philgeusebroek

Hello everyone,

I am putting together an alpine hiking kit. I have a 24mm f3.5L tilt

and shift, and a 50mm f1.4 USM.

The question is the telephoto. Should I get the 70-200mm f4L or the

135mm f2L??

I have a Canon 1.4x extender, a 2x Tamron converter, a 72mm circ

polarizer and a 72mm 500D for close-ups.

I am thinking that the 135mm may actually be more convenient because

it has the 72mm thread, it�s two whole stops faster and I can

handhold it no problem, likely even with the polarizer on it. It

could also ride around on the front of the camera without swinging to

and fro like the 70-200mm might. It would also make amazing

portraits. Oh, and did I mention it is sharp? I got to try one out

once and liked it much.

However, with the 70-200mm, I may actually be able to skip carrying

the 50mm, and use it as the on-camera lens 95% of the time. I would

switch to the 24mm for those wide vistas. But is it too bulky to

have on-camera all the time?? The problems are that it is 2 stops

slower and I have to buy a 67mm circ polarizer or a 67-72mm step-up

adapter. If I get the step-up adapter will my lens hood still fit

over top??? Galen Rowell said he could have taken 90% of his life�s

best photos with a 24mm and a zoom in the 80-200mm range. Must be

lots of merit in that sentiment. However I wonder if he ever tried

a 135mm f2?

I would especially like feedback from people who have actually used

these two lenses in the field.

Thanks,

Phil

Check this out:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/500vs600.shtml

I think you did fine based on his observations.

My biggest question is, now that digital image quality and cost economics (for Pros) have surpassed scanned 35mm film, where will the image stock companies draw the line?

If I buy a D60 but most stock agencies want D1s resolution, that leaves me behind. If I buy a D1s and there is a 20mp camera out, then my images may have to compete with even higher resolution. Don't bother telling me about ressing up. Stock agencies may simply specify that all submissions remain at native resolution, same as they specify no sharpening.

Where will it end? When do I buy in? I had a D60 on hold but the store sold it on me. Now I hear that there is a better body planned in March anyway. I am going to jump soon, but will I have a chance against all those D1s shooters?

And yes, the day when slides WON'T be accepted is coming. Technology has little sentiment. My $700 Pentium 4 is several orders of magnitude faster than the Silicon Graphics workstations that my company paid $35,000 for each in 1996. At home I have a $130 40GB hard drive, why would I go back to the 4GB 10000 RPM SCSI drive that is gathering dust on my shelf?

Have you bought a DVD player yet? Do you still play audio cassettes or 8-tracks in your home? Records?

Someone stated awhile back that the third world has gone to wireless mobile phones because it was easier than installing land lines. Perhaps having digital photo printing kiosks will supplant any installation of traditional photo labs in much the same way. There is no loss in convenience compared to film. If anything it will be more convenient.

In the end, the unwashed masses will drive the market.

Can't we all just get along? Fear, anger and resentment are emotions to alert one to danger. The root causes of these emotions should be understood before one allows them to motivate one's response. One should understand himself before he makes someone else understand him.

Ewww...

Just watching someone recommend one of those cheap pieces of crap makes my skin crawl... Don't waste your money on that stuff.

How bout a nice sharp cheap 50mm f/1.8? At least then you won't have to use the bloody flash all the time, and you'll actually be able to get a good 8x10 print.

Get the 50 and you won't be frustrated with glacial shutter speeds, slow autofocus, dim viewfinders and fuzzy prints. Otherwise get the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM, like others here have advised you.

The 50mm is still sharper the 28-105mm, 1/3 of the cost, and needs only 1/4 of the light that the zoom does.

No clear answer seems to have surfaced on this one.

Can I use the Battery Pack with Lithiums? How about NiMH

Rechargeables??

Thanks,

Phil

Hmmmm....

EOS 3 plus 24mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f4L + 1.4x TC in two LowePro pouches on the pack belt...? Could do just the 28-135USM and save a LOT of weight. The 70-200mm and 24mm seem more rugged though. Optional: Olympus Stylus to cover 35mm and as backup. Lightweight, rugged and versatile.

