alexdi

The speed ratings differ somewhat between brands. Among the cheaper cards, "133X" doesn't really mean 133X. Newegg can give you some idea of their relative reliability, but save for a few poorly-reviewed rarities, they're all about the same. I'd personally stick with Transcend on the low end and Lexar or Sandisk on the high end.

<a href=http://www.daveindech.com/>http://www.daveindech.com/</a><p>

Peruse as you like. And critique, if that's what makes you feel better.

I wouldn't say Canon lenses are more or less reliable than any other brand. I've only had two lenses physically break: the aperture control of a 50/1.8 MKII after one year, and the AF motor of a 200/2.8L MKI that was 15 years old.

 

Quality variance is another story. Sigma's quality control is more variable than most. "Good" copies of certain lenses are as good, or better, than the Canon equivalent. Bad copies, not so much. I tried three copies of Sigma's 10-20. All had centering problems that may or may not have been a result of Amazon's poor packaging. That aside, the optical design was top-notch, and the build-quality, excellent. The first copy of the Canon 10-22 that replaced the Sigma was also decentered on the long end. The replacement was better.

 

I've also had a Canon 70-200/4L IS. My copy was garbage. At f/8, it was significantly softer than my 200/2.8L wide open with a 1.4X TC, and it had AF problems. Canon's service fixed the AF, but not the optics. I sold it at a loss. Flipping that, my 50/1.4 was unusually good at wide apertures, but it took three trips to Canon before it would AF properly. By contrast, my 28-135/IS kit lens is a stellar copy with perfect AF. It's not far removed from the 50. The older versions I've seen don't fair nearly as well.

 

No brand gets everything right. There's isn't much that will physically break in a lens under normal use, but there are clearly quality variations.

<i>Frankly, your attacks on my credability are getting a little tiring</i>

<p>

Colin, I judge by what you write. When I see a post query with anything akin to "Canon L or [insert anything else]," I expect to a see a Colin post espousing the virtues of the L. It doesn't matter what the alternative is, what the user wants, or the context; if it's not L, you're voting against it. That's what's tiring. While you claim vast experience, it isn't reflected in your posts.

<p>

<i>I'd suggest that it's consistent with your mediocre attitude towards photography and the mediocre results you appear to acheive (judging by your online examples).</i><p>

I wouldn't go there. I don't bother posting on this site, and your work is not above critique. Creativity impresses me, not technical proficiency.

<p>

William:

<p>

You tell me. :)

Keep your elbows in and control your breathing. If possible, brace your body against something; a post, a sign, any solid vertical object. Use your eyebrow ridge as a bracing point as well. Leave the camera in continuous mode and take two shots at a time.

<p>

See<b>

<a href=http://www.dcmag.co.uk/How_to_master_handholding.YTeUnMk.html>here</a></b> for advanced techniques.

<i>I've lost count of the number of digs ... at me and my philosophy of ... "if you're passionate about it then your selling yourself short if you don't get the best that you can afford"</i>

<p>

Colin, your philosophy is: "I was unhappy with the cheapest lens Canon made, so now I disparage everything without an L sticker and all third party lenses, irrelevant of my [lack of] experience with them."

<p>

From an earlier post:

<p><i>

I patiently saved up for my first [L] and then moved on to others. ...I'm as proud-as-punch to own them - and not a single regret.

</i>

<p>

This is L fetishism predicated on the notion that the most expensive choice is always the best. It isn't. An L lens is a tool and a compromise, just like any other lens. The compromise of the 70-200/4L is a lack of stabilization and a shorter zoom range. For the 85/1.2L, it's a lack of AF speed. And for the 70-200/2.8, it's tremendous weight. Other lenses with different compromises may achieve better results for a given individual.

<p>

<i>L-Series lenses INVARIABLY have far superior build quality</i>

<p>

Not so. My 100/2 felt more robust than my 70-200/4L, and neither would withstand a fall. Weather sealing and internal zoom are perks, not indications of build quality. I was pleasantly surprised with the build of the 70-300.

<p>

You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't appear to be based on experience.

To most people, IS and the additional 100mm will outweigh the slight loss in contrast, sharpness, and AF speed of the 70-300 in actual shooting. To others, the 70-300's micro-USM motor and rotating front element will be nonstarters.

 

If the lens is intended to be a fetish object, the L is clearly the best choice. Personally, I found my 70-200/4L IS + 1.4X TC slow to AF and extremely difficult to handhold when the IS was turned off. I don't recommend combining a TC with the non-IS.

Zafar:

 

The 40D will also meter with manual Nikon lenses. High-ISO performance is a wash. I've had no trouble tracking ice hockey players with the 9 AF points of the 40D. The remaining 42 points may be of interest to those who track birds, but the speed of the AF processor is more important.

