robert_thommes

I opted to go with the A720IS basically due to it's being about equal to the other A-series cameras being considered, and for the extra (6x) optical zoom. Will play with it over the weekend to see if I made the right decision.

 

Thanks to all for your opinions and feedback.

I've narrowed and changed my search to either the A590 or A720. If the IQ is similar, and the extra 2X zoom on the 720 is not important, I'm not opposed to saving a couple dollars and getting the 590. But is it?

A720IS? I forgot about that one. Good choice. Thanks

So now we're dealing with 2 4X optical cameras. A used A640 and a new A590IS. Is there an obvious "winner" here? Maybe not. Maybe theses 2 are too close to call?

Sounds good. I'll take the A95 out of the running then.

Now, which one of the 2?

Thanks

I've narrowed my wants to one of these 3 Canon P&S cameras. I've visited various

reviews of them as well, and still can't decide the one to get. The A640 might have

a narrow lead right now, but that could easily change. I must decide on one of

them very soon or risk the chance of losing all 3. Which one would you suggest I

get, and why? I do have a decent DSLR outfit. So the P&Ss would be for those

lighter-travel, go-anywhere occasions. Thanks for your comments.

The greatest concern is always which one to take as a walkaround lens. In most cases I could take any of the 3 (not the 70-300). They all pretty much do as well for this purpose. In my last outing I took my 50mm only. Did just fine. It's a great lens. Yet when I take the Tamron, I say the same thing. Do I need both? That's the dilemma. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. What I'm trying to decide is...when I go for a walkaround, which one will I take? If I had only one, I'd take it and be perfectly happy with it. I know this seems petty, and maybe it is. It's just been "bugging" me lately, that's all.

Depending on how I felt about the differences between a 1.8 lens and a 2.8 lens, I could get rid of all three lenses and just get the 17-50/2.8. Scrubing the kit lens and the Tamron, and replacing those with a 18-55IS lens is a thought as well. Thanks for your feedback.

An example.. I have 3 lenses that cover 50mm. Now I know that 2 of them(decision)are faster lenses, and a 3rd is not. If 50mm is wanted for what ever reason, I want one to chose from, not 3. That's a very obvious example. If you can't decide on a specific lens or lenses for me, then I'd like questions that I should maybe be asking myself leading to a thoughtful/practical decision.

I'm trying to reduce my meager lens ensemble to even fewer lenses(contrary to the

direction most photographers go). I currently have : 18-55 kit lens(non-IS), Tamron

28-75/2.8, 50/1.8, and 70-300IS USM with a XT camers. I'd like to reduce to 3 or

even 2 lenses. That way, there will be little thought as to which lens to use for

what. The 70-300IS stays for now. It's the only lens capable for my nature/wildlife

images. The Tamron and 50mm lens are very sharp, and the kit lens is here just

for those few occassions when wide is needed. Here's the catch. I can only

purchase anything with an amount that I can get from the sale of something.

So..no additional money can be spent, nor is saving up for anything an option. I

just listed a "trade" --the 28-75 for a Tamron 17-59/2.8, but not sure this is the

answer. Any thoughts?

bing, I'm leaning in your direction. Looking more like the 70-300 right now. Thanks

Thanks for you comments, folks. I'm still torn between the better IQ of the 70-200/4 vs. the "IS" feature of the-not all that bad-70-300. If the tripod is crucial to the success of the better IQ of the 70-200/4 lens, I'm just not sure that I want to lug one of those around everywhere I go.

Still thinking.....

 

Bob

Assume for a moment that 200mm is long enough. Which lens delivers better

image quality to the naked eye(not just based on lab tests)? How important is the

70-300's "IS" over the 70-200 that doesn't have "IS"(at least not the specific lens

that I'm looking at)? I think when all votes are in, the IS issue may win out.