I also like the 24mm + 50mm + 100 macro for outdoors/landscape. However, I find that when hiking with others I need to do quick snaps or people get pissed at me for lagging. I got nagged for slowing down to take pics with my old Tamron 28-200mm. I have since replaced that with EF28-135mm USM IS lens. Pentax K1000 + 28+50+135 is compact, cheap and rugged too.

Please stop you are sending shivers down my spine. All this good advice and THAT lens pops up? Wow. Marketing does work.

Wayyy too slow. Had a Tamron 28-200 for a couple of years. Convenient but not very sharp and very slow. The 300mm is f/6.3 wide open, and it won't be very sharp wide open either. If you like U-shaped horizons, the 28-300mm will be awesome. Also if you only take pictures in bright sunlight it'll be great. ;)

You are FAR better off with EF28-105mm USM and EF100-300mm USM if you really want zooms so bad. However, a used EF 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 (metal mount), and 70-210 or 100-300mm would offer a bit more at 28mm and lots more speed and sharpness at 50mm. Then you won't crave the 50mm f/1.4 after either. I have a 28-135mm IS, and the distortion curvature at 28mm makes me feel disoriented and want to puke. The 28mm f/2.8 is way sharper, cheaper, and doesn't make your photos look like they were taken in a fun-house mirror.

I think if you got the 28-300mm you may become disillusioned with photography because of your drab, flarey, hard-to-take without 800 ISO film pictures.

This is tongue-in-cheek to stress a point: The 28-300mm lens won't make you happy at all. It will just take all the fun out and leave you frustrated. Photography is about light. Why buy a lens that doesn't let any in?

I would hit Ebay and look for nearly-new 24mm, 50mm and 85mm or 100mm primes. All are 58mm filters and you could get a 250D closeup lens for macro use. Get a used 200mm f2.8L and a 1.4x converter later.

A 24mm and 70-200mm f4L would also be an amazing combination. It would more than alleviate your concern about the body you get. By a cheap 50mm f1.8 if you feel the gap. The only thing here is you put up with different filter sizes. Again, if you feel the need for 300mm you could always get a teleconverter later.

Hello,

Has anyone used the 300mm f4L IS USM with the EF 2.0x Teleconverters?

What are the results like? Sharp 8x10s? How about 12x18? Can I

effectively use this combination handheld with my EOS 3?

Thanks,

Phil

Get a circular polarizer, an 81a slight warming filter (for overcast days), a good tripod, and a small flash (say a 380EX or cheaper). The filters and tripod are most important. Manfrotto's (Bogen's) 190 series is a good cheap tripod with a cheap Manfrotto (Bogen) 3 way head.

Either lens and a tripod will be sharper than a handheld L-series lens. Matter of fact, your 50mm is already sharper than a few L-series lens. Good value there.

There is always Ebay later on if you outgrow your equipment. For you, now, composition, and technique should be everything. Remember that pros take better pictures with disposables than rich technophiles do with $10,000 kits.

You don't need an EOS 3 body. I often take better pictures with my AE-1 or Pentax ME Super than with my EOS 3. Manual cameras force you to think about what you are doing. Concentrate on composition first, and then learn to use shutter speed and aperture to fine tune your composition. Remember that lighting and composition are almost everything.

You have a good outfit. Get out and shoot! You'll end up having way more fun than worrying about which arm to lose to obtain more equipment.

I think you would gain the best of both worlds with the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 and the 50mm f/1.8. Gives you a chance to see the special qualities of both at nominal cost. I have a 50mm f/1.4 and really like it. The speed is wonderful at times, and you can create background blur wide open too.

So much has been said about the 85mm f/1.8 that I am very curious to give the lens a try. Finding one in FD was a monumental task as they are not cheap. But now I am in EF stuff so I could rent it or buy it new if need be.

