d_y

Really enjoyed the pictures and post, Scott. Would you happen to have pics in the other modes that demonstrate the problems that you've overcome? That would be really instructive to a novice like myself. Thanks again.

Leszek,

Lots of good info above. I'll offer my .02.

 

I gather that you are primarily interested in landscapes. Catching wildlife if possible. *If* weight is a priority, I'd let go of the aspirations for wildlife. Those lenses will likely have the greatest weight penalty. Besides, you'll need to get lighter if you want to bring a tripod. Dusk and dawn shots will almost certainly require a tripod. In addition to the preference for dusk and dawn, I find that when I'm on the move, dusk and dawn are about all I really have time to setup anyway.

 

The 17-40 glass may be all you need, but if you want to cover some extra focal lengths, the 28-135 might work.

 

Personally, I used to err on the side of carrying too much. My back and feet have paid the bill for the overpacking. Now, I'm comfortable in knowing that leaving a lens or two home is a tradeoff with practical advantages (i.e., lighter bag AND more space in my bag).

 

-dean

Interesting comparison between Astia and E100G.

 

I too enjoy Scott's Astia pics - recent non-Astia car pics too!. I suspect that this is not only due to film choice and exposure, but Scott's scanning technique. Scott, your scans are darn good. Care to share any tips? I'm not intentionally trying to sound like some shameless sycophant, but I bet a lot of us here could benefit from your expertise. I've visited the usual suspects but could still use some pointers...

I've tried NPC a few times and liked the results under overcast conditions. Between 400UC and NPH I much prefer UC. Bill T's Vuescan reason sums it up for me. I find that scanning is better with UC - under all lighting conditions.

Tough question, Ike.

 

On the bright side, you've narrowed your options down to some very good lenses. You can't *really* make a mistake 8).

 

As others have mentioned, it might come down to how you'll be using the lens. Chasing after your kids with the 70-200mm might be a problem, and you'll be rather conspicuous with that bright white lens around your neck.

 

You'll probably want to use this lens for other purposes besides taking pictures of your kids. Would any of these lens choices be the better fit for other subject matter?

 

I've owned the 85mm and loved that lens, when I used it. The problem was, that I just did not use that lens enough to justify keeping it. I did use my 70-200mm f/4 a lot, and I decided to keep that lens. If you don't have to make such choices, then why not have them both! 8P

 

The 85mm is very easy to handle, focuses reasonably close, and can take a 58mm close-up and soft-focus filters if you choose. The 70-200mm has the 67mm filter size (you'll have to spend more on a close-up and soft-focus filters) and I don't believe that it focuses as close, which could be a problem indoors. For my usage, I did not find the stop difference to be a problem.

Dennis,

Myself and others will probably give you some fairly "standard" advice. I'll give it below. If you find that you don't get enough responses to make you feel confident in your lens selection, then give the archives a peek.

 

Ok. Versions of the "standard" advice:

 

Of the lenses you mention, the Canon 28-105 II USM enjoys a solid reputation for build and image quality when used under optimal conditions (that is, when stopped down). Mixed reviews on the Sigmas. Forget Quantaray.

 

Now, for uncompromised image quaility get a 50mm f/1.8 II. Yeah, it is plasticky and cheap (inexpensive too ~$70), but it is as sharp as they come. No compromise on lens quality, but the build quality disturbs some people here. Thus, they opt for the 50mm f/1.4 USM. This lens is heavier and built better and comes with a USM lens and the ability to do FTM focusing. Your budget is finished with this lens ~$290. I've got the 50mm f/1.8 MK I. I use this lens a lot. No major complaints. But, the motor is noisier than the USM equipped models.

 

If you get the 50mm f/1.8 MKII and a 28mm f/2.8 then you can get two very good lenses for about $250. These lenses share the same filter size too. You won't get USM motors, but you will get a pair of lenses that do not compromise on image quality. One thing that you might find important is the ability to handhold the majority of your shots.

Thodoris,

If you get the 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, and the 85mm f/1.8 USM (mentioned by you and others), you can get close to $500. I'm guessing that you'll be around $550. But, you *will* have a set of sharp lenses.

 

Some things you might consider:

 

-You won't get the same filter size on all because the 85mm takes 58mm filters.

 

-You don't mention whether you'll be using flash. With the above combo you'll be able to handhold the majority of your shots in all kinds of light (of course, you'll have to make film adjustments at times).

Nicely put, Josh.

 

I am someone who likes to travel light too. But, I have found that this goal must be compromised if I want flexibility in taking pictures. Carrying an SLR allows me to have flexibility, but the gear *will* be heavy... At the very least, heavier than an point and shoot. No doubt, there a lots of nice shots taken with an Epic posted here. The Epic is "tough and light" with good glass. But, an Epic is ill-suited for wildlife, close-ups, and control over depth-of-field. I don't think you can get by without making some kind of trade-off...

I've used the 28-135mm IS lens and was very impressed. But, I carry a lightweight tripod when I backpack so the IS feature is not necessary in my case. If I were to travel sans tripod, then I'd much prefer the IS lens. Sounds like your desire to travel ultralight and move long distances would negate the tripod.

