ed_blagden

Off at a tangent I know, but a weight saving alternative to a tripod is a beanbag without the beans. You lose a bit of flexibility compared to a tripod, but I often carry with me a small (9" x 9") cusion cover and fill it up with pebbles or whatever suitable alternative is to hand whenever I need a beanbag, and of course empty it out when its time to start walking again.

Put it in a zip-lok freezer bag and keep it in your pocket. A special pouch might well cost more than the lens!

 

Ed

"Will I survive without a light meter (until I could afford one)?"

 

EOS Light meters are just fine.

 

Now we've got that out of the way, here is a top tip to save you money *and* make you a better photographer. The general rule of equipment buying, and forgive me for assuming that you are new to SLR's, is to buy the basics first (think camera, standard lens or wide-short tele zoom, some film) and take lots of photographs. Only even think about buying anything else after learning from bitter experience that you really really need it, and that this particular new bit of kit will solve some issue that you have.

 

There are two major advantages to this approach.

 

1. It keeps your wallet heavier and your camera bag lighter.

 

2. You are more likely to learn to use how to use the equipment you have (ie "I want an x because it will help me to do y" means that you will be more motivated to make good and proper use of your shiny new x.

 

Ed

I have never used the Canon 70-200 2.8L, so I don't know what I'm missing, but I have owned the Sigma 70-200 2.8EX for five years, and its a corker.

 

Firstly, image quality. As your tests show, excellent, even at 2.8. The real test is that I usually mate this lens with the Sigma 2X TC, for wildlife photography. Obviously there must be some image degradation, but I barely notice it, and the results are great provided I use a tripod or beanbag. The fact that the lens works so well with a 2x TC is a real testament to its quality.

 

Second, build quality. I know Sigma has a poor reputation for this in general, but this lens must be an exception. I use mine almost exclusively on safari, and it has survived 5 years of heavy use in extreme heat, dust, humidity etc, and it still works like new. I've yet to drop it off a cliff face, so I reserve the right to change my views!

 

Astonishingly good value. Shame it doesn't have IS.

 

Ed

Thanks for all your responses - most helpful.

 

Someone (Ulrich) mentioned about the 300/4L white lens looking too "pro", and thus an issue. Actually, it isn't really a problem. I use the big honker for shooting wildlife on Safari, and carrying around pro-looking gear on safari isn't a problem. However you do want to be less obtrusive when shooting near public buildings, street shooting etc. Hence the need for teeny weeny WA primes.

 

Migration to digital isn't a pressing issue for me - quite happy with film, and have to pay major bucks for for a digital body with the same sort of functionality as my EOS 3. If they ever bring out an EOS 3D with full frame costing less than $3000 then I'll think again, but I suspect I might have to wait a while for this.

 

Anyway, thanks once again. I think I'll go for my selection.

 

Ed

Hello

 

I started photography 8 years ago with a second hand EOS 1000 (that's

a bottom of the range Rebel to you Americans) with a cheap and nasty

kit 35-80mm zoom, to which I soon added another cheap and nasty EF 75-

300 4-5.6. Lots of fun of course, but over the years I have

gradually upgraded to the following kit:

 

EOS 3 body with a spare EOS 5

 

Sigma 28-70 2.8 EX (couldn't afford the Canon L equivalent, and it's

actually a stonkingly good lens)

 

Sigma 70 - 200 2.8 EX HSM (ditto comment, but add extra-stonkingly).

I often use this one with the sigma 2X teleconverter for wildlife -

very little noticeable image degradation, I find what softness there

is is usually accounted for by my cr*p technique in trying to get

grab-shots with what is effectively a 400mm 5.6 Pix are just great

once a beanbag or tripod are used.

 

EF 85mm 1.8. Lovely images, odd focal length. Use it for portraits

only (ie not much), but I just love this lens.

 

EF 50mm 1.4. Great lens, stunning quality, shame about the not-

really-USM AF mechanism.

 

(If you are wondering, I gave the EOS1000 plus cheapo lenses away to

an unemployed graduate, who now makes his living with them).