Sorry Roger,<br><br>

I should have made that, "I used to own three L-series <b>/or</b> high quality Canon FD zooms...". I was wondering if that would cause confusion after I posted it. <br><br>

I did indeed have the 20-35mm f/3.5L, the 35-105mm f/3.5, and the 80-200mm f/4L. Yes I do believe that the 35-105 could have been an L-series. Todays crop of normal zooms are simply not as good as that lens, and I guess this is part of why I am not so enthusiastic about the 28-135mm. It is simply not as nice as the lens it replaced.<br><br>

The 20-35mm f/3.5L vignetted at 20mm with even a slim polarizer on it. That went away at 24mm. It also only focused to 0.5m and had no DOF scale. All of this annoyed me in the field. I found myself using the lens at 24mm all the time so I just went out and bought a 24mm FD lens. The 24mm prime focused almost twice as close and did not have the limitations of the zoom. The FD 24mm is a wonderful lens.<br><br>

The 80-200mm was wonderfully sharp and light. However I butted up against the f/4 aperture a few times and this made me wish for a faster lens at 100mm for portraits. I also didn't like the push-pull design.<br><br>

I think the 35-105mm was my favourite zoom, though the 80-200mm was close. It fit the T90 like a glove and they seemed made for each other. But I was moving to EOS and didn't want to keep any thing too valuable just sitting around, so I sold it. Plus, all the lenses I then had sitting around were 52mm filters and this one was left as an oddball.<br><br>

One thing that struck me with those zooms was that I was always switching lenses from wide angle to normal to telephoto anyway. I switch primes about as often, and my vision is simplified by not having so much choice all the time. I think I am forced to ponder composition more than focal length now.<br><br>

...Stupid login timeout. Forgot to paste the header back in...

;P

Thanks very much for elaborating on your opinions. I think we got our wires crossed. Things are becoming contentious and that is not why we have a forum.<br><br>

I will address your concerns one by one. Please read carefully as I really am trying to be clear. I always endeavor to say what I mean, and mean what I say.<br><br>

I was trying to get the message across that economics were not a factor for me. It does not matter to me if they are a factor for you. Perhaps I should have said, �If I (me) could afford only one lens, then the zoom would be the one.� My lenses were bought one at a time, months apart. The 50mm f/1.4 came as part of a kit I spotted in a local paper. I sold two of the lenses on Ebay and cost-wise retained an Elan 7 and a 50mm f/1.4 for the price of a new Elan 7 body. The 24mm was bought on Ebay in mint condition for just over half of Canadian retail and the Macro was bought in nearly new condition at a US$250.00 savings. My 28-135mm USM IS was bought new at cost when a store went out of business. There is more than one way to skin a cat.<br><br>

So why did I buy all of those lenses in the first place?<br><br>

1. Had a good deal on the kit so I kept the 50mm f/1.4 <br>

2. Used to have an FD100mm macro and still wanted 1:1 <br>

3. Bought the 28-135 IS after reading the reviews. I found it much sharper and more useful than the old Tamron zoom I had before , but was disappointed in its image quality relative to the kit I was already assembling: Hence this question. <br>

4. 24mm is one of my favourite focal lengths, and the filter size is the same as the other two lenses. <br><br>

If you had had my 50mm f1.4 on your camera, you might have already set it to its hyperfocal depth of field at f/8 or f/11. Upon seeing the toddler you might have raised your camera and fired off two quick shots without giving a fig about what your lens was doing. Since you couldn�t zoom, you simply composed and shot, not even having to wait for AF. You are secure in the knowledge that everything from 3 feet to infinity was in focus at f/11 (5 feet at f/8). That is what you might have done had you a prime lens on your camera. Just a thought. <br><br>

On the contrary, �that particular sentence� was meticulously put together by yours truly, and means everything it said. That is why I said it in the first place. My only mistake was in trying to take it out of the first-person. I should have used �I�. It was placed in a paragraph that discussed its relevance upon acquiring three primes.<br><br>

About the bridge: Good Point. I will remember that in considering whether to sell the zoom or not.<br><br>

The advantages/limitations I have listed are ones that I have run up against. I speak from experience. I used to own three L-series/high quality Canon FD zooms which covered 20mm to 200mm. The choices I have made are based on experiences with the limitations of those lenses. I retained the 28-135mm IS lens because I thought it would be convenient and portable relative to the primes I had settled on for �serious� play. This post is because I now am surprised to question whether it could fill ANY role better than my three primes, and am looking for feedback from others who share the same experience.<br><br>

My point was that I have discovered that my primes have many practical advantages over the 28-135 IS. Not just technical ones. Also I can get about US$350.00 for it on Ebay. That�s another 550EX or a PB-E2 for my EOS 3. Or a crap-load of film and processing. :)<br><br>

