ott_luuk

For an alternative - see this set:

 

<a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/05/round-up-starving-student-off-camera.html">Strobist`s Starving Student Off-Camera Light Kit</a>

 

Then read through their Lighting 101 to see why you should want all this stuff. Replace the Nikon flashes and sync cords with 430EX and ST-E2 controller if you wish.

 

At least consider getting a flash bracket and the Off-Camera Shoe Cord 2. For roughly the same money, a 430EX with off-camera equipment is much more useful than a 580EX that`s "stuck" to your camera`s hot shoe. (YMMV)

re: Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II LD

 

You already have the 17-50/2.8 covering the short range. And any 70-300mm is going to be faster and probably better than this hyperzoom. If you have a problem with f/4-5.6, then how does f/6.3 fit here?

 

If you liked having a 70-200/2.8, by all means get another one. Due to the smaller sensor of the XTi, you get a field of view similar to a 112-320mm on your film camera. Did you account for that?

 

The "if you need 300mm reach in a zoom" in my previous reply should read "if you shoot a lot of soccer, airshows and skittish wildlife..." For most purposes, the 70-200 range is good and if you occasionally need a bit more reach, a 1.4x TC can help.

 

Good luck!

The Sigma 120-300/2.8 is supposed to be an excellent lens, but still out of your price range and look at the size/weight, too... Any of the third party 70/80-200/2.8-s should blow 70-300/5.6 models out of the water. Canon`s non-IS 70-200/2.8L is obviously an excellent choice, too.

 

For action shooting, I`d suggest a faster lens over any slower one as long as it has sufficient reach. Lets say an aperture of f/2.8 gets you an shutter speed of 1/500. In the same light, f/5.6 gives you 1/125 - not enough to stop moving subjects at 200 or 300mm. Now IS might let you hand-hold at 300mm, f/5.6 and 1/125 but it does nothing to hold your subjects still.

 

If you need 300mm reach in a zoom, I have heard good things about the Sigma 100-300/4 HSM. A fellow nature photographer swore by it and even used it with a 2x converter. (Later switched to 300/2.8 prime, though)

 

Note that lenses like 70-200/2.8 and 100-300/4 are much larger and heavier than a 70-200/4 or 70-300/4-5.6. Using a monopod is a good idea even in decent light.

 

If you go with a Sigma product, buy only the latest generation lenses (with DG in the name). This way you can be sure that the lens has an up-to-date microchip that works with your camera. Some older Sigma lenses (that you might find on the used market) are not compatible with newer EOS bodies. Save the trouble and stay with the current version.

Is the custom function 03 set to 0?

03 - 1 sets flash metering from ETTL to TTL which can be used only on film cameras.

 

Does the display show "E-TTL" when you press the mode button repeatedly?

"thank u so much for your helpfull tips. which canon digital SLR, if not the 30D, would u recommend?"

 

The 30D is a fine choice.

In your original question you asked about "D30" (D before number). The D30 was Canon`s first widely available digital SLR - a 3MP camera that cost $3000 at the time of its launch - a piece of history by now.

 

The 30D (D after number) is Canon`s latest offering in its class. If it`s too pricey for you, there are other decent options: 20D, Rebel XTi (400D) or Rebel XT (350D).

Changing lenses is not brain surgery and being able to do that is the biggest advantage of SLR cameras. Most regulars here own and daily use several lenses and accessories like extension tubes and teleconverters. The benefits far outweigh the minor inconvenience of changing lenses.

The use for macro is a good point. The 1.4x II plus 12mm tube is my substitute for the life-size converter originally meant to go with the 50/2.5 macro. The combo gives nearly 1:1 mag. ratio and decent quality when stopped down 1-2 stops. Even AF works... kind of... With this discovery, I saved myself the cost of a 100mm macro (at least for some time...)

 

The 2x could be used in a similar way but with greater magnification, lesser aperture and more degradation to IQ. I wouldn`t bother with short lenses that are not optimized for close-up range though.

