damonwoodphotography

<p>Thanks everyone for your input. Much appreciated....<br /><br />I am thinking therefore about the 300 f4 IS L which should do the job nicely. I trialled a friends 70-200 L f2.8 IS USM on the weekend and it's great - but very very expensive. It may be that I will also still get the 135 f2 L for the hell of it and I will still have good low light capability with a 50 f1.4, 17-50 f2.8 and 24-105 L f4 IS.<br>

I know the the 300 f4 IS L is ~ 10yr old model which has old IS system (2 stop IS only), but it is a constat f4 and according to Lenstip.com, has very good central sharpness which will suit an APS-C quite well. It will be used mainly for outdoors such as motocross, wildlife, surfing et cetera and appears to be a good weight also for the size.<br>

Anyone know if there are Canon rumors of a new model for the 300mm?<br /><br />Thanks and regards,<br>

Damon</p>

<p>Does anyone use the 135mm with APS-C's? After using a beautiful Zuiko 135mm f2.8 on my old OM-4Ti Olympus OM System years ago, I am looking at getting a classic<br>

prime with compact glass and fast aperture. The Canon 135mm is famous for these reasons and its lovely bokeh. I am interested also in the 50mm 1.2 or 80mm 1.2 also but from my research the 135mm is quite special.<br>

The reason I use APS-C is that currently I don't really need anything better and I can’t afford 5DMKII or 1D Mark IV bodies. There are also some fantastic, affordable and very good performing third party zoom lenses for APS-C cameras such as the Tamron 17-50 which is exceptional!<br>

On a 7D the 135mm would obviously be equivalent to 216mm. I’m not too worried about this and the 1.6x crop sensor will be utilising predominantly the centre of the glass, potentially meaning ultra sharp images will be produced. I have thought about some pros and cons.</p>

<p><strong>Pros</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>One of Canon's best lenses and reasonably well priced.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Can use on both APS-C and FF bodies.Fast, good AF & MF mechanisms, contrast, color & bokeh.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>I have a 50mm which is an 80mm equivalent on APS-C, so common sense tells me the 80mm 1.2 is negated by having this lens for APS-c.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Reasonably light-weight in comparison to larger Canon 70-200mm lenses (L, IS USM f4 & 2.8's). </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Same 72mm filter size as Canon 24-105mm f4 IS USM. I can therefore interchange UV and Circ-POL filters.</li>

</ul>

<p><strong>Cons</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>At the moment, don’t have FF bodies.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Don’t have anything with longer focal length (Currently have Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non-VC, Canon 24-105mm f4 IS USM and Canon 50mm 1.4).</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Can't think of too much more....</li>

</ul>

<p>I am very interested in the newly released Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 VC USD which apparently has very good performance for the price. I am interested in photographing sport (motocross / surfing) and this lens would provide a great range of 112-480mm on a crop sensor. However, maybe 216mm and a speedy prime would be a better buy in the long-term....?<br>

Any feedback would be appreciated.<br>

THANK YOU</p>

<p>Mike,<br /><br />Im so glad your happy with the Tamron. I used it extensively for a wedding on the weekend - a first time for the lens and am very happy with the results.<br /><br />I have since found out about a well known professional Australian photographer that uses this lens (and other Tamron lenses) extensively with Nikon APS-C bodies.<br /><br />Go to <a href="http://www.maxwell.com.au/articles/tamron/travelling.html">http://www.maxwell.com.au/articles/tamron/travelling.html</a> and <a href="http://www.photographybyshelton.com">www.photographybyshelton.com</a>.<br /><br />Enjoy!</p>

<p>Mike,<br>

I don't see any problem in your decision at all and it's always good to have some EF lenses in your back pocket for a FF body. This means before you buy one, you can even hire it out over a weekend with the lens kit you have before making the big splash.....<br>

For the price and truly great performance, the tammy is very hard to beat and you won't break the bank account. You will almost have some leftover! (remember that a 67mm Hoya HD UV filter or equivalent is a must for quality digital lenses and the 17-50 non VC is a "Di" lens specific for digital cameras. You can get get them cheaper on e-bay or something from a Hong Kong distributor who often includes free shipping if you are in asia-pacific).With the left over change, you could also pick up a 50mm 1.4 / 1.8 instead of the 85mm which would be a 80mm equivalent on an 7D. Just a thought.....<br>