Given your situation and experience, I might have bought exactly the same lenses that you did. As it happened I started out with a beat-up Canon AE-1 with a Kiron 28mm f2, FD 50mm f/1.8 and beat up 70-210 f4 lens. Got it all for roughly US$70.00 from a friend. A T90 plus 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/4 macro may cost about the same or less than you paid for the kit you have now, if you still crave primes. You seem focused on cost and this would be a LOT of bang for your buck. You would have to focus yourself, though. Think of a T90 as a manual focus EOS 3 and you are not far off. I couldn�t bring myself to sell mine yet.<br><br>

You are on the right track about practicing. It is the only thing that will make you a better photographer. But as you practice, you may find that your current lenses aren�t good at some things you want to do. It is just a question of the right tool for the right task. I feel that my 28-135mm lens is a bit like a crescent wrench: it does ok most of the time, but it isn�t really good at everything I want to do. But my other wrenches don�t take up much more space than my crescent wrench and they do a lot more, so should I keep it? :)<br><br>

Saw your pics. Nice work!

Here is a fantastic review of three out of the four lenses most mentioned. This review addresses issues like sharpness, bokeh, perspective differences and working distance, all in-depth with examples:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/

I got the 100mm USM macro. There isn't much difference in background blur in portraiture over 100mm f/2.0, the lens focuses to 1:1, and it is likely nearly or just as sharp as the 135mm f2L at much less cost.

To clarify the aside before thing gets messy: by 'most people here' I meant most on photo.net, not on this thread.<br><br>

Preston, I found the same thing regarding my laziness quotient. The primes did make me think in a different way than the zoom, and I did grow to understand each focal length much better upon using them.<br><br>

Dominic, I guess I am on the bridge between your worlds of thought. I use Fuji Sensia 100 as an all-around slide film, and like to think of my kit as ready for anything, from casual hand-held snapshots at parties to elbows-in-the-dirt, tripod-mounted, exascerbatingly-calculated landscape vistas and 1:1 macros. A small, lightweight kit that will do it all. I have two bodies and sometimes load Velvia in one of them, but the lenses I take usually don't change.<br><br>

An aside to this question:<br><br>

Image quality VS. versatility, is there really a conflict?<br><br>

It suddenly struck me that most people here talk about going to prime lenses to sacrifice convenience for image quality. I have found that replacing the 28-135mm with 24mm + 50mm f/1.4 + 100mm Macro opens up whole new worlds of versatility! Image quality was a minor consideration compared to all the things this trio lets me do now that I couldn't before.

<br><br>

If convenience means always having the ability to get the shot you want, then these primes are more convenient than the zoom for me, at virtually no cost in portability. Obviously this new-found convenience has made me question the merit of keeping the zoom around - you can do that much more with the 24+50+100macro. Still, there is evidence that my 28-135mm IS USM is a better tool in a few specific applications, such as when there is no time to frame properly, or when I want hand-held DOF.<br><br>

I guess this aside is to point out versatility to those who think the only advantage of primes is sharpness. That is not what I have experienced.<br><br>

This is an aside because I don't want to get into another generalized hypothetical debate about primes vs. zooms. My question is specific to the four lenses mentioned.<br><br>

We now return you to regularly scheduled programming. :)

Dominic, your comment about barrel distortion at 28mm also rings true for me. So much so that I don't want to put a straight line anywhere near the edge of the frame. It looks like the picture was shot underwater! I find myself choking up to 35mm to get rid of the distortion. So this lens is more of a 35-135mm for me. If I want wider than that, I have to carry the 24mm anyway. <br><br>

Good points about following children, and getting depth of field without paying in shutter speed. Perhaps this lens would be excellent when hiking with a monopod and a group of people that don't want to slow down for pictures - I don't have to switch lenses and I get f/11 handheld. Also, it strikes me as a paradox of 'zoomability' vs. lens speed for social events and kid shots. I thought that shutterspeeds at f/2.8 were a must for moving objects, but this is a moot point if one can never frame properly, isn't it? Perhaps a peculiarity on my part: I consider the 200mm f/2.8 ideal for social gatherings: I can shoot people and kids without them getting camera-shy, and still have a nice blurred background. I guess I never worried too much about ease of framing when I had 'stealth capability'. :)<br><br>

