2 or f/1.4 is probably more beneficial. Also you might not want to shoot wide open (and Normcar here can tell you...) You need the DOF so may be a more powerful flash is a better investment.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 9:04 PM   #32
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohenry
... My personal bias is against having such a wide variance in focal length. I can't see where I'd find the lower focal lengths useful at all, but that wouldn't be why I would be using it anyway. Obviously my interest in this lens would be in the 300-500 length.
... Sounds like your prayers are answered too! :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.tamron.com/35mm/35mm_af/a200500di.htm
An exact copy of the Bigma but cropped just right! (about a lb lighter, but no USM though)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 9:09 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

Now THAT's one worth taking a gander at. I have the 28-75 Di lens and I'm quite impressed with its build and image quality and price point.

In the interim, I went ahead and ordered the 2.0 TC to get me to 400mm...it's not the best solution but it will serve its purpose while I determine what fits my needs/desires best.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 9:13 PM   #34
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

My guess is with a simpler design it could optically be optimized better for the range... We shall see!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 9:44 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

NHL...

How about the new Canon EF70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Zoom, approximately the length and diameter of the Canon 28-135mm IS lens? Definitely no weight problem here. Heard of it? With IS and a 2x converter how would you suggest it might perform? Will it take a converter? If so, will one keep AF? Have you heard?
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 10:48 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

Yes, I've heard of it, but it would be redundant with my existing lenses.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2004, 11:44 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

Henry, first of all I want to apologize for the misunderstanding in that other string. Wow, I was flabberghasted at how I was misread in what I was really wishing to say, which was essentially the same thing as Tomsch with respect to the "over" focus on sharpness, IS or other, and the complete lack of attention to technique and artistic ability to use the tool. Now I'm worried about misunderstanding what Tomsch is saying, I hope that he's saying that there is too much focus on the tool and not enough on the way to use the tool. If not, I apologize to Tomsch as well. I'm gonna get a dry mouth.

I think I just blew a screw at the wrong moment, and took a few innocent bystanders along with me. In any event, I apologize to you and I've already apologized to others involved.

I'm perhaps feeling a bit inundated with the "this tool or that tool" mentality and secretly longing to hear more from people like Tomsch who is obviously able to teach how to use what exists rather than dream about what cannot.

I'd still like NHL to comment on that new lens, not because I'm slobbering over it but because I'm not sure about DO or whether or not it can accept a converter.
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2004, 12:18 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Tomsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 442
Default

The 70-300 DO IS USM offering from canon, what does it do? The 400 DO never seemed to fair well! So why now intro this lens? It is right there in a slot that is well covered by all the manufactures so what is the point? Can't use a TC and maintain AF, already have a 75-300 with IS, the DO proved less than successful, so why? They sure missed the price point! They should have at least painted it white. To me it seems they have re-invented the wheel for a tired old car that already has four of them!
Tomsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2004, 1:10 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

Thanks Tomsch, your opinion means a great deal to me indeed. And, good grief...keep posting them birds that are so sharp they cut my eyes!

Tomsch, you are my new guru. Yeah, it's a joke, but not really, some truth exists in it. You are the first person I've heard in these forums who actually said it like it is, and like you felt, and I must say, I was comforted by your words because they were so filled with reality. Thanks for that partner in photography, you teach me and I appreciate it
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2004, 1:55 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

Tomsch, I appreciate what you are doing with that camera of yours and you are definitely your own person and don't care to pretend. However, I need to tone down a bit and not get so excited about things I disagree with. I'm slowly learning guys, give me time.
Normcar 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 4:28 PM.