Is this a good deal?

[renatoa]

Orlando, some people just hates flash light, and think it destroy anythng. I prefere the virtues of SR instead any flash.

[orly_andico]

Renato, that's true. But the hatred of flash is mostly due to on-camera flash. An off-camera bounce flash can provide very good results. Of course it's quite obtrusive.

 

But that said, most people use their cameras at events. And flash is good for that. SR cannot remove subject induced motion blur. You'd need really high ISO for that.

[orly_andico]

I have to add (being from the fast prime/high ISO school of thought) that there are times when you can't get the lighting balance right no matter what you do.

 

Flash is pretty useful for evening out the shadows and highlights.

[renatoa]

Depends what you mean by event. If you are a pro, at a VIP gathering, hunting pics for glossies, then you may be right.

 

Me, as an hobby-ist, I didn't find yet the concert dull enough to be unable to capture. And I want the lights to be as I remember.

 

Well, maybe you can give us an example :)

[michael_kuhne]

You, see, Mike, the kinds of issues here that Orlando and Renato are bringing up give you an idea how complicated things really are once you get into using your equipment. It goes way beyond, "if I get this fabulous hi-end lens, I'll get better pictures". The more high-end, the more care you must exercise in applying its advantages. And at mid apertures, any differences become very narrow between good inexpensive and good very expensive. What remains then is the weight, size, and maybe greater focal range of the inexpensive model.

 

Orlando's, Renato's, and others' advice is more like what I said. Start out with an inexpensive, but good setup, add a fast prime or two for low light use, and start gaining experience. Your further needs will, in time, become more apparent as you develop, and you'll have a much better idea where to put your money.

 

The questions I asked of you above, regarding the why of choice between these lenses, are worth answering to get an idea of where you are at presently.

[fishguyis]

Michael,

 

I got the biggest shock of my life when I went to pick out my equipment. Long story short I thought that I would be getting an XSI and a 17-85mm USM IS, and maybe a macro lens because I LOVE macro (I had budgeted for these).

 

I didn't know it at the time, but a very close family member (who was with my cousin and I) paid for all my equipment. I ended up with a 40D, a 17-85mm USM IS, a 60mm f/2.8 macro USM, and a 70-200 f/fL USM.

 

This is more then I EVER expected. The person who "financed" it knows of my love for photography and wanted me to have good equipment (also this person may not be with us much longer). I am tremendously thankful for their generosity and you can bet I will be putting it to very good use.

[michael_kuhne]

That has to be the greatest post of good fortune I have ever seen, even superceding another whose school bought his equipment in exchange for doing some school photos.

 

I would say very fine lens choices without being too extreme. I take it the 70-200mm is the f/4? I would suggest maybe adding that 24mm f/2.8, for being a walk around easy carrying general purpose prime lens. Using a versatile FL prime forces you to work within a FL and get a good feel of its perspective and characteristics. Your setup may not be all you will ever need, depends on what interest you get into- but then it may be, and at least is one helluva start. Do a lot of shooting in metered manual (M) mode. You will learn a lot about exposure. Learn to use your spot meter.

 

Enjoy, and have lots of patience. You have quite a system there. You also have a wonderful, kind-hearted relative!!!

[michael_kuhne]

Just did a quick check and found that the 17-85mm does not ship with a lens hood!!! That is shocking for a lens in this class. I definitely recommend springing for the hood, sold as an accessory!!

[fishguyis]

I honestly just about lost it when I found out!

 

You are correct in assuming that the 70-200 is f/4. The other is WAY too expensive and I didn't get the IS

because I wanted the macro lens. It just means that I will have to learn to shoot very steady hehe (and use a

good tripod if I am shooting at 200mm).

 

I like your idea about the 24mm, smaller, lighter and a great lens. It's priced very reasonable as well.

 

I have been experimenting in AV, and TV mode but I don't want to rely on the "program" modes all the time. I have

been using full manual mode as well and yes it does give you a great idea about exposure etc.

 

I was a bit perturbed to find that the 17-85 didn't come with a hood that's for sure! I am thinking I may need

one for the macro as well. All things to add to what I have.

 

I went to staples and got a 160gig external hard drive and a CF reader so that will make life a lot easier

keeping pictures organized.

 

I am taking my family (14yr old, 3 and 1yr old) to a local conservation area this weekend and it has beautiful

scenery with water falls etc. I am hoping to get some good shots!

[snik75]

Ah! I love using my expensive (to me) gear to take shots of my darling kids. Of an estimated 4000 shots, the two of them (4 and 2 y/o) are both looking at the camera in 3. With their tongues out in 2. Frowning in the other. Whee! Does Canon have a setting to fix this? Pentax, no.

 

Seriously, congrats on your good luck, and good luck with the family shots! One secret - have one of the younger ones whisper a secret to the other. That is usually pretty cute. I read it in a book somewhere, and it does work. :-)

 

Come back and see us in the Pentax thread every now and then!

Nick<div></div>

[renatoa]

Michael, is good to know that Canon does not provide hood by default for any of his lenses. Or, maybe, I could be wrong, for Ls only.

[michael_kuhne]

Seems to be true, Renato. I have just discovered this, and I am amazed. Most EF lenses are not packed with the lens hood. Both Nikon and Pentax do generally include the hood with comparable lanses, though Nikon does not with its 18-55mm kit lens. I just got my Pentax 18-55mm II kit lens, which is a surprise, it is so nice for such a lens, very compact, nicely made, and with a very nice lens hood, having a reach-in door at the bottom for adjusting rotating filters!! With its metal lens mount, quick MF shift, and easy-clean coating, is quality extraordinary for a kit lens!!

