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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 13, 2003, 10:27 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHL
However I'm spoiled by my 28-200mm small and compact D7. ... IMO f2.8 is more important in the long lens since its that shallow depht of field that you can't get with compact digicams!"
Excellent point! Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is a D7 lens?

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13, 2003, 11:05 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

barthold

Earlier you said:
Quote:
Did any of you have any experience with the IS feature on some of the Canon lenses? Seems like this is the first generation lenses with IS from Canon. Any first generation anything makes me nervous, maybe I should wait till the bugs are flushed out.
It depends on which lens you are talking about. Canon has had IS for a long time, most IS lense are 2nd generation. The 100-400 is the first generation IS, so it doesn't work while on a tripod (the newer IS lenses will.) But it does work, and it works fairly well from all I've read. I hope to have one in the next few days (when that *&$#$ 10D arives!) At one time I had a chart which showed which IS lenses worked on a tripod, but I can't find it. (BTW, I believe the 100-400 will work on a monopod. They are steady, but not steady enough to throw it off.)

The problem is that you need a long reach to get a picture of a surfer. They are large (4" tall, while bent down?) but far away. Even that really nice Sigma EX 70-200 NHL mentioned is $700. Way out of your price range. You might get one used? You can't afford to get a teleconverter and a lower power lens because that will put you over $400 as well. You could spend under it... Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO is $209. But it has no HSM, and I have no idea how sharp it is, how it handles flare or color aboration. I truly have no idea how good or bad this lens is. I've *never* heard it talked about on a forum.

I agree with NHL about the problems of the 1.6x. It just takes those nice wide angle zooms and turns them into middle-of-the-road ones. Since I really need the reach, I don't think I'll mind much... But who knows? This is why Nikon is making their DX line of lenses, and I wouldn't be surprised if Canon didn't do the same thing.

The "D7" which NHL refers to is the Minolta D7 camera. It's a very good "prosumer" camera, on par with the Nikon CoolPix 5700. With a teleconverter it might do all you need for surfing pictures. I've never used it, but I've heard good things.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13, 2003, 2:01 PM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Here's some numbers:



Of course we can settle for lesser Canon's non-'L' lenses, but so can we with the Tokina, Tamron, and other Sigmas... One caveat is the non-white heat absorbant crinkle finish, and some wide aperture trade-off on the Sigma (but it's moot on a wide angle). Just my choice since we're getting away from the all-in-one camera like the D7's, we might as well make those extra poundage worth it right? 8) 8) 8)

http://www.minoltausa.com/eprise/mai...ame=DiMAGE_7Hi
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2003, 11:21 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 577
Default

Well, I've decided to go for the cheap at first. I'll play with it and see how well I like it. I ordered a canon 28-90 USM II zoom and a 75-300 USM III zoom lens. $300 for two lenses, we'll see :-)

Picked up the Canon 10D body at Circuit City, of all places. The professional foto shop in town was out of them. They sell like hot cakes still.

Barthold
barthold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2003, 10:01 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 294
Default

I dont think you will be overly impressed with the 70-300mm Canon lens unless you dont mind using a tripod. I honeslty didnt give it a chance to try to impress me in any way to make me think I dont need the IS model. I took mine back and ordered a IS USM version. Yes it cost 2 to 3 times the III, but it seems people highly recommend it over the non-IS USM model. Expecially if you plan to keep it on as your "All around" lens. And want the capability of pulling it out of your case and snappin' away for them split second moments. As I do...

Russell
UniSonBBS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2003, 10:25 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

This is part of the reason I got the 100-400L for. USM and IS, and the range I want. Hand holdable (ok, a little heavy....) for those "take it immedately" shots.

I never would have gotten this shot without IS and a quick lens:

http://www.marx7.org/~esmith/images/...ght_sunset.jpg

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2003, 9:53 AM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

... How can a 70-300mm be an "All around" lens? With the 1.6x factor it's like an 110-480mm unless one is in the spy business or something... :lol:

What about the minimum distance? and with such a tight angle it'll be limited to only bright outdoor, and small subjects... even the built-in flash can't go that far!
NHL 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 3:14 PM.