nico_smit1

It depends on what the type of flash photography you do. I recently

upgraded my 540EZ to the 550EX for use with my EOS 3 and found the

ability of high speed flash synchronization invaluable for fill-in

flash in bright daylight. Also the ETTL is more accurate. If the

550EX is too expensive what about the 420EX as a compromise or even

the 540EZ for higher GN if ETTL and high speed sync is not important

to you. Personally I will not buy any of the two flashes you

mentioned.

I own both the EOS 30 and EOS 3. In my opinion you cannot mention

them in the same context. They are miles apart. The EOS 3 must rate

as one of the best value for money cameras currently available. It is

a truly professional camera at half the price of the 1V. As for the

focussing I cannot believe that Canon claim that the auto focussing of

the EOS 30 is on a par with the EOS 3. As a nature and sport

photographer I can testify from first hand experience that the EOS 30

cannot compare with the EOS 3 when it comes to focus tracking a fast

moving subject. Get the EOS 3 + PB-E2 - for fast action photography

this is the one to get.

Jim

<p>

I guess every serious photographer initially must first go the 3rd

party route themselves to discover that it is better to stay away from

them, more so with AF cameras. Apparently the slightly lower prices

of the 3rd party lenses are too good to ignore. I use to fall into

that trap myself until I discovered the hard way that in photography

you get what you pay for. It is an expensive lesson, having lost a

lot of money selling my 3rd lenses to replace it with Canon lenses.

So much for "saving money by buying a 3rd party lens that is just as

good but cost less". Even though Sigma will update their lenses for

free to work on a new EOS body it is of little condolence to me. Just

the trouble of having to send a lens away and be without it for

several weeks was enough encouragement to get rid of my last Sigma

lens (relief). I friend of mine just bought an EOS 3 and only two of

the 5 lenses he own worked on the camera. Only one Sigma lens worked

(100 macro) and the other was a Canon lens. Three of the Sigma lenses

did not function properly (18-35, 70-300 and 170-500). Another friend

of mine experience a similar problem with his new Minolta. Since he

only owned Sigma lenses he was without his lenses for several weeks.

It is not only a matter of compatibility, but I have yet to see a

3rd party lens in EOS mount that is better in terms of build quality,

optical performance, focusing speed and handling than the equivalent

Canon lens. In the end it is your choice and your money. I know what

I will do.

I own four Canon L lenses (135 /2, 70-200 /2.8, 300 /4 IS and 400 /2.8 II) that are compatible with the Canon 1.4x and 2.0x TC's, and I own both TC's for several years now. While I am very satisfied with the performance of the 1.4x I always felt that results with the 2.0x could be better. Subsequently, when the new Canon TC's were announced I was very eager to "upgrade" my old 2.0x TC to the new one, especially after reading that the new one feature a new optical design with superior optical performance (apart from better sealing, etc.). The new 1.4x TC did not interest me since it feature the same optical design than the original version.

<p>

About a week ago I received my new 2.0x II TC mail order from Adormama. I was about to sell my old 2.0x when I decided to do some tests. I used the 70-200 /2.8, 300 /4 and 400 /2.8 II for the test. After mounting a newspaper with fine print on a flat board, I mounted each lens on test in turn on a solid tripod and shoot the newspaper with my EOS 3 using MLU and cable release. I only tested the lenses wide open. First I shoot with the old TC and while the lens remained mounted on the tripod I replaced the TC with the new one and shoot the identical shot (after checking for accurate focus).

<p>

The results! What a disappointment. The old TC won hands down. In the case of all three lenses on test the newspaper print on the slides shot with the old TC were easy to read with a 8x loupe, while I had difficulty reading some of the fine print on slides shot with the new TC, especially in the corners. I really could not believe my eyes. Did I get a bad sample? What is the deal with Canon to market this "optically superior TC" while clearly it is not. My warning thus. Test before you "upgrade" to the new TC. I will be interested if someone can verify my findings. In the mean time anyone out there that want to buy a new Canon 2.0x II.

I sold mine a long time ago (used it on EOS 5's) - not so much because

of poor optical quality, but rather problems with focusing in servo

mode. The non-USM focusing motor appears unable to focus

in a stepless way. It will overshot, try to correct and overshot

again backwards - results no pictures in focus. In my opinion this

lens is useless for photographing action. If you must buy a Sigma

rather go for the 400 APO with HSM as suggested, or if it must be a

long-range zoom the new 50-500 with HSM. The Canon 100-400 L IS may

in the long run be a better investment.