 

These days I find that for casual shooting, especially people shots,

I'm using the EF 50mm most of the time. Apart from the super image

quality and the 2 extra stops of light, as I said in another post I'm

becoming less enamoured with the fact that my "standard" zoom not

only weighs a bushel and looks like a military weapon, but also

because it just screams "pro", which in a country like Kenya is not

neccesarily what you want. Apart from not intimidating people, it's

a little known fact that it is technically illegal here for anyone to

take photos of anything at all without a government license! "Pro-

looking" gear has been known to attract the attention of "open

handed" (ie venal) policemen. For some reason they don't seem to

bother the tourists.

 

Anyway, the point of this long preamble is that I am now considering

getting some more primes, not so much for reasons of image quality

but more because of weight, speed, and lack of obtrusiveness.

Candidates on the shopping list are:

 

EF 24mm 2.8 I don't need anything wider at this point, as I have not

yet gone digital.

 

EF 35mm 2.0 I'm attracted by this length, and, when I'm using the

zoom, I find myself using 35mm a lot for candids (not that having

the "standard" bazooka zoom on my camera encourages very much candour

in my subjects).

 

EF 300mm F4 L IS, with a 1.4x TC. I assume that image quality will

be quite a bit better than my current 70-200 + 2x TC, but what I'm

really after is the IS. Its all very well to say use a tripod or a

beanbag, but this isn't always possible in real life. Plan is to

keep the 70-200 2.8 stuck onto the spare body (without TC) so that

the shorter tele is there when needed - large animals are very used

to cars here, and can get really close.

 

Good plan? Bad plan? The proposed investment in the new primes will

come to about $2000, so would appreciate your collective wisdom and

comments before laying out the cash.

 

Regards

 

 

Ed (in Nairobi - which is an awfully long way from New York, so I

can't send the lenses back to Adorama if I change my mind).

Sawa sawa point taken. Although I do beg to differ, Nairobi is indeed a very very dull place and I speak as someone who has lived here for 9 years. It's like war: long periods of tedium interleaved with short moments of terror.

OK, so it's now only a matter of time before we read in this forum "70 (or 50, or 28) 2.8 lens needs Arnie to carry it? No problem, just get Arnie to take the pix and then you can fix them up in Photoshop!"

 

An exaggeration yes, but not much.

 

Ed

Thankyou all for your answers - hard to answer bad questions, but thanks for trying.

 

In a magnificent leap into the realms of OT, Jim Larson said "Primes are dead. No one wants primes, we are lucky they still sell them."

 

Well *I* want primes.

 

Consider this as an example. In the blue corner, you have the 28-70 2.8. Costs +/-$1000, weighs nearly 1Kg, looks like a bazooka. In the red corner, you have the 50mm 1.5. Costs +/- $300, weighs FA, small, lets in 4 x as much light. Oh, and its optically better than the bazooka. Admittedly it isn't much cop at the WA or short tele end, but still.

 

Yes I do use the zoom, I'm not a purist, but for some situations the zoom is a royal PIA, and I prefer my little prime. Way more convenient, and doesn't shout "photojournalist".

OK, here goes:

 

1. What's with this constant aperture thing on expensive zoom

lenses? I mean, why can?t my 28-70mm f2.8 be a 28-70mm f1.1-2.8?

Why do they go out of their way to make the hole get smaller when you

zoom to wide angle? Having a 28mm 1.1 would be kind of wild.

 

2. Why oh why oh why does Canon make such stupid covers for the

PC and remote switch sockets on their otherwise excellent cameras?

They always get lost, and it would be soooo simple to design covers

which can't fall off. Think about one of those pop-top juice bottles

they make for children, and you?ll get the idea.

 

3. Why can't Canon fit their flagship lens, the 50mm f1.4 (the

one that appears on all the most expensive bodies on all the

brochures and manuals) with a real USM focussing mechanism?

 

4. Why can't Canon put proper distance and hyperfocal scales on

their prime lenses? I mean, surely it's just a matter of a few more

etchings?

 

Puzzled of Nairobi.

Loadsamoneeeeeeeeey!

For Canon prime lenses (as opposed to zooms), unless you have specialist requirements, for example an extra stop of speed over an above the already *very* fast non-L primes, or bomb-proof build quality (as opposed to just very very good), then the answer is probably no. Stick with your non-L primes.

