stein_andersen

I'm upgrading my normal-zoom from the 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS, and am leaning towards

the 17-55/2.8 IS. ...But should I look at the 24-70/2.8 L instead? It is an L

after all, with magnesium alloy casing. OTH, the 17-55 has IS.

 

I will be getting an ultra wide angle zoom (EF-S 10-22 or Sigma 10-20) and some

70-200 somewhere down the road.

 

I'm thinking the 17-55 will be just as good as the 24-70 for me, b/c of great

glass, good enough build quality, the IS and the somewhat lower price. ...But it

anyone thinks I'm wrong about this, I'd like to hear about it.

 

...I won't be going to full frame anytime soon, btw. I have a 400D now, and

might be getting a 40 or the next version of it sometime in the future.

I would like a flash gun for my 400D, and an looking at the Speedlite 430 EX and

the Sigma 530 Super. The Sigma seems like a lot of power for the money, but

maybe the Canon is better regarding compatibility issues?

 

Any opinions on which one to pick?

 

...Or should I save up for the 580 instead?

I do believe it has.

 

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3283&navigator=5

(Wohoo! That was post No. 10000 on "Eos Lenses") ;)

I'm about to order a Sigma APO 150/2.8 EC DG macro from B&H, and thereby putting

my plans for a 70-200/2.8 L on hold.

 

That makes me wonder if the AF of the Sigma Macro lens will be fast enough for

me to test some sports photography. (With the focus limiter enabled.) For

instance, I'd like to shoot some mountain bike racing. I'll be able to get

pretty close to the action, so I hope that a 150mm lens on an APS-C sensor will

be long enough.

 

My other option is using a EF-S 17-55 IS USM that will be included in that same

order, but I believe that will be a little short for this application. (?)

 

 

Thanks in advance.

<p>"Not sure if anyone went and looked at the test photos"</p>

 

<p>It'd propably help a lot if you included URL's to the pics, making it easier to have a look.</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7335524">7335524</a></p>

 

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7335429">7335429</a></p>

I haven't seen any of that yet, but thanks. When it occurs, I'll know what to do. :)

I read in Philip Geenspun's article "building a digital SLR system" (or

something like that) that you should never leave the UV filter on while shooting

in a clean environment (where it's not needed).

 

Why not? A good one can't possibly steal that much sharpness, and it's a cheap

way to protect the front element of expensive lenses.

 

Any opinions?

I love my Slingshot AW 200. I'm guessing you can get a 40D with mounted 70-200/4L in the "camera slot", but if you need to, you can always attach ane external "slip lock" elns cases on the outside of the bag. I believe there are three mounts for these on the Slingshot 200. One on the strap, one on the side (opposite to the camera lid and one on the back. A "Lens case 2" on the side would work great, and free up space in the bag. ...Or you could jest step up to the Slingshot AW 300.

It is? From the www.photozone.de review of it and the Sigma 10-22, I got the impression that it was similar in build and image quality to the 17-55 3.5-5.6 IS, and I concluded that I could just as well get the Sigma.

 

Should I reconsider?

IQ is OK, but yes, it's very plastic-y. And forget about manual focus. It's possible, but I wouldn't bother.

 

I'd look at a Tamron 17-50/2.8 instead, or a 17-85 3.5-5.6 IS USM if IS and USM are more important to you than a fast lens.

The problem, I guess, is holding that big sucker steady. ;)

Not snobbery. The 400 body is too small for many people's hands. (Including mine, and a 400 is what I've got.) And the ruggedness of the 40 sure feels a lot safer when attaching heavy lenses. I recently posted a thread about that.

 

It has a much brighter and larger viewfinder, faster continous shooting, newer Digic III processor that's fasterthan the 400's Digic II. It also works in 14 bits instead of the II's 12 bits.

 

If you can afford it, then I really recommend you get the 40D. I wish I had. If not, you'll be perfectly happy with the 400 as well.

Should that matter?

40D. Hands down!

I suggest buying a cheap usb memory card reader. It saves battery life, is faster and really cheap. That way you can just drag'n'drop your files in Windows Explorer (or whatever).

Thanks. I too know about those and others that have testet all the lenses, but I'm looking for a review of them side by side.

Does anybody know if there is a review of all or at least several of these

lenses together available? Preferrably online.

 

-Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 EX DC

 

-Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II

 

-Canon EF-S 17-55 1:2.8 IS USM

 

-Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 AT-X PRO DX

 

 

 

 

...And should I include the EF 17-40 1:4L in my choices?

Isn't the 2.8 L USM weather sealed, btw?

There is quite a price jump from the 2.8 L USM to the 2.8 L IS USM. Not many IS ones to be found used either.

Thanks, everybody!

 

That blackrapid R-strap seems like a great solution. I guess I can start looking at 2.8 lenses again, then. :)

 

I can get a good used EF 70-200L for less than a new Sigma 2.8 or Canon 4L IS, so I guess thet's what I'm aiming for. The 4L non-IS is the cheap option, and the 2.8 L IS USM is too expensive and out of the question.

 

Good plan?

I'm currently using a Sigma 30/1.4 as my only lens on my 400D. I do have the kit 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS lens as well, but am really not using it.

 

I'm getting a long telezoom, though, and later a normal-zoom, but for now, a normal prime works fine.

Let's say i were to go for a hike with the 400D and 70-200/2.8. What would be the best way to carry it when not in the bag? Holding it with both hands all the time seems very unpractical.

 

...Besides: I don't think it will fit in my bag with the 200 attached. ;)

Thanks. I already have the XTi/400D body, and in fact I am a mechanical engineer with quite a bit of stress analysis experience. ;)

 

I guess I'll be OK, then. I might just have to find another way of lugging the camera and 200mm around than slung across my shoulder.

Sure? That's great. It just didn't look/feel right to me.