There`s little point in owning a relatively expensive piece of equipment that does not serve its purpose. If the results it gives are not acceptable for your or your (potential) publishers` standards, it means that effectively you have no 400mm solution anyway.

 

If you intend to get the 400/5.6 or 100-400/4.5-5.6, sell the 2x with no regrets. The resulting f/11 combos would be too dark to focus. Even f/4 primes can be problematic with a 2x, as you loose AF with your 20D. The 2x in good condition (especially the II version) should sell with little loss and help pay for a real 400mm.

 

Only you can decide whether you really need a dedicated 400mm lens or not. If you only need this focal length for some events (a trip to a national park, airshow etc), consider renting the necessary lens for those occasions.

It`s most probably a waste of your money. It should AF if it is marketed as EOS-compatible but performance wise I wouldn`t expect much better results than images done with your 75-300 and cropped to mimic the FOV of a 400mm. Cosina makes good, well-built lenses for rangefinders (Leica screw and M-mount compatible, branded as Voigtl䮤er) but it`s SLR AF zooms are generally regarded as crap.

 

Reducing chromatic aberration in long telephotos requires expensive, exotic materials (Fluorite, UD/ED/LD glass... or a DO element). It is probably impossible to make a good 400mm for $100. No free lunches.

 

A low-cost option for better reach is a sharper 300mm that allows for more cropping - maybe the new 70-300 IS (not DO) or a used 300/4L non-IS. The current 400/5.6L and 300/4L IS are very nice starter lenses for birding but they are $1000 or thereabouts. Tamron 200-500 and Sigma 50-500 are also worth a look.

 

The cheapest option is to learn how to get closer to your subjects. For $100, you could make a very nice hide and install a feeder.

I really don`t know about the d1x but for older generation digitals, my prime concern would be high ISO performance. If you are starting from scratch, why not look at the other systems, too.

 

Pentax has really attractive pricing and feature set on their new k10d. If you want a big brick of a camera, lots of people in the Canon camp are selling their 1d mkII-s to upgrade to mkIII. Might be good deals there. 20D-s are not expensive either. I think you could get more bang for the buck with 1-2-3 year-old technology in a less fancy casing than 6-year-old tech in a near-perfect body.

Well, couple the 300/2.8 IS with 1.4x and you land at... 420mm f/4 with IS. The loss of quality and focus speed are minor enough to make it a good solution for many. Definitely better than the 300/4 plus 1.4x combo.

 

I wouldn`t hold my breath for Canon to make a normal 400/4L IS prime. It`s more likely that they make a 400/4 DO IS mkII with updated DO technology. Despite some less than enthusiastic reviews, the DO lens sounds good for practical field usage.

 

OTOH, It`s much more likely that Canon comes out with an answer to Nikon`s 200-400/4 VR. If they could pull enough contrast through the DO element, this would be an interesting lens to use it for. A relatively lightweight, easily handholdable 200-400/4 IS + a 600mm big gun = the ideal set for hardcore wildlife/bird photography?

The success of the taping trick seems to depend on the AF algorithms used in specific lenses and bodies. Some combinations appear to be usable, others just don`t work. Most of the info I`ve see on this is based on the 1.4x and f/5.6 lenses.

 

There are technical reasons why Canon restricts AF capabilities on their bodies. There is no valid reason to expect good performance outside the sensors` working range. When I use the 400/5.6L with 1.4x, I settle with MF. I prefer the extra time and effort of manual focus to unreliable AF behaviour with taped pins.

I guess Geoff meant no IS primes in the 24-135mm range. I think there`s an obvious reason for the lack of ... let`s say a 35/1.4 IS or or 85/1.2 IS. Look at their optical diagrams - the barrels are stock full of glass already. Making room for the IS unit would come at the cost of noticeable quality loss and/or larger size. Also, the fast apertures of these lenses would probably demand very tight tolerances for the IS mechanism to retain IQ wide open. More headache for the QC department...

 

I can imagine a practical 100/2.8 IS or 135/2.8 IS design but these options are already covered with the excellent 70-200/2.8 IS zoom.

