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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 19, 2006, 7:36 PM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8
Default

Thank you, everyone, for your help again!


And, peripatetic,
I'm going to take your advice of May 13.
EF-S 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS USM.

I chose this lens instead of EF17-40mm F4 L USM (which was also recommended by you) because of image stabilizer and its zooming range. Please tell me if I'm making awrong choice here.

Also, I'm seriously planning to add the following lenses on my purchase list (as there's been some favorablechange in my budget). I'm wondering ifI'm making senseful choices here:

1) EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM v.s. EF 70-200mm F4 L USM

I'm about to darelyditch this L lensagain over70-300mm lens for
1. IS
2. Size
3. Zooming range

2) EF-S 60mm F2.8 Macro USM v.s. EF 50mm F2.5 compact Macro

This macro-lens purchase is something extra, and for fun.
(I may not get this at all;the zoom-lens purchase is a priority)
I'd choose the EF-S 60mm lens because ofUSM.


Given that I'm not a professional photographer, and that I tend to put more weight on mobility and compactness, should I really care about the "L" lenses? Are there really significant differences between "L"s and the rest?

Knowing that I will definitely never want to run around with a tripod (or even a mono pod), should I still considerditching "IS"for"L" lenses?

I'msimply being confusedand don't know the significance of L lensesbecause I never had one. To me,"IS" is a more important feature to me. But at the same time, I don't want to be in the situation a year laterregretingnothaving listened to what you are telling me now.

Let me know what you think....
newest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2006, 1:18 AM   #22
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I think the 70-300 is an excellent choice, though there have been a few problems with their focus (?) when in portrait mode. At any rate Canon are working on that and the last of the old batch is now disappearing from the shelves. I assume that the new batch will be fixed. I would be inclined to hold off for a little while on the purchase - give it a couple of months to let them sort it out.

Apart from this single flaw the reviews of the new 70-300 have been excellent, and to me it makes the perfect compliment to the 17-85. You have two lenses that are of semi-pro quality and that give an EFL coverage of 27-480mm between them! Both with IS, both with fast-focus USM. It's a fine pair.

L lenses are great if you need them, but you pay a penalty in weight and cost for their rugged construction; designed to withstand heavy use by people who use them all day every day, often in difficult conditions.

As to the Macro - well give the other lenses a try first, true 1:1 macro is not necessarily something you're going use a lot, and if you're going to get really serious about macro you will need a top-grade tripod and some expensive macro ring flashes too. See what you can do with the 17-85 first; it will get you close enough for flower shots, butterflies, that sort of thing.

I would be far more inclined to put the extra cash into:
1. A good flash - the 430EX perhaps.
2. A fast "normal" EFL prime lens for low-light, non-flash work. I would recommend the Canon 28mm f1.8 USM.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 5:26 AM   #23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1
Default

[img]/forums/images/emoticons/jumping-smiley-004.gif[/img]*That is the most hilarious thing I've ever heard!!!* Why?* I experienced the exact same thing.* Although this guy was not rude.* But I was looking around for the best price on the Canon EOS 30D (because after seeing it at Best Buy, I could not resist.* Plus reviews of the camera in magazines and on the web were nothing but praise) because I know you can porbably save some omney.* You just have to be careful.* I did a search on Pricegrabber.com and the cheapest I could find it was still close to $1300-- not much savings from standard retail of $1499.* Oddly enough, since I searched on Google, on the right side of the screen were some ads from other places.* USAPHOTONATION.COM was one of them.*[img]/forums/images/emoticons/confused.gif[/img] Their price was $829.* Of course, that price attracted me dearly.* And it said USA warranty on the product's description.* Anyway, I added it to my cart, and was anxiously awaiting my new purchase.* In what seemed like days on end, I finally got a call from customer service about my order.* What did they tell me?* The exact same thing you described above.* Though they were not rude.* So of course, you can guess where I went.* Best Buy.* Because USAPhotoNation.com was selling the US version for $1399, it did not make sense for me to buy it from them, and not have the chance to return it to the store if necessary.* There I was thinking I was getting the best deal on earth.* Now I've learned.* Though not all online retailers in cameras do this!* (Funny as well, because I did some research as to whether that China made plastic body version would be okay in a sense.* Save money?* Why not?* And of course, while it's technically the same product, the quality and build is NOT.** I read that while it may save you money, Canon does not honor warranty or offer repairs of any kind. * *So you're out of luck if you break it or need repairs.* And I figured, why bother?* Just get it new from a well-known electronics retail chain and pay for the real thing).* But, I will say that this guy was honest.* Maybe because he knew that he was selling to a customer involved in education, so he may have felt guilty.* He explained to me on the phone all the details about how I had ordered a product that was not the US version and that if I wanted to, to upgrade, etc.* That is mentioned in the article I read about in my research.* However.* The "bait and switch" technique-- the low price attracts the customer, and unknowing customers, uninformed customers who don't know any better just give in and start upgrading their purchase under pressure and start spending more money than they wanted to in the first place (just charge it to my card... whatever) and would have spent less at real retail outlets like Best Buy.
SLRMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2006, 2:30 PM   #24
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 31
Default

[/quote]
*"...when you say it must have at least 100mm zoom - do you mean before or after the 1.6x crop factor?"
[/quote]


Before the crop factor a 100mm lens is 100mm. After the crop factor a 100mm lens is 100mm. Mounted on Mamiya RB 67 a 100mm lens is 100mm. No?
jjonsalt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2006, 3:17 PM   #25
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Yes, you are perfectly correct, but being completely pedantic.

