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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 22, 2004, 10:33 PM   #11
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

hedwards wrote:
Quote:
peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
I can't say I regret having the camera for the holiday.
I think this is important to remember. As the economists
say don't forget the opportunity costs of waiting. I am
sure that the pictures were worth the amount of money
that the lens you got cost, and if you like the photos
from it there isn't any reason to sell or give it away.
Except of course that I'm pretty much convinced now that I should go for the EF-S 17-85mm which completely covers the range of the 18-55. I'd rather give it to someone who will make use of it than have it sit in the cupboard. It might make the cost of getting a new 20D or Rebel more reasonable for some young enthusiast who will then go on to greater things. :-)


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2004, 10:51 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
geoffs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,025
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
Just shows the value of these forums, which is getting good advice. geoffs also recommends the Canon f4. And I think that it very likely that if I do find that I need a telephoto longer than the 17-85 I will probably go for the Canon.
I do recommend the f4 but that is purely based on the recommendations of others as I won't receive my own lens until Friday. So, as with all things you hear on the internet, take it with a grain of salt.

You will definitely need a telephoto longer than the 17-85 if you intend to do birds or almost any type of wildlife that doesn't come to a feeder (and even then you'd probably need a longer lens). Despite my initial reservations about the 17-85, I have come to really appreciate that lens. For me it's a keeper. I hope it will be for you too.

As an aside, I'd like to someday visit Africa and get the opportunity to photograph the animals and landscape. One day....
geoffs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2004, 1:10 AM   #13
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

geoffs wrote:
Quote:
Another thing is that if you've come from the P&S world you'll be used to much larger DOF. The first thing you'll be likely to notice is that the dslr/lens combos are going to make you think a lot more about DOF.
Yes, you're quite right. Since getting the Konica P&S I used my 35mm much less, the convenience of digital you see.

And I had gotten used to not having to think about thecamera. There is certainly a gap between the theoretical understanding and the practical ability of being able to anticipate and adjust for different conditions in advance of taking the picture.

And two of my favourite photos (on the Konica P&S) of my recent trip to Soweto would not have been improved by having my new camera,

http://www.peripatetic.org.uk/images/soweto/butcher.jpg(700Kb)

http://www.peripatetic.org.uk/images...thTaxiRank.jpg(1.5Mb)

though I can certainly think of a lot of shots I could have got that I missed with the P&S.






peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2004, 9:40 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
geoffs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,025
Default

Peri...

In that first photo, what the heck is that butcher doing to that animal's head? It looks like he's bludgeoning it way beyond death itself!!!

You really got some compression of field in that second photo. So much so that it's tough to take it all in on first glance - just so much to look at! I think the first thing I noticed is it's very crowded and then I noticed how much garbage there was in the streets...

Sometimes I miss the P&S cameras I gave away to my kids. From the perspective of convenience they can't be beat. Macro shots with P&S cameras are also great because of the great DOF. Someday I'll get another P&S for when I don't want to use my dslr.
geoffs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2004, 10:25 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 276
Default

For what it's worth, I too have the 17x85 and couldn't be happier. It is head and shoulders above what I had. I am not qualified to say how good it is, but I can say it works well on the camera. Only wish it was a 2.8.

Also have the 200 2.8 Canon IS and my first thoughts were how to carry the beast around. It gets heavy, but compared to an F4, it gets the shot when the light is low. I also use a 1.4 extender so almost have 300 and still works well in lower light than F4. Not sorry I got it in the least. Any thoughts on how to carry it though in the field would be great from you guys.

My other lense is the 50 1.4. Was going to go for the 1.8, but it seems like I am alwasy trying to get a shot when the liht is bad. Opted for the 1.4. Haven't used it much, but looks promising.

Hope this helps - Merry Christmas:|
Golfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2004, 1:54 AM   #16
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Golfer wrote:
Quote:
Also have the 200 2.8 Canon IS and my first thoughts were how to carry the beast around. It gets heavy, but compared to an F4, it gets the shot when the light is low. I also use a 1.4 extender so almost have 300 and still works well in lower light than F4. Not sorry I got it in the least. Any thoughts on how to carry it though in the field would be great from you guys.