Andy

<p>

I must disagree with Darron that the Canon 24-85 is of much lower

quality than the 28-105. Both are consumer zoom lenses, but if you

search around you will found many favorable comments on both. It is

generally accepted that they are very similar in performance. I use

to own the 28-105, but sold it in favor of the 24-85. In more than a

year of regular use I can say with confidence that the 24-85 is every

bit as sharp as the 28-108. I think your decision should be based on

your intended use of the lens and not comparable sharpness. In my

case I find the extra 4 mm at the short more useful than the extra mm

on the long end.

Eric

<p>

You will find more info here: http://www.kyphoto.com/thirdparty/

I sold my normal 300 f4 L in favor of the IS model after I tested the

two extensively and convinced myself that the IS lens was better

during practical day to day use. Yes the non-IS lens is marginally

sharper than the IS lens and lower in flare, but so what? The IS lens

allowed be to bring back more usable slides than the non-IS lens. The

IS made this possible, as well as the closer focusing of the IS lens.

Do not mislead yourself by trying to split hairs based on test slides

shot under circumstances other than your day to day use of the lens.

IS is the way of the future - don't look back. All of the new super

teles with IS is lighter and focuses closer (and faster if you believe

Canon). The only serious limitation of the new IS lenses is their

price.

This 2/3 under exposure is a well documented "problem" of the EOS 3.

Apparently this problem was corrected on EOS 3 cameras manufactured

after 10 March 1999. The code from which you can see when the camera

was manufactured is in the film compartment. The cure is a software

upgrade, which is done from a computer via the hot shoe of the camera.

Upgrading the software is a simple procedure that took 10 minutes

without dismantling the camera.

As a Canon user I will choose the Canon lens because of the full time

manual focus, lightning fast auto focus and silent operation made

possible by the Ultrasonic motor AND compatibility with dedicated 1.4

and 2.0 TC's which allow full auto focus and auto exposure while

maintaining high image quality. None of these are available on the

Tokina lens. With the Canon lens you are also ensured of future

compatibility with new Canon bodies. Recently there were reports of

incompatibility of some Tokina ATX-Pro lenses with the new EOS 3 body.

I believe it is a bit of a waste to spend all that money on a fast

wide angle zoom lens. It make more sense to spend money on a fast

telephoto or telephoto zoom. My use for a wide angle lens in

nature photography is landscapes and for that I always use the lens

stopped down. Stopping down to say f8 or f11 you can just as well buy

the EF 20-35 f3.5-4.5 consumer lens. Stopped down it will be hard to

tell the difference between the 20-35 and the 17-35 L. However, the

20-35 have more distorion (barrel) at the wide end. For that reason I

sold mine, replace my 28-105 with a 24-85 3.5-4.5 (which is great

stopped down), and bought a 20 f2.8. I can recommend this

combination.

The Sigma 24 mm is quite an early design in their AF range. There are

many reports with incompatibility problems with this particular lens.

I therefore suggest you rather spend the extra dollars and get

the Canon lens. I use to own a Sigma 24 mm for my EOS 100 (Elan).

Optically it is quite good, but I doubt if it is better than the Canon

24 mm. One thing I remember about this lens was its noisy focussing,

even to 3rd party standards.

The 70-210 f4 looks identical (just smaller) to the 100-300 f5.6L that

is still available. No USM, push-pull zoom and a rotating front

element. Optically it is not to bad considering the price.

I think the pricing issue of the EOS 3 and 1N is a simple one of offer

and demand. This is a basic marketing principle not confined to the

camera market only (look at the computer industry for example). Canon

and the dealers anticipated that the arrival of the EOS 3 will

seriously reduced the sales of the 1N. Who after all will buy an

older camera with lower specs at a higher price than a newer model

with better specs. The problem is not so much the price of the EOS 3.

Considering the specs I will buy it for $ 1399 and not feel ripped

off. For dealers to ensure that they don't sit with stock of 1N

cameras the price dropped considerable and this process stared long

before the EOS 3 actuallty arrived. If you are smart you may

anticipate this fact and buy a 1N at a bargain price. Simple as that.

Why will I buy a EOS 3 (and I will)? It is for one reason only:

autofocus at f8. Now I can use the 2x TC on my 300 f4L and 1.4 TC on

the 500 f4.5L with autofocus. Now if any person tell my this is not

justified that is his opinion - I have made my desicion.

The camera body do have an influence on the functioning of IS in

combination with TC's. For example the IS function work in

combination with the 1.4X on my EOS 5 (A2E)and EOS 100 (Elan), but not

with the 2X (IS funtion disabled). However, on newer EOS bodies like

EOS 1N, Rebel G and Elan II the IS function do work with the 2X TC. I

therefore conclude that the IS funtion is not purely an internal

funtion of the lens, but that there is definitely some communication

between the lens and camera by way of the electronic cantacts. I

have unfortunately no experience with 3de party TC's and IS.