eigtball

Zoom is convenient, prime is ideal. I'd LOVE to have a bag of primes, and a few bodies to put them on. Zoom just makes it easier with a single body or even with two. Put on a 24-70, and 70-200 on another body and you are set for a good range, but if you need 24, 50, 85, 135, 180, 200, and have two bodies? Lots of lens changes. Then again if you are just plopping it down on a tripod and landscaping, a bag of primes are perfect.

 

:)

I have the 70-200 F4L IS and it was price over the extra stop. The IQ of the F4 IS is top notch and the model I have has the newer IS (4 stops). I am absolutely happy with it with no regrets of not getting the 2.8.

 

In the future I might get the 2.8 or I might get it's upgrade if it gets one (I am sure it will). This will be when I move to full Frame 1Ds series from my 40D.

 

If you do get the F4 IS you won't be disappointed.

I'm bringing my 17-55 F2.8 IS, 70-200 F4L IS and my 50 1.8. Plus my 430EX. Not much else to bring really.

Try updating the firmware if possible see if that helps.

I bought the 40D over the 5D for the speed, and excellent body for the price. The 5D is a very nice body but I believe its best to wait for the replacement before purchasing the older one. If you cannot afford the newer one the old 5D will be less expensive anyway.

I purchased the 17-55/2.6 IS and I absolutely love it. The photo's in low light are sharp and the focus is beautiful. I would recommend it 100% on a 1.6x camera. It's well worth the cost.

I have a set of Energizer NiMH batteries in AA. I charge them completely but

they self discharge in almost no time. Is there a way of saving these batteries

or just get new ones??

I would suggest the 1D3. Fast AF, High Speed Capture better sealing. Thats my suggestion.

Say good bye to those hard earned dollars! I am jealous.

85mm 1.2L II all the way. For portraits the 50mm might be a little short.

Don't own it yet. I am picking one up with my 40D in a few weeks. I can let you know how I like it then.

Yep looks to be that way. Sucks that it changed, but you still save money purchasing it here.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/nonresidents/visitors/menu-e.html

 

Here is the exact web address.

You can avoid Canadian taxes by applying for a reimbursement. Check http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ and check for travelers to Canada and you can see the rules. It will save you a fair bit in taxes, however you may have to pay local taxes depending on your laws in you country.

Sounds like mail order fraud. Not sure, but certainly looks like it.

@Marc: I see what you did there ;)

 

@Ronald: Personally I don't really want canon to add more lenses. I'd rather have them upgrade or re-invent some of the older lenses. I think Canon's pace is pretty decent, however there is some room for improvement.

If its local, take a lens or two and check it out. Check all the features out, check the actuations and all that. It's not that much of a stretch for that price.

I think I see your point Ilkka. The wide angle constant aperture is what makes the 17-55. I think it will be down to the wire when I order it. I think in the end I will get the zoom, just because of the wide range and versatility. The 20/2.8, 35/2 and 50/1.4 are almost $1300 Canadian, where as the 17-55 is $1399. Size is large, but most people will notice you even if you don't have a longish lens. I walk about with my 50mm or 28-105 and people still look because you have a camera. It doesn't stop me.

 

Economics say get the 17-55. Thanks for all the view points. There are a number I didn't even consider.

David. If you could replace those two with say a 17-55/2.8, would that cover the ranges you are looking for? I am in the same boat, but don't have either of those lenses (thinking about them).

 

1.2 ft close focus distance on the 17-55

0.82 ft close focus distance on the 28/2.8 and the 20/2.8

1.5 ft close focus on the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8

 

You can get closer with the two primes and the zoom, but the zoom not as much as the 28 or 20.

The problem with the zoom comes down to IQ vs Price. From all purposes the 17-55 will give great IQ at almost the entire range, but you can get the same IQ from primes as well, the only difference being that you need to switch primes.

 

@Charles: This is what is gravitating me towards the primes, the use for street. I will be composing mostly street photo's. Size and stealth (albeit the body isn't that small :P)

 

@Frank: My Film body is Canon. So keeping with a non-DX lens isn't a requirement. I will be getting a D3 or equivalent in the next 36 months or less.

 

AF-S is very nice, and I wouldn't be having this conversation if a AF-S type lens was released. NOW we do have that new Sigma. Nikkor around the corner?

Ilkka. Nope DX for a long while (or add another FX body). This would likely be my only DX only lens (or add in the 10.5). I take it that it really is a replacement for all those primes with the addition of wide angle and it really is worth that much. The range is what keeps bringing me to it. Flip Flop Flip Flop. I still have about 20 days or so until I order it, or pick it up. I should be able to check it out in the store even though that really isn't the best environment to test it.

Steve: That is one consideration (Wide for Street), but I would disagree with the 50mm as worthless for street.

 

Paul: I will not buy a Tamron personal choice from film days.

 

Peter: Street Photography, I did add it in after realizing I didn't post it ;)

 

The 16-85 sounds like a nice lens, however its slow. Fast fast fast is what I am looking at, can't stand a slow lens (DoF etc). If I spent any money it would be on a fast zoom like the 17-55. I would do the same if I went FX (24-70). I really like my EF 50mm 1.8, Bokeh is nicer on the 1.4 on my AE-1.

 

The reason you all have are the same I am torn with. I do like the insight. Cost is the main obstacle in my way of getting the 17-55mm. I don't think I would be disappointed if I did get it.

I would agree with Shun buy sticking with the Nikon over the Sigma.

Hiro, my path is pretty much D300, SB-800, 8GB UDMA card and either 35/2 or the 17-55/2.8 but the price of the 17-55 is very high, but is it worth the $1400 (its $1100 US) which is easier to swallow.

Exactly Joe. Plus my wife will be happier ;)

 

I think I will like the 35/2 and be happy with it for the next while. Should I also pick up another faster prime, maybe a 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 or even an 85/1.8 as I have heard about their optical nirvana?