panos_voudouris

You don't have a wide angle lens. I would skip the 28-75 and get the Tamron 17-35 or the

Canon 17-40 (if money permits). Also, as others said, skip the 75-300 and get the 70

-200/4 L.

For macro you won't get very far with AF. Manual focusing is a must.

In low light, according to the specs, a 1D will AF better but there is still a limit to what a

passive AF sensor can do. Any of the EX speedlites with an AF assist light will help any

camera focus in any light. If you want something smaller, the ST-E2 can be used as a AF

assist for that.

For a tripod, look at Gitzo (expensive!) or Manfrotto (cheaper but still very good). Something like a Manfrotto 055 + head should do. Anything cheaper will be a waste of time and money, especially since you like your night shots.

Given the budget, get a zoom lens and forget the primes and macros. If you don't want EF-S lenses, get the 17-40L or a Tamron 17-35mm (cheaper but still very good). If you don't mind EF-S lenses, a 17-85mm IS will cover most of your needs for less than the 17-40L, while giving you more reach and IS.

So, 1 lens, 1 body, 1 tripod, spend the rest on a 430EX flashgun and cards and stuff and if you have any change left keep it in the bank and get a telephoto in the future. Good luck.

By the way, as others said, there are the Canon 50, 60, 100 and 180mm macro lenses,

plus the Tamron 90mm and 180mm, Sigma 50, 105, 150 and 180mm lenses. The prices

vary and all generally sharp lenses (macros are generally all sharp regardless of brand).

The reason for needing a telemacro like a 180mm is that the longer the lens, the more the

working distance. For example, my 90mm Tamron has a working distance (i.e. the

distance between the insect and the front of the lens at 1:1 macro) of about 10cm. This is

short enough to scare the insect away (unless it is dead!). A 180mm macro will have

double that.

Also, if you look at the specifications of each lens they tell you what the working distance

is. Bear in mind that the actual working distance is the one they tell you MINUS the length

of the lens!

Furthermore, the 50mm lenses and the Tamron 90mm all extend, so at 1:1 your working

distance is about what they tell you minus TWICE the size of the length.

Working distance is not a problem for things like flowers or objects but insects will be

scared away if you are about 5cm from them!

Apart from the 180/3.5L, there are the Sigma 180mm f/3.5 HSM Macro and the Tamron

180mm f/3.5 Di. The Tamron is half the price of the Canon and the Sigma is a bit cheaper.

Both are sharp lenses and on a test I saw online (cannot find it now) the Tamron was the

sharpest of the three, the Sigma the least.

Personally, I have the Tamron 90mm macro which I love (sharp, great colour and contrast,

excellent bokeh) and am eyeing the 180mm too.

Spyro,

Photo equipment in the UK is expensive and the cheapest online prices (usually from shops outside London) will be on average whatever you can get in Athens with a bit of searching or buying online from Germany.

Unless you want to buy second hand, in which case you can try any shop but that is hit and miss as you don't know what you'll find.

In general, it wouldn't be worth wasting time going to shops. You'd be better off enjoying London instead.

As others said, you need to stop down to actually see an effect.

So, set Av mode, open up the aperture (i.e. the smallest number available, it is on the lens somewhere, usually around the front element). Then keep the button pressed and rotate the wheel. You will see the aperture stopping down.

Are you familiar with film? Think of it as 4mp being as using ISO 1600 while 8MP being ISO 100 film. The difference in grain when enlarging is substantial.

If you are not familiar with film, look at your computer screen:

640x480 is 0.3Mp

1024x768 is 0.7Mp

1280x1024 is 1.5Mp and so no

If you have a 15'' monitor, would you rather have 640x480 or 1024x768? If you had a 19'' monitor, would you rather use 1280x1024 or 640x480?

Guys, thank you all for your answers. The more I read about this lens the more I like it.

Thank you all again.

I find Kodak Portra 800 on Kodak papers excellent. I love the skin tones and tight grain. I prefer it to Fuji 800.

As others said, there are the 1600 films and if you want B&W Ilford Delta 3200 is great, as long as you can find someone to process and print it properly.

"I've used this lens with the 500D diopter a few times. Since you asked here's one example. Not the best picture in the world but it'll give you an idea of what you can do with the 400 and the 500D. "

Wow! That is very impressive. I never considered diopters before as I have a macro lens, but maybe I should try them, especially with the 200 and 400 lenses.

What was the working distance in that shot? According to Julian's Lens Calculator the 400 with a 500D should give you 1:1 at 44cm. Is that correct?

Hmmm, some interesting opinions.

It seems that I'll have to resort to the monopod most of the time. Not a bad thing, I do

carry the monopod whenever I know that I will need it. Well, I'll have to carry it more often!

I did a lot of thinking, between the 200/2.8, 300/4IS, 400/5.6 and even the Sigma 150/

2.8. But I think that 400 for what I need will be a good starting point. The 300 looks like a

brilliant lens, but I want the reach, and with the TC (ok, no AF there with my EOS 30) will

make a very interesting option.

I think my Xmas list is complete! Thanks everyone!

Hi all,

I am looking to buy a long telephoto, particularly the 400mm f/5.6

L. I want to use the lens for some super-tele shots in town,

landscapes and I would like to venture into large animal

photography in the outdoors.

