Jump to content

pto189

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    674

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by pto189

    Anyone who says the 17-40 is sharper than the 16-35 is nuts

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    I would like you to give serious advices becasue I think many of us

    need to know. Let take a look on the prices of the following Canon L

    lenses:<p>

    300mm 2.8 IS - $3900<br>

    300mm 4.0 IS - $1150<br>

    70-200 2.8 - $1140<br>

    70-200 4.0 - $560<br>

    16-35 2.8 - $1400<br>

    17-40 4.0 - $680<p>

    Is it true that for DSLR we don't need an extra stop becasue we can

    always increase ISO to compensate one stop slower? Is an extra stop

    worth double or even triple the money? Should Canon stop to make the

    2.8 lenses and offer only 4.0 lenses?

    What Lens Should I get?

    in Accessories

    Posted

    Canon has four legendary f2.8L lenses for professional photographers: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200IS, and 300IS. There are also three excellent f4L lenses for advanced and rich amateurs: 17-40, 70-200, and 300IS. Unfortunately, there is no 24-70 f4L lens that I believe most of the amateurs will grasp one on the first day it comes out. The lacking of the Canon EF 24-70 f4L has been one of the hottest topics for us to discuss and argue. It also creates opportunities for Sigma and Tamron to occupy the vacuum and sell their substitute lens for these focal lengths.<p>

    If pricing is not an issue, I suggest you to collect the Canon f2.8L series. However, they are all big and very heavy. If you are not a pro and are using the Canon 20D, I suggest you to collect one lens at a time: 17-40 f4L, 70-200 f4L, 24-70 f2.8L, and finally 300 f4L. Unlike film, you can easily crank up the ISO in low light condition to compensate for the slow f4L lenses. You will miss the IS on the 70-200 f4L, but it will be fine if you eventually buy the 300 f4L IS.<p>

    The optical quality of the Tamron 28-75 is very close to the Canon 24-70 f2.8L. It is small, light, and $700 cheaper than the Canon. The Canon is expensive, big, and very heavy. However, paying $700 more, you will get the best built quality, almost instant auto focus, color excellence, and weather seal that the Tamron will never be able to come close.<p>

    I sold the Tamron last month and bought the Canon week later, and I will keep my Canon EF 24-70 f2.8L USM as long as I live.<p>

    By the way, the Canon EF 28-70 f2.8L has been discontinued and replaced by the 24-70. I would not suggest you to buy the 28-70 because the 24-70 is far better than the one it replaced.

    20D walk-around/travel lens - EF 17-40, EF 17-85 IS or Sigma 18-50/2.8 or...

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    Select one of the following lenses:<p>

    Canon EF 24-85 F3.5-4.5 USM<br>

    Canon EF 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 USM IS<br>

    Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 USM IS<br>

    Canon EF 24-70 F2.8L USM<br>

    Sigma AF 24-70mm F2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Macro SLR<br>

    Tamron AF 28-75mm F2.8 XR Di SLR<p>

    You can't find a perfect lens. I'm still waiting for the Canon EF 17-85 F2.8L USM IS that weights 500g and costs $795. No one can suggest you the best walk-arround lens. Ten of them will tell you a dozen of best lenses in their opinions.

    Canon 70-200L F4 or Sigma 80-400 OS

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    I don't think people pay 3 times the money for just a little better lens. It's up to your budget. I think you should not mix the lenses. Choose either Tamron, Sigma, or Canon. If you decide to choose Sigma, ask Jo-Jo Ma to learn more about Sigma lenses. In the case you decide to stick with Canon L lenses, buy one at a time. I suggest you to start with the 70-200 f4L, then 1.4X TC, then 300 f4L IS. I've tried the combo 300 f4L IS & 1.4X TC at a local camera store. You will like them. I'm using 70-200 f4L & 1,4X TC now, and the 300 f4L IS will be the next lens on my list.

    Canon 24-70 f/2.8L or Tamron 28-75 XrDi II f/2.8?

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    I bought the Tamron 28-75 with the thought that I would use it while moving arround the town to avoid carrying 2 or 3 lenses (17-40, 50, and 70-200). I was wrong becasue 28 isn't wide enough and 75 is a little too short. I think if I want to just carry one lens, I would need the Canon 10-300 f2,8L that has the optical quality as my 70-200 f4L. Unfortunately, There is no such lens so far. Since my 17-40 and 70-200 are a little slow for shooting indoor (with my lousy shooting skills), the Tamron 28-75 seem to be the better choice. However, I was annoying with its AF speed, reversing zoom ring, and rotating focus ring. My fingers touched the focus ring 9/10 when I was ready to shoot. In many cases, the zoom ring drove me crazy because it turned counterclockwise instead of clockwise.<br><p>So I sold the Tamron last month. I bouhgt it $335 after rebate in 11/04 and sold it $310 on Amazon last month. So if you decide to buy this lens, please do so because you won't lose much money if you decide to sell it later.<br><p>After selling the Tamron, I bought the Canon 24-70. It is big and heavy. It is not the lens that you will carry arround. To me, it's ok becasue I'm using this lens for indoor only. Besides the sharpness that is close (or equivalent to me) to the Canon, the Tamron Di cannot compete with the Canon L in build quality, AF (ring USM), weathersealing, and low light focusing. JoJo Ma claimed that the Sigma 24-70 is better than the Tamron. Please check it out.<br><p>The Canon 24-70 is expensive, but I don't mind becasue I can afford it. It is heavy. If I keep holding the lens by my left hand for more than 30 minutes, I need to put to down for a while. It is definitely not the lens that you can hang on your neck and walk arround. Having this lens for a week, I understand that why people are still buying this lens. If I have to keep only one lens, this is the one. I agree that if Canon has the 24-70 f4L with half of the weight, I would sell the 2.8L and buy the 4L. It's too bad that Canon guys don't want to design such as lens.<br><p>So it is your choice. Canon is a near perfect lens in quality but pricey, big, and heavy. Tamron is very close in sharpness, 1/3 of the Canon's price, small and light but low AF and other annoying things. I have never touched Sigma, but from the picture and spec, it is also big and heavy thought not as heavy as the Canon. I don't know Sigma and I don't think I would like it.

    Dust

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    I will not say changing lens with the camera on will definitely cause a problem. But as a rule of thumb of all electronic equipments, we should turn the camera off while working on electrical contacts. When rotating the lens, the contacts are in the wrong positions and thus could cause serious problem for both lens and camera electronic circuits.

    Tamron 28-75 vs Canon 24-70

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    Giampiero, with my newbie skills, they are very close in optical quality. I like Canon better and will keep it forever even in the future, I might try the Sigma 24-70. It is heavy, but I can hold it with ease. As JoJo said, L quality, weathersealing, AF with all time manual focus, and low light focusing are the main reasons I want to keep it. <br><p>

    JoJo: If Sigma raise their price to $600, would you still buy it? Do you think people will buy it? why? I sold Tamron for three reasons: AF, counterclockwise zoom ring, and moving focus ring.

    Tamron 28-75 vs Canon 24-70

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    If The Tamron 28-75 is as good as or even better than the Canon 24-

    70, why should we buy the heavy and ridiculously expensive Canon 24-

    70? I think either Tamron can raise their price up to $700 or Canon

    should drop their price down to $700. Optically, How can Tamron make

    a 510g lens that is as good as a 950g lens? I would like to hear

    from you so I will sell my Canon 24-70 and buy back the Tamron 28-75

    that I have sold it last month. Thank you.

×
×
  • Create New...