Currently the only other push-pull is the 28-300L. As was its older brother 35-350L. Several of the earlier AFD-powered zooms like 70-210/4 and 35-135 used the push-pull design. They were mostly discontinued or replaced with twist zoom USM versions by the mid-nineties. I believe the previously mentioned 100-300/5.6L was the last of this crop.

The most important market for high quality long telephotos is probably sports professionals. The cameras aimed at this market are clearly the APS-H format 1D series that cannot use EF-S lenses. It would be extremely stupid to go and design an EF-S-only 300/2.8 even if there were benefits in size and weight. A $3000-$4000 lens that can`t be put on the premium sports camera?

 

There is nothing wrong with the current L-series prime telephoto range, regardless of the body you use them on. If Canon ever makes a dedicated EF-S telephoto, it is probably another version of the 55-200/4.5-5.6 designed to be marketed in two-lens kits with a D-Rebel at a rock bottom price.

"so I can't have a system without some sort of IS"

 

you could use f/1.4 or 1.2 primes on a body with a good high ISO performance (think EOS 5D). For moving subjects, no form of IS can substitute larger max aperture.

 

Seriously, the only weak link in the IS lens range seems to be the lack of a stabilized f/2.8 normal zoom for full frame.

 

What lenses did you use with the Minolta? Specifying the focal lengths you are interested in and what you like to shoot would help us make some more practical suggestions.

Low light? If you like the range of your current kit lens, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS replaces it nicely - up to two stops faster, stabilized, good optics. Then add a fast medium telephoto prime for portraits and indoor events: 85/1.8 or 100/2. Then the 430EX flash unit. Should be a nice start for a system ;)

What lenses do you already own and what do you shoot/want to shoot with the 100-400?

 

If you need the focal length range in one lens, the canon 100-400L is hard to beat. Sigma makes a 80-400/4.5-5.6 with OS - their equivalent of IS. It is said to be slow on focusing and probably not quite as sharp as the Canon. See review:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-80-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-EX-DG-OS-Lens-Review.aspx

 

 

If you are mostly interested in the long end of the lens, consider the primes - 300/4L IS and 400/5.6L. While I own just the 400/5.6, I`m quite confident to say that the Canon 100-400, 300/4 (IS and discontinued non-IS) and 400/5.6 are all good lenses. Which is best depends on application.

 

Do you really need 400mm? Most people-related photography (except soccer and other field sports) can be done with nothing longer than 200mm. 70-200/4L is a nice and relatively affordable lens. Also have a look at the 200/2.8L. Note that all L-series telephoto primes from 135 up accept teleconverters that add to the versatility of these single focal length lenses. The 70-200L series and the 100-400 can also take converters but generally the image quality suffers more than with primes.

 

From non-L lenses, the 70-300 IS could be a viable option but I never really liked the ergonomics of Canon`s xx-300 series lenses. If you can afford it, the L series is the way to go, IMO.

Get the 400. Your 70-200 and 1.4x gives you 280/4 with IS which is really close to the 300/4 IS prime. The 400/5.6L, however, would give you much better AF speed and image quality than the 70-200 with a 2x. It is also very nice with the 1.4x. I`m pretty sure the resulting 560/8 is better in terms of IQ than the 600/8 that you would get with 300 + 2x. 2x converters generally degrade the image much more than any decent 1.4x.

 

As you already own the 2x, it costs you nothing extra to put it on the 400/5.6 from time to time but don`t expect the 800/11 combo to become your primary wildlife solution. It`s just too dark to be practical.

 

If you want a very long lens, you need to look for a very long lens in the first place, not just one that takes teleconverters. Think seriously about some used 500mm options: Canon 500/4.5L, Sigma 500/4.5 HSM, Nikon MF 500/4P with adapter. If these are out of the question, the 400/5.6L seems to be your best bet for the longest affordable, high quality lens. It would also nicely compliment a big 500 or 600mm lens that you may add to your system later on.