My other lense is the 50 1.4. Was going to go for the 1.8, but it seems like I am alwasy trying to get a shot when the liht is bad. Opted for the 1.4. Haven't used it much, but looks promising.
From your nickname I would have thought the solution would be obvious. You need a caddy!

I think I'll probably end up with the 50mm f1.8 for low light indoor stuff. The consensus seems to be that it's an awful lot of lens for very little money.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2004, 2:18 AM   #17
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

geoffs

Yes, indeed - he's breaking it up so that they can strip off the muscles and flesh on the cheeks, etc. It's cooked on the spot and eaten with chilli - a delicacy & quite delicious I'm told; I must confess I wasn't sure my constitution was strong enough to cope with the conditions, so I declined to try it.

The taxi rank must surely be one of the biggest in the world. Soweto has no public transport to speak of, and the majority of the residents travel by taxi. Estimates are that at least 1 million people a day use the rank. The butcher was hidden down there in the taxi rank somewhere, along with a million other interesting things. It's an amazing place.

Isn't EXIF great?Photoshop tells me that the taxi shot was taken with the following params:

ISO100, 1/263s, f8, 35mm focal length - 116mm, actual focal length - 24mm. I think the extended DOF comes from the fact that the P&S has a relatively small sensor compared to the 4/3 of the 20D. The 116mm focal length explains the flattening of the shot.

Also I think that the 20Dwill take a little adjustment from 35mm too. If I understand it correctly, when it comes to DOF on a 4/3 sensor you will gain extraDOF at any given f-stop because of the reduced sensor size compared to 35mm. Also one can expect quite significant degredation of image quality at the smallest f-stops. Sofor wide-angle shots this means that you shouldn't stop down too much to get wide DOF - firstly you don't need to, and secondly the shot won't be sharp. The sweet spot will vary somewhat according tolens I think, but on a 4/3 sensor f8-f11 should be fine, f16 not too bad, but f22 and greater should be avoided.

Conversely, where youwant shallowDOF you should probably mentally adjust by at least 1 f-stop to convert 4/3 sensor to 35mm equivalent.In some respects this is quite nice actually - it makes focusing errors less problematic, but it does suggest that where shallow DOF is required you really might want more expensive lenses with wider max aperture. :-(

See - I just thought of a reason to go for the f2.8 70-200mm zoom.






peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2004, 8:59 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
geoffs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,025
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
...but it does suggest that where shallow DOF is required you really might want more expensive lenses with wider max aperture. :-(

See - I just thought of a reason to go for the f2.8 70-200mm zoom.
Well, yes, but it's all a matter of whether or not that extra f-stop you gain is worth it to you personally, as the heavier lens required and the extra money you must spend are not minor considerations.

Happy Holidays to you!
geoffs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2005, 7:03 AM   #19
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Well Geoff - how's the new lens?

You must have some photos you can post by now.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2005, 9:43 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
geoffs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,025
Default

How's the new lenses? (not just lens)

I ended up buying the Canon 70-200/4L, 300/4L IS, and the 1.4x TC. The latter two have been great and I have been posting pictures I took with them. Unfortunately, I got stuck with a lemon on the 70-200/4L. I found out that a batch of them went out from Canon with autofocus problems and wouldn't you know that I'd get one of them? It goes back to B&H tomorrow for an exchange. It consistently either back- or front-focused with my 20D - not nice.

As for some images, you can look at these...

300/4 with 1.4xTC:
Bewick's Wren
Scrub Jay
Puppy In Hands


70-200/4 @ 200 - only center focus point enabled, focus point where my circle with x is on the back of a squirrel. What is in focus is the bark chips in front of the squirrel (back-focused here):


Attached Images
 
geoffs 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 9:12 AM.