 

I'd appreciate your remarks regarding these lenses. Thanks

This question has really taken off. And since I'm the OP here, I suppose I should also contribute a response as well. For a zoom: Tamron 28-75 2.8. And a prime: 50/1.8. I could probably live just fine with either of these lenses; though I do have need for longer(70-300IS) for my nature/wildlife outings.

 

Thanks to all for contributing.

Bob Atkins,

 

I'm curious to know if you use your 50/1.8 a lot?

That 24-105 is a real winner. But actually, I personally am more interested in what you folks would choose as your PRIME lens candidate.

Lately I've read a few responses where the contibutor mentioned that they use only

one lens 90% of the time, and feel almost "liberated" in doing so. So I thought it

might be interesting if a similar question was asked here; pointing to a lens that

many folks feel is most valuable to them. So..1), if you could have only one lens

and it had to be a PRIME lens, which would it be and why? For the sake of

clarification, let's say it's used on a 1.6X DSLR. And 2), if you could have only one

lens and it was a ZOOM lens, which would it be and why? Thanks for "playing"

I'm beginning to think that in the case of a battery grip, and making a choice between getting a name-brand vs. a 3rd-party grip, that the name-brand is merely a peace-of-mind decision. I've read nothing here(not in this post, anyway), nor anywhere else, explaining any pros or cons to either brand of grip; other the 3rd-party grips are significantly less expensive. I can get a Targus grip for $70 with easy return if I feel that's necessary. So why not. Right? Thanks for the remarks.

JDM,

 

In what ways do you find them "equally bad"? Or maybe I should ask, what can be the difference between a top-notch grip, and a not so top-notch one?

 

Bob

I'm currently aware of 3. Targus, Canon, and Opteka. I have an Opteka grip. I

must say, I really like the feel of the Xt with the grip attached. In fact, until I got

this battery grip, I almost thought about down-grading cameras back to the 300D

that I had just before the Xt. I liked the feeling of the 300D that much.

Anyway, I got the Opteka grip used as a "toss in" part of another deal. It does

have a problem in that the vertical shutter button is so sensitive that I can not 1/2

press to prefocus. It's all or nothing. That's fine, as long as the image stays right

at the focus point; which it often doesn't. Anyway, are the Targus grips any

good? I see that our local Wal-Mart has them. I'd rather not spring for the Canon

brand grip if I could get by with a 3rd party grip. Your comments before I go out

and maybe purchase one? Thanks.

I'd like to hear from users of either of these lenses(and especially if used both), as

to the pros and cons of each as compared to the other. I read(somewhere) that

the Tamron is surprisingly decent from 18-100mm, but then what? I currently own

a 70-300IS USM lens, but could give up it's extra 50mm at the long end for 52mm

(of the Tamron's) at the short end, but only if the Tammy could deliver equal IQ(as

the Canon) at 250mm. Your remarks?

You know Michael, you're probably right. I seem to care too much about what other people think. Enough of that. I'm going for the shots from now on. It's the XT + 70-300IS next time out. (Especially since there doesn't seem to be any pocket camera that'll do what I need it to do, anyway.)

Thanks

I'm looking for a Canon(or any other brand) camera with these qualifications:

pocket-sized, at least 6X ( more) optical zoom, usable at ISO800, nice LCD. I

currently have a Panasonic FZ1 that does a great job except in the low-noise

department even around ISO200. I need this camera to do an OK job for

grandkids school programs, which are often on stage. And I'm seldom in the first

few rows. I do have a DSLR, but feel out of place using it under these

circumstances. I'm open to all comments. Thanks

Does anyone use thier 50mm lens a lot? I'm meaning for more than those specialized lower light situations, or portraiture. Is this a lens with the purpose of only certain circumstances? What about as one's general walk-around lens?

For what I would use a 50mm lens, the 1.4 version is just way out of my price range. So it's the 50 1.8 or nothing right now. I'm still thinking about it and have not made up my mind as yet. Thanks to all, so far, for the comments.