 

I really like the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5. It is decent for what it is. Lot's of people have claimed to make saleable pictures from this lens (I don't dispute this). So, this should would be a good choice for a single lens at a minimum of weight. Do get the hood if you get this lens.

 

If you want to do close-ups, pseudo macro, and don't want to carry another lens, you're pretty much restricted to close-up lenses. Canon's close-up lenses are nice but will run you $100+ new on the 28-135mm IS.

 

For the type of pictures that I like to take, I don't really need a lens in the 200mm range. That probably won't get you too close to wildlife anyway and might not be worthwhile. YMMV.

 

You might want to bring along a polarizer too.

 

Don't know anything about those Tamron lenses.

Bob,

That's interesting that you did not notice a difference. When I conducted an in store comparison it was very obvious to me which camera was being fired. Either when I fired the cameras one after the other or when the salesman fired the cameras with my back turned. Perhaps, the more recent ones are quieter...? That would be nice.

It is definitely "cheesey." That said, in my experience, I have never had the feeling that the grip would break. Perhaps, if it were to be dropped the plastic would crack... 8(

 

Has anybody experienced cracking or breakage?

I used the Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 lens for about 6 months. In my experience, the Canon 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 and the Tokina offer very similar optical performance. But, the Tokina is almost 1/2 the price!

 

I purchased the Tokina thinking that I would find out which focal lengths I like and then purchase a prime or maybe even two for that perspective. In the end, I sold the Tokina and bought Canon's 20-35 f/3.5-4.5. Why do that if the optical quality is similar? Well, I don't like the AF noise of the Tokina and the manual focus felt loose to me. Manual focusing with the Tokina is not difficult, but the feel just did not suit me. And, if I remember correctly, manually focus requires turning the focus ring in the *opposite* direction from the rest of my Canon lenses!!! This was a real pain, and I believe this was the reason that I sold the lens.

The quiet focusing of USM lenses are terrific. I can't stand the sound of my 50 f/1.8 MK1. But, you can't quibble with the results. The 50 f/1.8 is an awesome lens. I won't replace it until it breaks. Will it be with the 1.4? Maybe, but I kinda doubt it. The AF of the 1.4 did not seem better to me. And, the results wide open were not enough to make me switch. I wonder if Canon will ever implement a true ring USM motor in their 1.4? That might be worthwhile...

I've used primes and zooms for different purposes. I can shoot a prime wide open and get accetable results. I use primes mostly for portraits to limit the depth of field. Usually, I can get very sharp results from f/2-4. You can't touch that with a consumer zoom. But, you can get pretty close with Canon's L glass in the 24/28-70 range. While I like Canon's 28-70 f/2.8, I borrowed one for a short time and realized very quickly that I did not want to haul this thing around on a regular basis. Just did not suit me. So, in the end, I could not justify switching from my trusty 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 consumer zoom. With my samples and experiences, when you start shooting at f/11-16 then you start to start to see similar results from primes and zooms - again in my experience.

 

A friend owned the Tokina 2.8 and did not like the results wide open and found f/5.6 to be the sweet spot for his lens (YMMV). Can't comment on the Sigma.

To add to what I just posted:

 

What I probably should have said was that this lens was very good for my uses. And, in my opinion, it performs similarly to Canon's non-L offering. The price, about 1/2 of Canon's equivalent, makes the lens all the more attractive.

 

Since I was making a foray into wide-angle, the Tokina was a perfect choice to get a feel for the focal lengths that I would use most often. My original plan was to then purchase either a 20mm or 24mm prime, but the 20-35mm USM suits me fine.

I used this lens for about 6 months. The optical quality was fine (for me) when shooting landscapes at f/11-f/16. The thing that annoyed me was that it was very noisy when autofocusing and did not have a "good" feel when manual focusing. Specifically, the manual focusing had a very "loose" feel to it. Overall, the lens performs very well for the price, but it does feel a bit on the cheap/flimsy side. I went ahead and picked up the Canon 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 USM. Is the optical quality better with the Canon? Not in my experience.

I agree with you Daniel. I've used the soft-focus filter on the 85mm because I felt it was too sharp for the effect I was going for. Still, I can borrow a friends 100mm and its 58mm filter size when I need to, which obviates my need for the 85.

I have found (as other here have mentioned) the 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm 2.0 to both be very sharp - brutally sharp. Some facial blemishes become too apparent with these lenses.

 

One other thing you might consider. I have found Canon's close-up lens, the 250D, to be a suitable substitute for macro work. But, your intended usage might dictate that you buy a true macro lens. Because I don't require a true macro lens often the 250D works very well for me - again for my purposes.

 

One more bit of information that is 1 part disclosure and 1 part shamless plug. I am selling my 85mm 1.8. Why? I don't use it enough. My 50mm and my 70-200 get the job done for me.

I had a vignetting problem with a "regular" polarizer. But, I do not have this problem when I use Hoya's HMC polarizer - the ultra thin version.

 

The ultra-thin polarizer does not allow you to stack an additional filter on top of it because it does not have threads to do so (of course you can put it on top of another filter).