 

A built-in timer would be nice, though.

Forget the Tamron. The Tokina 10-17 is a fisheye, so don't choose it unless that's what you want. The Tokina 12-24 is an excellent lens with a solid build, but the gulf between 10mm and 12mm is significant.

 

Canon's 10-22 is the best ultrawide for the Canon mount. If the cost is unreasonable and the Sigma 10-20 isn't an option, the Tokina is the best alternative.

I agree, you can't go wrong.

 

There's a fair bit of cost variance between Nikon and Canon. Neither lens nor camera range perfectly overlap, so you can make arguments either way depending on the kit emphasis.

 

While I'm rarely with Colin, I'll third the "flip a coin." If you have a specific requirement in mind, we could probably offer better advice.

At the long end, and especially at wide apertures, the Tamron is sharper and with greater contrast. The Tokina is a heavier, largely metal lens. It doesn't have modern anti-reflection coatings on the rear element, so it's more prone to flare.

 

Good as the Tokina is, for pure image quality, the Tamron is a better lens. Note that there were actually three versions of the former lens; the best were the first two. Tokina's more recent SV lens isn't worth considering.

The 40D has certain advantages for sports photographers: greater reach, far faster framerate, better AF. For most everything else, the 5D is a more interesting camera. As good as my 40D is, if I could trade it for a 5D, I would.

They may actually modify the f-stop slightly to compensate for the loss in transmission, to the extent there is one. While that would also change depth of field and the minimum size of the lens, it would be a subtle difference.

I'll second most of Geoff's comments and add another: the Sigma is subject to quite a lot of sample variation. I tried three before I gave up and bought the Canon. All three had centering problems, but I've seen stellar copies.

Google "canon usm". Click the second link. In the blog post, the first link is to a dissection of a USM motor.

<a href=http://www.lensrentals.com>http://www.lensrentals.com</a>

You'll lose two stops and some contrast. The 40D's a better camera, but there's no way I'd trade a 5D for one. Wouldn't give up the full-frame DOF or the high-ISO capability. At the very least, if you must switch bodies, keep the lens.

When IS is engaged, the optics slowly drift. When it isn't, they're locked in place. If your tripod causes the lens to twitch more than the IS system would drift during the same exposure, leave IS on. If it's a better tripod, turn IS off.

 

For long exposures (+1 second), always turn IS off. If your tripod isn't good enough, put the camera on a rock.

The 35/2 focus noise is irritating and noticeable to subjects. Optics aside, try to listen to a copy before you buy it. I personally find the Sigma 30/1.4 far more interesting in that price range.

There's quite a lot of sample variation with the 28-135. I've seen anecdotal reports that the copies packaged with the 40D kits are significantly better than those originally released in 1997. Early tests painted it as a lackluster choice in that range, but my kit copy has proven far better than expected.

<p>

See here: <a href=http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=26539485>DPReview crop</a>

<p>

Default JPEG sharpening on that shot, and it's even across the frame on the 40D. I have little inclination to spring for the 24-105/4L when the 28-135 is that good. DXO may improve it further, but for lack of a copy, I can't be much help in finding out.

<p>

DI

If it was one of the better Quantaray filters ("digital multicoated" or somesuch), it's fine. Truly dodgy filters can do bad things to autofocus and contrast, and all filters will add flare to a greater or lesser degree in contra-lighting. The extent to which UV is actually filtered also varies with the quality of the filter, though if you're using it solely for protection, this hardly matters.

Between those two? The 70-300/IS wins, no comparison. I have handholding difficulties with my 200/2.8L, and that 70-200 is a stop slower. The only visual advantage the L has over the IS is a slight contrast boost. Otherwise, you can't tell them apart. And contrary to some reports, the build quality of the IS is just fine.

 

Let me phrase it this way: I owned the 70-200/4L IS and a TC. If I'd done it again, I would have bought the 70-300.

Great lens, but overvalued. The 70-200/2.8L regularly goes for $800-$950, while the 80-200/2.8L is around $650. Purely for the ability to have the 70-200 serviced, it's worth the additional amount. USM and TC compatibility are a nice bonus.

 

The 70-200/4L is a fine lens as well.

 

DI

It may be if you don't need the framerate, buffer depth, or AF. Canon's lineup continues be differentiated by the ability to shoot birds and sports. If your livelihood isn't dependent on getting the shot, any Rebel will do.

 

The other side, however, is that the bar continues to rise for the entire line. I would sooner have this new Rebel than a 20D, and the current 40D to the old 1D.

 

DI

Looks like a great little camera. Evolutionary, for sure, but strong where it matters. It seems that framerate, physical size, and buffer depth are the last bastions of model differentiation.