Vinayak, could you further elaborate? I quote myself (can one do that? :) ): ,"<i>If one could afford only one lens, then the zoom would be the one. But having the above three gems, why would one ever want to pick up the zoom again?</i> You say that,"Of course if one had money then one won't even consider 28-135". In your opinion, does that apply in the case of the three alternates I own, or do you think that a zoom still holds a niche in the face of those three? I have money and I am <i>still</i> considering the 28-135, because it may still have merit in <i>my</i> kit. The last sentence in your post takes on a dismissive, elitist tone, and frankly raises the hair on the back of my neck. I hope the question I asked does not connote that I have discovered any "supreme knowledge". The point was to relate my experience for constructive discussion with my photo.net peers to gain further insight in this specific circumstance. <br><br>

All responses to this post are helping immensely. I didn't know there are so many who have already traveled the road I am on: that insight is invaluable, and is the reason I am here. You are bringing up things I haven't thought of.<br><br>

I never would have thought that 12 concrete disadvantages could be construed as 'ideological impurities'. The first half of your post offered concrete advice, but I don't comprehend what you mean about 'idealogical impurities'.<br><br>

I will indeed 'keep it because I find it useful' in situations that the primes are not. The question was more like, "What situations could it possibly be more useful than the three primes?".<br><br>

Thanks to all posters so far. Good points were made and I will definitely hold off before getting rid of it. Are there any other reasons to keep this lens? <br><br>

Bob: Send me a check (or PayPal) for US$499.00 and I will definitely stop fretting over whether to keep it. I'll even throw in the lens hood and the original packaging. :)<br><br>

I used to have the typical three zoom, L-series set in FD:<br><br>

FD 20-35mm f/3.5L, 35-105mm f/3.5, and 80-200mm f/4L.<br><br>

I found that whenever my mind 'switched modes' from normal to wide to telephoto, I would be switching lenses all of the time anyway. I found primes were faster, sharper, and not really a bother to use given the substantial weight and space savings. The camera simply went more places and did more things because it was lighter and didn't cost so much cash. The lens selection also forced my mind to understand each focal length, rather than just zoom for framing.<br><br>

Zooms <i>are</i> convenient for framing, but they are also inconvenient when you want many other features. In the end, my photography improved when I went back to primes. I got more good shots due to the expanded capabilities/lesser weight of the primes than I lost due to any framing inadequacies. Also, once you have that 100mm macro you will fall in love.<br><br>

For the same money you could have an Elan 7 with the following:<br><br>

EF24mm f/2.8 + EF50mm f/1.4 USM + 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro.<br><br>

<b>10 good reasons NOT to go with the L zoom:</b><br><br>

1. Sharper wide open. 50 f/1.4 and 100 USM macro are among the sharpest lenses in the world.<br>

2. Better focal length range.<br>

3. 50mm f/1.4 is two stops faster.<br>

4. 58mm instead of 77mm filters -Way less expensive.<br>

5. 1:1 macro at 100mm.<br>

6. 24mm is wider with likely less distortion than 28mm.<br>

7. Better blurred backgrounds for portraiture at 50mm and 100mm.<br>

8. 50mm not as intrusive to people: much smaller overall camera size.<br>

9. If a lens breaks, you can still shoot with the other two, and only lose a third of your investment.<br>

10. Lenses may not be as prone to "dust-sucking", as two of them are internal focus.<br><br>

The three lenses mentioned, plus an Elan 7 body and a smaller flash, all fit into the small Lowepro Street/Field Utility Case! So space doesn't seem to be an advantage either. Another good case is the D- Res Waist Pack AW with the flip-top lid. You can even fit those three, plus a 200mm f/2.8ii L into the case if you hang a Belt Pouch 50 AW from the belt part for the body.<br><br>

Hope this helps you get the best bang for your buck.<br><br>

Phil

Hello,

<br>

I just got me an EF 24mm f/2.8 to complete the following set:<br><br>

EF24mm f/2.8 + EF50mm f/1.4 USM + 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro.<br>