I own and wholeheartedly recommend the 400/5.6L. Image quality is excellent wide open and still very good with a Canon 1.4x converter. I would guess the Tamron lens is not as sharp to begin with and would definitely suffer from using a TC.

 

Focus speed is much better with Canon`s USM or Sigma`s HSM lenses. The 400/5.6L is known for blazing fast AF, making it a very good choice for birds in flight.

 

2x converters are essentially USELESS with f/5.6 lenses as the resulting maximum aperture of f/11 is too dark for consistent manual focusing, to say nothing of being usable only in full daylight. 400/5.6 + 1.4x = 560/8 (manual focus on most bodies) This combination is very usable but it`s also the limit of practical TC use. I wouldn`t use a 2x on this lens in any normal situation.

 

If you need more versatility (shorter minimum focus distance, faster aperture, shorter focal lengths) than the 400/5.6, take a long, deep look at these alternatives:

 

Canon 300/4 IS used or new, both TC-s (or at least 1.4x)

 

Canon 300/4, used, with both TC-s and extension tube(s)

 

Sigma 100-300/4 HSM, Sigma TC-s. (This is a constant f/4 zoom with good optics, fast HSM motor and tripod collar. Takes Sigma TC-s. A fellow nature photographer had one, used it with a 2x and was pleased with its performance. Sounds very good to me. Get a recent/new one to be certain about compatibility with newer bodies)

 

A good used copy of 100-400L IS. (TC-s are probably not a very good match with this lens, though). I would be wary of other manufacturer`s xx-400/5.6 zooms.

 

A used copy of Sigma, Tamron or Tokina 300/2.8 and matching TC-s. Any of these is an excellent choice for general wildlife photograpy. The Sigma would be preferred because of HSM focus actuator. Might be hard to find within your budget but might be possible with a little stretch. Heavy, but worth the trouble.

 

If BIRDS are your primary interest, stretch your budget to allow the longest, fastest lens you can - possibly a used Canon or Sigma 500/4.5 (- yes, I meant the older, lighter, non-IS Canon 500/4.5L) This is the best way to go for birds, IMO. If these are too much weight and $$$, we are back at the beginning - get the 400/5.6L and shoot happily ever after ;)

 

Choices, choices... I hope I didn`t make things worse.

The D40 does NOT have a new mount system. It`s a standard Nikon mount, just without the screwdriver blade that drives AF in lenses that don`t have an integral AF motor.

I`m with Mark U: the recently discontinued Nikon D50 would be a better choice as the D40 can AF only with AF-S/AF-I lenses.

 

The Canon XTi is fully compatible with all EF and EF-S lenses. The EOS system is 20 years old, so it`s a lot of lenses. Many manual focus lenses can be used on EOS cameras via adapters: Nikkor, Leica R, Zuiko (Olympus OM), Yashica/Contax, M42 screwmount, Pentax K (requires modification). EOS cameras provide light metering through any lens you can mount. The lower end Nikons require CPU-equipped lenses for metering thus making most MF Nikkors quite useless on them. This may or may not be important to you.

 

BTW have you considered Pentax? They seem to have very good feature/cost balance and they make some very interesting lenses. Their system is also backwards compatible with tons of good (and often dirt cheap) manual focus K-mount lenses.

Yes. It`s a Canon EF lens and thus it can be used on all EOS cameras, film or digital.

I think Tokina used to make a good 17mm f/3.5 in EOS mount. Used samples should not be rare.

Why is it problematic to shoot "into DPP"? Sure, the EOS Capture opens up from DPP and DPP displays the image after the shot but you still get an unprocessed RAW file on your HDD. If you want to use another RAW conversion program, just use it afterwards by opening the files from your HDD with the appropriate software.

 

Really, the later versions of DPP are quite capable and as long as your only problem with it is bad reputation on Internet forums, you might just give it a shot and see what you can do with it.

 

There are third party programs that control your camera from the PC but you have to pay extra for those. The stuff that comes with the camera works OK.