Equipment advice

I'm an amateur photogapher with about 10 years' experience, take

mostly pictures of my family on vacations (about 2-3 trips a year).

I have a Canon EOS-100 with 28-70/2.8L and 70-210/3.5-4.5.

I'm thinking of changing the 70-210/3.5-4.5 because of inconsistent

image and build quality. One of the annoyances of the lens is zoom

creep, the zoom slides when pointed downwards. Picture quality

(sharpness, contrast) is inconsistent, it requires almost perfect

lighting to take sharp, "contrasty" pictures. It compares quite

unfavorably to my 28-70/2.8L.

I'm thinking of buying an EOS Digital Rebel (it's called 300D in my

home patch). One of the things I like about the camera is the idea of

the high-perspective integrated flash because a common problem with

the 24-70/2.8L when used with the EOS-100's built-in flash is the

shadow cast by the lens (probably due to the proximity of the lens'

range). I have a 540EZ flash and tripod/ monopods which I use less

often because of pure laziness (& the desire to appear less

conspicious). Of course, the lower cost is the over-riding

consideration, especially when there will a consumer-class full-frame

DSLR (36 x 24 mm) in the hopefully not too distant horizon!

Rob Galbraith said the following in his preview of the Digital Rebel

(http://www.robgalbraith.com)

"The built-in flash towers over the camera. We've always found the

tiny flashes built into some SLR cameras to be of limited use,

because of their propensity for casting a shadow into the photo

unless the lens is particularly short or narrow in diameter (which

describes very few pro lenses, even wide angles). The Digital Rebel's

built-in flash, when open and ready to fire, sits much higher than

that of the 10D, which might make it possible to use it with a

greater variety of lenses." Anybody know whether this is true (maybe

film Rebel owners)?

I was debating whether to purchase the 24/1.4L or the 16-35/2.8L. In

the end, I have almost decided on the latter due to the convenience

of the zoom, especially since I am not a professional photographer

and convenience would be the main consideration. One other factor was

that both photodo.com and photozone.de gave higher quality ratings to

the latter over the former. Perusing reviews and forums, many

photographers seem to be ambivalent about the quality of images taken

by the 2.4/1.4L.

To replace the 70-210/3.5-4.5, I considered the 70-200/4L versus the

135/2L or 200/2.8L II with tele-extenders. Given that I have young

children & aged parents in tow most of the time, I thought about the

inconvenience of having to swap the tele-extender in and out. In the

end, I, again, feel I should go for the zoom. The 70-200/2.8L was

considered but dropped because of its weight, bulk and expense (also,

wife rates camera gear second in priority to kids' hot water flasks/

cheese crackers, grandma's sweaters, etc).

My justification for buying better equipment (duly submitted to

spouse!):

- Many of the trips will be once-in-a-lifetime.

- Many SHOTs are one-time deals - whale(-tail)s off NZ waters (done

that), elephant trekking in Thai mountains (ditto), crocodile

expeditions at night in Malaysian jungles (planning).

- Children are only 4 years-old once.

- Buying better lenses are cheaper in the longer run by avoiding

trade-ins.

1. Whether I should get a DSLR. Averaging US$12 per roll of 36-

exposure film and about 60 rolls per year, I should recoup the cost

of the DLSR in about 2 years.

2. Whether I should get the 16-35/2.8L or the 24/1.4L or only if I

buy the DSLR due to the 1.6X POV.

3. Whether to replace the 70-210/3.5-4.5 with one of the following:

70-200/4L or the 135/2L or the 200/2.8L with tele-extenders. Does

anyone know whether the tele-extender works with the 70-200/4L lens?

4. I'm also thinking of purchasing a 50/1.4 fast lens for urban

evenings/ nights (would this purchase be necessary if I opted for the

135/2L?).

Thank you everyone

James Bryan

Your item #1 should include the cost of printing some of the digital images. Depending on how many you print and what size they are, this can get expensive.

2 & 3. I would get the zooms. The Canon extenders work on the 70-200 f/4L but you loose AF with the 2x unless you are using it on a EOS 3, 1V, 1D, 1Ds. The 1.4x works fine though. The 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 has a good reputation for an older EF mount lens, but few zoom lenses can compare to the 28-70mm f/2.8L.

I don't see how a 135mm lens, no matter how fast it is, would be a good substitution for a fast 50. It's field of view is much narrower, and hand holding it in low light will require a considerably faster shutter. The 50mm f/1.8 is 1/3 the cost, nearly as good optically, and nearly as fast in AF speed. So that's another option.