niels_de_boissezon1

My take: get a used Canon 70-210/3,5-4,5 USM it's sharp, decently-built, light and focuses very fast. You'll have the time to learn a couple of new langages before the non-USM (both Canon and Sigma) are done focusing and their sharpness is so-so.

 

The Canon 100-300 USM is also an option although the 70-210 is sharper.

Alright. I've gotten myself a used 540EZ for 40? and I can confirm that AF-assist works fine in M-mode. Actually it's one hell of a flash I'm surprised that you can get them so cheap :-)

 

*goes back to play with new gear*

225$ seems just crazy IMHO... the 50/1,4 can be had used for almost the same price!

Perfect! I didn't know about the better AF-assist light - makes it even better for my use. Just gotta dig out one of these for cheap then :-)

 

Thanks a lot.

 

PS: If someone has had issues specifically with the 10D+540EZ combo please do chime in :-)

I'm planning to use one 540EZ in manual mode to trigger some optical slaves on

my 10D (and thereby avoiding the E-TTL preflash issue). I would however like to

have a functioning AF-assist light as the 10Ds focus is so-so in low light.

Question is: does it work?

>> Most of you have been mentioning about the 35mm f/2. Is it better than 28mm 1.8 or 2.8?

 

I've had all three of them in my quest for a standard prime for crop cameras.

 

The 35/2 was the first i bought in the series and while light, compact and optically good I never really liked it - the FOV was a bit too tight IMO so i started to look at the 28/2.8.

 

The 28/2,8 and it's 45mm equiv FOV was just right. That lens had the same qualities as the 35/2 and was marginally sharper than the 35 - the only downside was the relatively slow max aperture. So when I found a deal on a mint used 28/1,8 i'd gave it a go:

 

The 28/1,8 is the best of the bunch in terms of construction, AF (FTM=nice) and bokeh. Optically it isn't any better than it's cheaper f2.8 sibling though and it's performance @1,8 isn't mesmerizing.

 

To sum it up I don't think you can go wrong on any of these lenses - they're all (very) good performers - i'd pick the one that gives the best FOV for your applications.

I disagree with Yakim... While it's true that the AF on the 35/2 is noisy it isn't slow by any accounts - I have USM lenses that focus slower than it. Optically it isn't that good either - Both the 28/1,8, the 28/2,8 and the sigma 18-50/2.8 perform slightly better @f2,8.

I can't say I've tried any of them but I still have two points to make:

 

- anything you can mount on a /n you can mount on a /c... not vice versa

- Canon is commited to full-frame - meaning you'll have some upgrade options in the future.

 

Hope this helps

In that case an entry-level camera from either camera maker will do.

 

Personnaly I'd recommend getting a Nikon D50 (great cheap beginner DSLR IMHO) and get a good 'premium' lens from either Sigma (18-50/2.8 EX) or Tamron (17-50/2.8 SP) .

 

That should give you a good starting point and a lot of value for your buck.

Do you wan't to get a digital or an analogue camera?

Getting new analogue camera equipment makes little economic sense IMHO. The market is litteraly flooded with great photographic equipment at historically low prices.

 

Get a well-kept midrange camera of the mid to late nineties and get some nice lenses for it.

 

My recommendation would be to get a used Canon EOS 50 (100$) with a 28-105/3.5-4.5 (150$) for wildlife get a used Sigma 400/5.6 APO macro (250$ - these great lenses are dirtcheap since they don't work on modern digital SLR's)

What future will bring is of course hard to predict.

 

But the laws of optics/physics cannot be bent... (that is until new laws prevail - not likely)

 

A 645-sized sensor will need roughly a 500mm lens to yield a 300mm FOV (in 35mm terms)... here is one:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=75049&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

 

Of course this one is only f4.5 - you wan't it to be f2 then prepare to make 5 times heavier with a front diameter that's 2,5 times larger - and price? 50000$ is probably not enough i'm afraid... and it doesn't zoom. :-P

 

Try fitting that into your FZ-XX.

That is a pretty bullet-proof combo and it's hard not to be pleased with such a setup. My only concern would be backup... having a spare body can be a lifesaver. Adding a 350D or a used 10D (or better a 20D) would be worthwhile IMHO.

Do what many other EU-photographers do: buy in Germany. Prices there, while not as low as the US, are the most reasonable in Europe. Some items are actually cheaper there than in the US(i.e. Sigma lenses)

 

try preissuchmaschine.de and browse their prices.

 

I've had good experiences with either lagu.de, ac-foto.de and technikdirekt.de.

Allright... thank you Bob for that thorough reply. I guess i got a bit put off by your initial reply. Probably because there's a difference between saying no 'because Canon says so' and saying no after actually having investigated it. Your initial reply sounded like the former...

I don't have the lens yet. I've planned to purchase it within the next few days. I was just wondering whether there could be some benefits to getting one of Canon tripod collars as well. And just because Canon hasn't specifically made it for the 70-300 doesn't mean it won't fit. There are numerous Canon accessories that can be used beyond specification with great results.

 

IMHO You shouldn't be so concerned whether Canon meant it to be used together or not... if it works it works - if it doesn't well too bad (obviously you shouldn't try so hard so that you crack the finish). I've used Canon equipment beyond specifications on several occasions and it worked fine.

 

But based on what Philip wrote it seems that there is not enough space on the barrel between the IS and the MF/AF switch - That answered my question. Thanks.

 

BTW Some of the replies I've gotten sounded like if I've just asked the most stupid question ever... Well I'm sorry if I've offended you with my curiosity - it really wasn't my intent.

> The lens is not very heavy or very long. Why do you want a tripod ring ?

The lens is about the same weight of the 70-200/4 and it's longer when extended. I just thought a tripod collar would improve stability for longer exposures... just at it does with a 70-200/4.

 

Could somebody please just try it out and tell me whether it fits or not - as far as i can see there's room to fit it between the AF/MF switch and the IS on/off switch.

 

... and no more duct tapes/superglue jokes... let's try to keep this forum as informative as possible - right Bob? ;-)

Have you tried? :-)

I know that it's not listed as a standard accessory for the 70-300 IS... but has anyone tried to fit it?

Hi Folks.

 

I'd like to know whether it is possible to fit either the Canon tripod

collar A or B to this lens.

 

Thanks.

How about stacking two linear polarizing filters on top of each other.

 

That when you align the filters you lose about one or 2 stop... but when you place the filters perpendicularly they should block all light (at least in theory). Can't say I've tried it... but my guess is it should work.

The best 'budget' tripod i've tried is the Manfrotto 724B. It really is a nice, compact, well-built and light tripod. It's biggest drawbacks are IMHO the lack of a quick-release (which you can add afterwards) and it's buil-in ball-head (which you then won't be able to upgrade).

 

regards,

Niels

a used 70-200/4L seems obvious. And it also uses the same filter size as your 18-50/2,8...

If you wan't a stealthy telephoto there is no better lens than the 135/2,8 SF (esp. on a 1,6 crop DSLR). It's just so small and light :-)

 

Other alternatives could be the 135/2 or 200/2,8 if you need the extra stop or tele. They are substantially larger however...

My vote is for a Manfrotto 3001 (or 3021 if you're tall) and an FLM-32 ballhead. This combo will last you a lifetime...