d_l1

Great shots Marc! Love the bokeh.

Next f4? How about 500/4L IS? Hehe.

ALmost all eos cameras have the things you require. But I suggest an EOS 3. Good viewfinder and AF.

For the 17-40mm vs 20mm centre 100% crop comparison, how come the two images have different magnifications?

It's not that hard to choose.

 

17-40/4, 50/1.4, and 70-200/2.8 or 4. For macro add a 500D or get a 100 macro lens if you can still afford it.

 

If you really intrested in portraits, 135/2L. Absolutely fantastic lens. On a 10D, it's probably too long. But it can also serve as a landscape/action/closeup lens.

Well, I've used various tele zooms. 70-200s, 70-210, 75-300s, 100-300s, 80/100-400s, and even some Nikons. I've found 100-300USM and 70-200/4L have the best value. I think you should go with 100-300USM. It has good quality and is reasonably priced.

Yes you can. I did this many many times and actually you dont need to skip any frames. I have never got a double exposure. Trust your camera! Make sure your EOS 3 frame counter is counting up not counting down. If it's counting down, well, you can do the math.

I have a 128MB card for my S30. It works great. Haven't had a problem.

Blurry?? You mean not enough DOF?

Expect none.

I don't think you focused on the same area for both shots. Where is the focus?

YEP THE ABOVE IS CORRECT. ADDING A TC WILL NOT UNDEREXPOSE OR OVEREXPOSE.

"In a 5X7 print, you'll not be able to tell the difference between 75-300 and 70-200."

 

I sold my 75-300IS to get the 70-200/4L. For me, I can definitely see the difference. And the difference is huge. The sharpness, color and contrast on the 4L is superior.

 

You should get the 4L since you are a "quality freak". You can get a used one for less than $500, if you are lucky.

 

If FTM is important to you, and you don't want to spend that much, I'd second the recommendation of 100-300 USM. It's a fast focusing lens with good performance. No match for 4L though.

 

You mentioned sports... Sure, longer lenses are more suitable, sometimes. For what sports? Have you thought about 200/2.8L for sports?

I've never used them. But I've heard really good things about 28-70 3.5-4.5 II. I want to get one too. Where can you get one? ebay? keh?

 

Do you know why it was discontinued?

70-200/4L.

 

It's no heavier or less sharp than 200/2.8L or 135/2L. At $500, I think it's a must have.

 

200/2.8L or 135/2L is definitely an option. But you said only 10% of your photos will be taken above 100, I'm not sure it's a good idea to spend that much money for that 10%.

Well, I have a LP1224 pouch that fits 70-200/4L. It's not strong though.

Joe,

 

All the lenses you mentioned are good. If I were you I'd go with 200/2.8L and possibly with a 1.4x. You need a long lens!

 

I have both 135/2L and 200/2.8L. Both are SHARP, even with 1.4 extender!! I havn't really compared those two lenses, but I think 135 is slightly sharper. There's about $150 price difference, I'm not sure why.

 

The zoom which I also have, 70-200/4L, is absolutely fantastic. IMO, it's the best value in EOS line. I performed some tests on this lens a while ago against 135/2L and 200/2.8L. I found this lens to be SHARPER than both of them at wide apertures(even wide open!!)!! It also seems to have better contrast than the other two. I have no idea why that is true.

"When using manual mode of Rebel 2K"

 

You're confusing manual focus with manual exposure. If you want manual focus, find MF-AF switch on your lens and set it to MF.

 

"it costs me long time to allocate the valid focusing point(s) to the area I expect within viewfinder... "

 

You need to understand how autofocus works. There needs to be contrast for the camera to detect. If the AF points does not cover the area you want to focus, you need to recompose.

28/2.8, 135/2.8 SF, and some filters.

Elan 7 does not have eye controled focusing.

 

You could get a A2, a semi pro camera, which has spot metering. You can also use your 420EZ flash with A2. You could get a 50/1.8 mk I, which has a distance scale. Problem solved.

I use rubber hood for my 28/2.8. It works fine.

"Is the 28/2.8 at $170 another low priced gem like the 50/1.8?"

 

Yes!!! I love this lens!!!

 

Since you don't have a need for a wider lens, 28/2.8 is the one to get. It's SHARP, LIGHT, and takes 52mm filters, same as your 50/1.8.

Go for it!

 

Since this is your first telephoto lens, you really can't go wrong with this lens. It takes great portraits. AF is definitely fast enough. I couldn't notice any difference in AF speed between this lens and my 200/2.8L.

 

Don't worry about AF sesitivity with EOS 3. It doesn't matter much, unless you need a 400/5.6. I also have Canon 1.4xII, but I mostly use it on 200/2.8L for sports. Is the extra 80mm useful? For what I shoot, yes. But it might not be that useful for you. I'd say get the 70-200 for now and possibly get 1.4x later if you like.

Anyone knows why Tokina 100-300 was discontinued? Low demand?

Folks, look at the question, his budget is limited.

 

Why suggest a 24/2.8 for a first timer? Sure it's a great lens, but 28/2.8 gives you much better value.