 

The 85/1.8 , which I own, is a beauty. How much more image quality or AF speed could any ordinary mortal possibly want?

 

I don't own the 24mm, but I'm struggling to imagine any justification for going for the 1.4 as opposed to the 2.8. You can hand-hold this lens 1/30th, 1/15th if you are careful, and with a 2.8 apeture this covers many low-light situations. Yes, in some situations a couple of extra stops would be nice, but in those circs why not just use faster film? Maybe the shallower DOF is a factor for some, but for a wide angle lens I can't think of any realistic need for a shallow DOF.

 

I'll probably get flamed by pros for this. Don't get me wrong. There must be a market niche for the 24 and 85mm L Class lenses othrwise Canon wouldn't make them. What's more, I would think that the vast majority of people who buy these L lenses are professionals and therefore take a rational commercial decision in response to their real-world needs.

 

It's just that for the rest of us serious amateurs - I'm taking the liberty of assuming you too fall into that category - I just can't see any practical reason to go for the L class primes over the standard ones.

 

Ed

Seems to have a requirment for a username and password... help!

Putting a 1.4TC on a 17-40mm f4 gives you a 24-56mm f5.6. Just curious, but why do you want to do this?

Steve Dunn Wrote: "Calling this lens junk is going a bit far. If you're doing close-up work, the 50/2.5 macro lens is probably a better choice, since its optics are optimized for this type of work. For most general photography, the 50/1.4 is a small, light, fast, very sharp lens. While it's not distortion-free in any application, its distortion is well controlled for most applications (obviously, close-up work is an exception)."

 

OK, I agree that the optics are superb, but the lens AF is unreliable. Just look up this thread: the problem is obviously widespread. Sharp optics are NBG if you can't actually focus the thing.

 

Ed

I have a different flavour of the same problem: my 50mm 1.4 will only do AF if the object distance is relatively close to the starting setting, eg trying to auto focus from infinity to a few feet away is impossible unless you first manually get the image *almost* in focus; then and only then does the AF function.

 

Check through these boards - problems of some form or other with the AF mechanism is not uncommon on this particular lens.

 

<UNHELPFUL RANT>You would think, would you not, that Canon would ship one of their flagship lenses - the 50mm 1.4 invariably features stuck on the front of the top-end EOS cameras in the brochures - with an AF drive mechanism that actually works rather than this flaky pseudo USM piece of odure?

 

Evidently not.

 

Whenever I see the wise men and women of this board chuntering on about how you can't trust these dreadful 3rd party lenses eg Stigma (titter titter), best stick with Canon quality and future compatibility blah blah blah, I can't help but think of my untrusty ef50mm 1.4 paperweight. </UNHELPFUL RANT>

 

Sorry not to bemore helpful, but I needed to get that off my chest!

 

Ed

If you want pro features but don't want to pay too much money, then as an alternative to the EOS3, an EOS 5 may be a good bet. Does everything, costs peanuts. I have both, and whilst there are some differences in functionality, to be honest they don't really matter a whole lot.

 

But watch out for the famous command dial "undocumented feature"!

 

Also, you may get so attached to some of the functionality of either the EOS 3 or 5, you may look at the 10D in a new light - specifically I'm talking about spot metering and +/-5fps.

 

Ed

Congratulations on your new baby.

 

I have both lenses, and for this situation I would go for the 50mm 1.4. Reasons:

 

1. Whilst the 85mm is better for portraits, the 50mm is more versatile for candid shots. You will probably want to take in the whole body, plus toys etc, and the 50mm is altogether more natural for this.

 

2. An extra stop

 

3. Cheaper.

 

Don't obsess too much about flash. Whilst it may not be advisable for the first couple of weeks (and many will disagree even with this), it really doesn't matter thereafter.

 

Ed

I have the 28-70 2.8EX, and it's a great lens, in my view. I have done a few comparisons of this lens zoomed to 50mm, with my Canon EF50mm 1.4, and it's hard to see much subjective difference between the two at any aperture (except of courrse f2 and below!). Another plus point is the 77mm filter size, which is interchangeable with lots of other lenses.

 

The only minus points I can think of are that it is both noisy and slow focussing, and that it doesn't do FTM focussing. If only they could put an HSM motor on it.

 

Ed