<br>

<br>

The benefits over the zoom are as follows:<br>

<br>

1. All are much sharper; sharper wide open too.<br>

2. Brighter viewfinder - good with polariser.<br>

3. 50 is much faster.<br>

4. Macro focus much closer with 100mm.<br>

5. 24mm is wider with much less distortion than 28mm.<br>

6. 24mm focuses closer.<br>

7. Blurred backgrounds for portraiture at 50mm and 100mm.<br>

8. 50mm not as intrusive to people: smaller overall camera size.<br>

9. If a lens breaks, I can still shoot with the other two.<br>

10. Lenses are not as prone to "dust-sucking"<br>

11. 100mm shows greater magnification at same distance than zoom

at<br>

135mm. (Don't believe me? Try it!)<br>

12. No variable apertures to contend with.<br>

<br>

So the question is why keep the zoom? If you have to use it at f/8

to get sharp pictures (see luminous-landscape.com and reviews this

site), then the IS only gets you to f/4 shutter speed equivalents,

and you lose any hope of isolating a subject. Plus you are putting

your faith in a large, complex lens that sucks in dust over time, and

seems fragile compared to the trio above. <br>

<br>

The three lenses mentioned, plus an Elan 7 body and a smaller flash,

all fit into the small Lowepro Street/Field Utility Case! So space

doesn't seem to be an advantage either. Another good case is the D-

Res Waist Pack AW with the flip-top lid. You can even fit those

three, plus a 200mm f/2.8ii L into the case if you hang a Belt Pouch

50 AW from the belt part for the body.<br>

<br>

The convenience of the EF28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM lens, relative to

the above advantages, seems quite moot now. How convenient is owning

a lens that limits one in so many ways? If one could afford only one

lens, then the zoom would be the one. But having the above three

gems, why would one ever want to pick up the zoom again? On

walkabout, both packages take up roughly the same space on your

shoulder, but the zoom seems to offer much less.<br>

<br>

The only reason I can come up with to keep the zoom is that my TSE

24mm, 28-135mm IS and 200mm f/2.8L all have the same filter diameter,

and this makes a good medium size/medium weight kit.<br>

<br>

Can anyone give me another good reason to keep it? <br>

<br>

Thanks,<br>

Phil

I am not concerned about whether the lens needs USM or not. I tried to order one from a camera store last month and was told that I could not get any since the lens had been discontinued.

I don't mind the non-USM version except that I have to flip a switch to get manual focus with no damping, which seems flimsy and imprecise. I could have lived with that anyway but, as stated, was informed that the lens was discontinued.

So I am trying to verify whether this person was right or not, not whether USM is any better.

Thanks to all who answered!

A few things I noticed, when I owned an FD 20-35mm f3.5L, 35-105mm f3.5 and 80-200mm f4L set of zooms:

Wide angle zooms don't focus close(this is important), vignette more easily with filters. The 16-35mm L has now dealt with this I gather.

I always had to switch lenses when I wanted to change from wide to normal to telephoto anyways.

Zooms were way bulkier than primes: My FD 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 135mm f/2.8, and 200mm f/4 fit into a Lowepro belt utility case WITH a T90. The same in zooms fit into most of an Orion AW.

Split the 16-35mm, 28-70mm and 70-200mm focal lengths down the middle and you will have a 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 100mm f/2.8 macro. If you have to switch lenses when you want to change perspective anyway, then why not save 3.6 pounds(58 ounces) and US$2250.00? The same fun at a third of the cost and less than half the weight. 58mm filters are WAY cheaper than 77mm as well.

Image quality is not compromised by this trio, and if anything would be better than the zooms. Buy at least a 300mm f/4 when you want to shoot wildlife, 200mm isn't long enough anyway, so it won't be missed much.

Or, you could mix and match. The 24mm + 50mm + 70-200 f4L would likely be a nice, sharp, cheap(relatively), compact package if you like more focal length rather than close focus. The 70-200mm f4L will take extenders too, if you want to get out to 300mm and f/5.6. You may lose some of the blurred background in portraiture, you have to put up with the lower aperture and you have to start buying odd, 67mm filters, instead of using the same ones for all three lenses.

Hope this solidifies your choice.