Enjoy and let the forum know what you think once purchased and tested.<br>

Damon :)</p>

<p>Mike,<br /><br />I was in a similar predicament when I was looking at upgrading to a new range of very good lenses for my 20D which is soon to be replaced by a 7D. I wanted 2-3 lenses that would give me a range between 17 to 200 or 300mm.<br /><br />In the end I went with the following;<br /><br />1.) Tamron-SP-AF-17-50-F2.8-XR-Di-II-LD-Aspherical<br />2.) Canon EF 24-105mm L IS USM Zoom (APS-C equivalent ~ 38-168mm) and;<br />3.) I already had the 50mm EF 1.4 which is nice on an APS-C with the 1.6 crop factor.<br /><br />I really researched option 1 hard, really hard because I wasnt convinced by any third party lenses. I was very interested in the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 but it's very pricey and more than some L series<br />lenses such as the EF 17-40mm f4 L. The 16-35mm f2.8 L is a winner but is truly expensive - especially if your not exclusively a fill-time pro photographer.<br /><br />The more reviews I read, the more I was convinced that the Tamron is really a very good lens and massive bang for the buck. There are plent of great web reviews and plenty of positives for the tammy.<br /><br />Dont forget, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro is a world renowned macro lens. LensTip.com is a very reputable lens review site and says many good things at <a href="http://www.lenstip.com/22.1-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_AF_90_mm_f_2.8_Di_Macro.html">www.lenstip.com/22.1-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_AF_90_mm_f_2.8_Di_Macro.html</a>.<br />They make the 17-50 also very reputable. Go to <a href="http://www.lenstip.com/18.1-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_AF_17-50_mm_f_2.8_XR_Di_II_LD_Aspherical_%28IF%29.html">www.lenstip.com/18.1-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_AF_17-50_mm_f_2.8_XR_Di_II_LD_Aspherical_%28IF%29.html</a>.<br /><br />For many other good reviews you can find a fistful at Dyxum > <a href="http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Tamron-SP-AF-17-50-F2.8-XR-Di-II-LD-Aspherical_lens268.html">www.dyxum.com/lenses/Tamron-SP-AF-17-50-F2.8-XR-Di-II-LD-Aspherical_lens268.html</a>.<br /><br />Yes, the rule of thumb is fo "Canon L" if you can a) afford it and b) really need it. Remember, if you want to go into the pro Canon bodies, you cant use EF-S lenses so you need to have a really good choice of EF lenses if that's what you want. If one day I go for a 5D generation, iv'e got 2 lenses that will give me a great range and I would need to consider a fast Canon L at that stage.<br /><br />Yes, the tammy does sound like a chainsaw sometimes focusing and isn't built like a Canon L - but there are small, inexpensive things you can do to rectify this on a big scale.<br /><br />I use manual focus a lot, especially for weddings in crowds when AF gets distracted and there are two simple things you can do that improves APS-C lens usability, being a) swap out current focusing prism with a 'matte' focusing screen and b) get a great little gizmo for the 10-7D series cameras called a TENPA 1.36x Viewfinder eyecup magnifier which gives 100x magnification for general purpose shooting (wondeful for MF).<br /><br />I am truly impresses with the tammy and after using if a few times, I got some extremely good pics from it with great colour rendition, tones and sharpness.<br /><a href="../photo/11060550"><br />http://www.photo.net/photo/11060550</a><br /><a href="../photo/10883732">http://www.photo.net/photo/10883732</a><br /><a href="../photo/10975350">http://www.photo.net/photo/10975350</a><br /><br />--<br /><br />Hope this helps with your decision!<br /><br />Damon</p>

<p>I too have faced this dillema. I am a freelance photographer and changed to digital for one reason like the rest of us - less overhead expenditure on film & film processing and more profit from providing our product simply as a digital medium.<br /><br />I tend to quote on an estimated but accurate block of time the client needs me for and how long I beleive in reality it will take and hours expended on post processing (administration) with a small amount of consumables.<br>

I tend to produce the following for my clients;<br>

Images on DVD (x 2 copies) with simple file breakdowns of the images; All Photos, All Photos_Email Size, Choice Photos, Editors Choice and Contact Sheets. Post processing (sharpening, USM, touchups etc etc) take a significant amount of time and I place emphasis on this in the beginning so they dont expect the price just to be for the photographer "at the event". There is more too it than that.<br>

I stay almost completely away from prints due to the hassles and explicitly mention to clients prints are not included and they can be printed from my DVD / CD's by both consumer and professional labs at a fee that will vary depending on size & finish etc. Once the pictures are completed, I upload to a site so they can see the product before delivery and broadcast it to firends and family. That sometimes drums up more business.<br>

If you want to protect all of your images, digital metadata and a set of terms and conditions are the only mechanisms the mainstream photographer has in his possession unless you are a truly well established photographer that demands certain terms and control over images for good reason.<br>

My work is basically a side-job so until it becomes my mainstream income and I need to protect it, my aim is to get my name into the fishbowl and see what tackle I can muster.<br>

Things in the horizon for me if things get more mainstream for photography is the legal aspect (terms and conditions of the contract), copyright issues as mentioned in this forum, tax breaks for photographers and insurances such as indemnity. Imagine committing to a wedding and you break your leg..........., even a verbal committment to someone is still a legally binding contract - yes I will do it. That could be a very bad day for the bride and your reputation.</p>

Alex, I went through this same situation back in '05' when I traded serveral lenses (Zuiko primes, zooms and tele) and three bodies (OM1-n, OM2 and OM4Ti) in for a Canon DSLR kit.

 

I was devestated to find there was no mount system available in Olymous for the old Zuiko's.

 

If anyone can tell me otherwise, I will continue to regret disbanding my wonderful OM kit. PS: One thing I dont miss is having to buy film but one thing I do miss terribly is having a system that is completely dependable in use and results, wonderfully engineered.