 

Mike, that 70-200mm f/4 L lens is among the finest tele zoom lenses. No doubt. I have seen tests and comments. But yes without IS you must use a tripod a lot, or use always a high shutter speed, so you need lots of light. It is impossible to hold a large lens, in the telephoto range, very steady. At least 1/250 sec shutter speed when possibly zooming out to 200mm, at minimum. With IS you could do with half or 1/4 that shutter speed, unless your subject is moving. They want twice the already high price for the IS version of this lens. f/4 is above average speed, but still not enough for high speed action, unless in bright light. Not for indoor sports. If I would buy an expensive 70-200mm, it would be a f/2.8 to include use for high speed action shooting, lower light, and to sometimes deliberately reduce depth of field. Canon makes such a lens, with IS, for not a whole lot more than the f/4 version with IS!! Its optical quality is every bit as good, too. I don't know how they can sell the f/4 IS at that price.

 

Otherwise, the lens I recommended is more practical. Perhaps carefully consider talking to the dealer about an exchange. The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS is about the same price as the 70-200mm f/4 L non-IS. Especially with telephoto, the IS is very important for hand held use. The L lens has a slightly superior test rating, but test numbers between these two lenses runs quite close- enough so it would be not likely to see any difference with both mounted on tripod. But hand-held, at say 1/125 shutter speed, the EF 70-300mm would win hands down for a sharper image, because of IS. At 200mm the EF lens is not at f/5.6, but just slightly above f/4, maybe 1/2 stop or less. About the same at 190mm. It is nice to have the f/4's constant aperture, but only makes a difference if shooting with aperture wide open. Otherwise, your camera's electronic aperture control will compensate, and keep your aperture setting, even if shooting in manual mode. I have tested this with Pentax film models, and I'm virtually positive the same holds true for other electronic aperture controls as well.

 

That lens is well-made, and more compact to handle, but the front does rotate, not too convenient for rotating filter use- that is its only drawback. The IS advantage along with fine optical performance trumps everything else. And you get the added reach to 300mm. You can check Photozone's test review. The sharpest glass without IS when you need it will not give a sharp photo. I would get this 70-300mm, and later save up for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS for indoor and evening action shooting from a distance, if getting into that need. Still use the 70-300mm for other uses.

[michael_kuhne]

BTW, the 70-300mm lens with IS ( not the DO version- forget that) used only between 70-200mm, is practically constant aperture anyway. Hardly any change. Virtually none at 180mm.

 

I sometimes shoot indoor hockey, for example. For this, I can get pretty close, but must shoot through a glass barrier. Indoor light to begin with, and the barrier cuts more light. So I needed to bring out my big fast pro lens, the Tokina 28-70mm PRO II, and shot wide open to get shutter speeds of 1/350-1/500 sec to stop action with these fast-moving players. This one taken with my K100D at ISO 1600, which was necessary to get the faster shutter speeds, even with the fast zoom lens at f/2.8.

 

I have a much more compact, high-quality, Pentax f/4 28-70mm, and the 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 which I use more often. But the Tokina is a fine lens, and I do use it a lot, for a number of reasons, and when not having to do a lot of walking/carrying!!<div></div>

[michael_kuhne]

I correct myself, the 70-200mm f/2.8 L WITHOUT IS is not much more $ than the f/4 WITH IS. But tests have shown the non-IS f/2.8 model to be a better lens!! If mainly using for high speed action shooting as above, a non-IS f/2.8 is fine. For these hockey shots I had SR switched off. Not needed for such high shutter speeds at these focal lengths. But for slower shutter speeds, IS becomes a valuable tool.

 

I just got the Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, which I can match with my Tokina for a combo of fast aperture zooms. And the quality level is very high indeed, and weather sealed. This is fine for moderate longer distance use. If I should need a f/2.8 for yet more distance, I will be also up for a fast 70/80-200mm, but so far that has not been an issue.

[orly_andico]

Michael, although the 70-300/4-5.6 is only 1 stop slower than the 70-200/4L, the L is sharp wide-open, while the 70-300 is not (it follows the usual "two stops down to get critical sharpness").

 

So you're comparing one lens at f/11 with one at f/4. of course the IS makes a huge difference. Good thing we have in-body IS in Pentax land :-)

 

IS is one of those things you never miss until you experience it. Then you'll wonder how you'd ever lived without it. (I had no IS lenses in Canon land, but nowadays when I borrow a Canon DSLR i get annoyed that i cannot get sharp photos hand-held at 1/8 sec with the 50mm normal lens....)

[michael_kuhne]

Orlando, I agree regarding our advantage with Pentax SR!!

 

Photozone testing revealed the new EF 70-300mm f.4-5.6 to be close in resolution figures from f/4 on through f/11, the range of their test, as to the 70-200mm f/4. Especially good at 70mm. At 200mm, the 70-300 lens came in at f/5 wide open, about 1/2 stop difference. But most zooms ending at 200mm actually only deliver about 190mm. So at 190mm, the wide open f/5 at 200mm would be lower, and at 180mm very close to even. They also found that Canon had employed some of the same "L" optical technology with this 70-300mm lens as used in their high-end L series. They referred to it as the "hidden" L lens. Build quality is good, but not like L, however. But still a great value, and having IS with greater range in a relatively compact body.

 

Now I know these modern MTF tests are done only at long distance focus, so not the whole story is necessarily there. But the report does give one some scientifically verfiable idea of performance.

 

Since on a DSLR, a 50mm lens serves as a moderate tele lens, IS can be especially helpful. The more telephoto, the more important IS becomes, even at 1/125 sec shutter speed with a longer focal length. You are certainly are right how spoiled one gets being able to get sharp shots without resorting to high shutter speeds, and pumping up ISO to try getting those shutter speeds. In my dusk shot, SR allowed me to get that shot with my 77mm Limited I could not have gotten without it!!