The questions:

1) Usability: Given the lack of IS, I will need either a bright day

with 100 film or 800 film on an overcast day to handhold this lens

wide open. Can it generally be hand-held? Or is it purely a

monopod/tripod lens?

2) How about a monopod? I have one but never used such a long

telephoto with it. How many stops can I expect to gain? I can manage

2-3 stops with my current lenses, would it be worse with a 400,

say only gain 1 stop?

3) AF: Since I will be using it on a EOS 30 (Elan 7) would the AF

still be quick. I read that the 400/5.6 is one of the fastest

lenses, I am just wondering if that is limited to EOS 3/1 series

cameras, as f/5.6 is right at the cut-off point for the EOS 30's AF.

4) Given a tripod, has anyone used this lens for portraits?

Obviously the distance will be quite big between the camera and

subject but just for fun, is it a good lens for posed portraits

(bokeh)?

I have considered the 300mm f/4 IS + 1.4x TC too, but given that I

will be getting a 200mm f/2.8 as well, 300mm is not so much of a

difference and 400 I read is the minimum for wildlife photography.

Finally, would extension tubes and/or a 1.4x TC increase

magnification of the 400/5.6 to get photos of large insects? Has

anyone done it and do they have some samples?

Sorry for the long post, but the 400 is right at the very top of my

budget (adding the 200/2.8 and the TC) so I want to get as many

opinions as I can. Obviously I'll try to find one in a shop, but 10

minutes in the shop won't tell me how it handles outside in the

fields.

Many thanks!

Bristol Cameras were selling the 5D for 2050gbp on their website a couple of weeks ago.

However, I was in their shop the other day and their whole first delivery went to pre-orders

as they told me, which might explain why it has disappeared from their website.

BTW, I saw they have the 430EX for 159gbp, which is less than what you'd get the 420EX

for in most places.

I have the 7e and the rebel 2000 which are the previous versions of the cameras you mention. The biggest differences for me, in order of importance:

1) Bigger and brighter viewfinder

2) This is something that always impressees me when I use the two cameras: the mirror slap on the T2 is a lot harder. You can feel your hand rotating, while on the 7n it is very smooth, you almost don't feel the vibration, it is very quiet and the mirror black-out is a lot shorter.

3) Flash exposure compensation. I cannot stress how much better photos come out, FEC at -1 or -1.5 actually makes the built-in flash usable.

The above 3 are enough for me to go for the 7.

4) Control of exposure mode, if you ever need to shoot slides or need metering for a difficult scene (backlit portrait, sunsets, etc)

5) Eye focus control

6) Wheel and buttons at the back to control things a lot easier like exposure compensation and selection of focusing point

7) Control of focusing mode (servo, AI, one-shot)

It is also bigger and a bit heavier, which for me makes it more comfortable in the hand and balances better with heavier lenses. There are also some custom functions, I really like the one that leaves the film leader out, so I can change films at mid-roll. And if you have a tripod there is mirror lock-up, not useful for you now, but if you ever get a macro it is very useful.

I would recommend that you find a used 7e on ebay instead of buying a new one. It would cost you the same price of a new T2.

Hi all,

I am looking for a 180mm macro lens and would normally look into the

Tamron 180/3.5, mainly because I have the Tamron 90mm and am very

satisfied with it.

However, I just spotted a 2nd hand Sigma 180mm f/3.5 APO EX HSM for

half the price of a new Tamron in a shop and this seems too good to

pass. So, I already know that both lenses are more or less equal in

the macro range (leaving size, weight and Sigma's possible

compatibility issues aside).

But I would like to ask about using the lens in normal distances. Is

it still sharp? Has anyone compared it to the Tamron? And is the HSM

AF faster than Tamron's?

Please do not elaborate on other focal lengths (I already have the

90 macro) or Canon's 180 L. I am only interested in these two 180mm

lenses.

Many thanks.

Panos

ECF works great for me. After calibrating it for 30 times so far with all my lenses it hits the

spot 99% of the time. He just needs to make sure that he calibrates it for ALL the lenses

and lots of times in different lighting conditions (dark/bright/normal light levels). It is just

brilliant!

Bristol cameras actually has some of the lowest prices I have found on Canon equipment in

the UK. And they are the prices they have in the shop too. And its about 10 minutes walk

from where I live...hmmmm...not good.

I'll concentrate on the lenses, since the bag and film is obviously going to be bought.

Get the 50 for sure. Also, I had the 135 and have the following observations to make: that

lens is great but has its limitations. First of all, AF is fast (USM kind of fast) and accurate

and not really noisy, despite the AFD motor. The 135 has excellent background blur, is

small, light, fast and sharp wide open. The only problem I see with it, is that the minimum

focus distance is 1.5m so you have to stay quite far back compared to other lenses.

Personally, I find a flash+fast prime much more useful than a slower zoom without the

flash. And you can use the flash with your 28-105 too.

But if you are shooting a baby, I'd get the 50 and NEITHER the 135 nor 70-200. I'd get a

macro (Tamron 90/2.8 or Canon 100/2.8) so that you can impress them with close-

up photos of little feet and hands and all that stuff. And you'll have a lot more fun with the

macro and a flash than with any zoom when you are bored at home and keep finding

things to photo.

So, for me, 50, macro and flashgun. If you can find a 2nd hand Tamron 90/2.8 even

better. Also, if you want to save even more money and don't think about getting a dSLR

any time soon, get a 430EZ from ebay for $50.