What the camera companies should be quoting is angle-of-view.

http://www.acapixus.dk/photography/angle_of_view.htm

That's after all the relevant issue, not focal length. However, most people don't know the angle of view numbers, but there are millions of 35mm film photographers who are pretty familiar with the angle of view of various focal length on those 35mm cameras. So all digicams and DSLRs give a crop factor/conversion factor to translate a given focal length on a given sized sensor into what would give the equivalent angle of view on a 35mm SLR.

So if you can convince everyone to stop using "crop factor" and instead talk about angle of view we'd all be better off. Absent that remarkable feat however you're just being silly.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2006, 4:09 PM   #26
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Most manufacturers' lens specs do show angle of view for a lens. But, it represents the angle of view for the camera or sensor size the lens was originally designed for.

If you use a smaller sensor or film size, the angle of view will be narrower (more apparent magnification) for any given focal length.

If you use a larger sensor or film size, the angle of view will be wider (less apparent magnification) for any given focal length.

The only reason to even have a so called crop factor or focal length multiplier is so that users familiar with using lenses on 35mm cameras have a better understanding of how angle of view compares.

If 35mm cameras were not so popular, there would be no need to use them at all.

Since you have the same lenses for use on 35mm or smaller sensors, giving angle of view is more difficult (since you don't know the camera the lens will be used on).

Nikon started giving Angle of View for DX lenses assuming an APS-C size sensor would be used (since their DX series are similar to Canon's EF-S series lenses, and they will only work on a camera with a sensor smaller than 35mm film).

For example, the Nikon specs for the widest angle of view for the Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ID-IF AF-S DX lens is shown as 76 degrees at a focal length of 18mm (as you would expect when a lens with a focal length of 18mm is used on a DSLR model with a smaller sensor).

If you look at a non-DX lens, the angle of view shown in the specifications for a given focal length assumes it will be used on a 35mm model.For example, the Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5DED-IF AF lens (non DX lens) shows an angle of view in it's specifications of 100 degrees at a focal lenth of 18mm (as you would expect when an 18mm lens is used on a 35mm camera).

The focal length at the widest setting for both lenses is identical. What changes is the angle of view, depending on the size of the sensor/film the lens is being used with.

Since we have lenses that can be used on cameras with more than one sensor or film size, it's kind of tough to give angle of view (although they could give multiple angle of views in the specs, showing it for multiple sensor/film sizes).

If 645 format was more popular than 35mm, we may have be seeing "focal length multipliers" to help medium format users make the transition, so that users could understand that a lens will have more apparent magnification (narrower angle of view) for any given focal length when used on a 35mm camera versus a medium format model. ;-)

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2006, 6:41 AM   #27
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 31
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
Yes, you are perfectly correct, but being completely pedantic.

...you're just being silly.
Gee, hay man, I don't consider calling things the way they are being overly concerned with minute details. The focal length of a lens is not a "minute" detail. Your 'angle-of-view' dosen't work either as a lens of one focal length will begat different 'angles-of view' on 30D, 1D2n and 1Ds. Anyway, you may well be the first person I have ever heard that considered the focal length of lenses "silly".
jjonsalt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2006, 12:45 PM   #28
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

You're not calling things the way they are, you're making statements which are confusing to people who are trying to understand the interrelationships between focal length, angle-of-view and sensor size.

Quote:
Your 'angle-of-view' dosen't work either as a lens of one focal length will begat different 'angles-of view' on 30D, 1D2n and 1Ds.
Gee ya think?

Quote:
Anyway, you may well be the first person I have ever heard that considered the focal length of lenses "silly".
No the focal length is crucial. YOU are silly.

Did you actually read anything Jim or I wrote?



peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2006, 3:51 PM   #29
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 31
Default

I'm not going to reward your poor behavior with the attention it's seeking.
jjonsalt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2006, 4:29 PM   #30
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

C'mon guys....

I think we're all on the same page here, just misunderstanding what everyone else is saying. ;-)

Angle of view would be great, *if* it was widely used from the beginning instead of focal length, and *if* a lens could only be used with one film or sensor size.

But, that's not the case, especially given cameras with the same lens mounts available using multiple film or sensor sizes (not to mention lens adpaters allowing even more lenses to be used, including medium format to 35mm adapters).

Focal Length is about the only constant that could be used to describe magnification (unless you can get everyone to agree on using 1x, 2x, etc. in a uniform manner other than describing the difference between wide and long).

Is 1x equal to 42mm, 45mm or 50mm, and what sensor/film size is that (since we'd a formula to make different film/sensor sizes equivalent for the same angle ov view anyway)? ;-)

They should have printed angle of view on the lenses, too (for the film or sensor size a lens was designed for). But, they probably didn't want them to look that "busy" with focal length, widest apertures, brand name, filter size, etc. already printed on them. ;-) So, it's buried in the specs for the camera a lens was originally designed for with most lenses.

JimC 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 5:12 AM.