timothy_peterson

It's been said before but not on this particular thread so I'll reiterate: A classic GREAT combination- especially with the 1.6x crop- is 17-40 f4L, 50 f1.8, and 70-200 f4L. No overlap, and the focal lengths you "lose" between 40-50 and 50-70 are easily "zoomable" with the feet. All choices are sharp and relatively affordable. I have been VERY happy with my 17-40, and after almost two years of digital shooting will finally be able to afford a 70-200 f4 soon.

If only money grew on trees...

I don't know what "problems" the previous poster is refering to, so I can't comment on that. I purchased an old EOS 100qd (Elan) a little while ago so that my 17-40 lens would actually be 17-40 when I wanted it to. (I normally shoot with a 10D) For what I do, it was a great $100 solution that included a QCD, mirror-lock-up, etc. Just be aware that the 100/Elan, like the A2/A2E, lacks an exposure scale in manual mode. The EOS 5, however does have one- as does the Elan II. The cost was the overriding factor for me, and the Elan/100 does almost everything I need it to do. I don't know anything about its compatibility with studio flash equipment. Good luck!

I don't own the 20D, but do have a photographer friend who bought one and sold me his 10D w/grip. He admitted he preferred the 10D's ergonomics and design, but the resolution of the 20D better matched his 1D mk 2. I had owned the 300D w/ grip and thought the 20D's grip looked very much like it-- which makes sense for canon from a manufacturing point of view. I must say the 10D was wonderful coming from the 300D...

I say definitely get the 70-200 f4-- incredible lens! The 50 f1.8 is also worth it. I don't care what other zooms you have, no zoom lens in that range can touch the image quality of a 50 prime. I have the 50 f1.8 mk1 and absolutely love it. Keep in mind that on that camera it will behave more like an 80 f1.8. If you truely want a wider field of view I would go with the 28 f1.8. As far as the 17-40 f4 goes, I have one and love it. My friend has the 18-55 and finds it OK, but REALLY likes my 17-40. Shoot for a while with your kit lens, 70-200 and 50 and decide if the drop in image quality bothers you. You can always decide to buy the 17-40 later. Enjoy!

After patiently scouring the web for quite a while, I found a mint condition 50 f1.8 mk I-- much better than the mk II. If you can find one of these little gems, get it. You won't regret it.

I won't go into great detail of my history with Canon digital and lenses(all wonderful experiences), but just let me suggest a used 10D. I had great glass and a 300D. A photographer friend of mine upgraded to the 1D II with 20D backup and sold me his backup 10D for less than its trade-in value. I have been thrilled. Looking for a great deal on a used 10D (same sensor as the 300D with better build and features) coupled with better lenses would be a good use of your available funds.

Well, my wife really liked the A95, so we went ahead and bought one. It really is just about right for her, and the resolution is similar to my 10D. Next on the horizon-- A95 underwater case for taking shots of the kids at waterparks and the pool!

I have a Canon 10D with BG-ED and assorted lenses. My wife would

like a digital camera for her to use (stuff-in-a-diaper-bag sized)on

a daily basis. She has gotten used to the responsivness and quality

of the DSLR, but doesn't need or want a top-of-the-line digicam--

nor one so huge. On the other hand, when we take the kids to the

zoo, etc., I don't want a completely dumbed down point and shoot

either. I have been leaning toward a used Canon G3 which is full-

featured when you want it to be and yet is relatively small. 4mp is

about all the resolution we need-- after all, when image quality is

the number one concern I'll use my 10D and L glass. I'm looking for

a few opinions from folks who have used various digicams in the 4mp

range, at or below a current market value of $400. Extreme lens

range isn't important, but image quality and relatively small

footprint are. Thanks for your input!

I moved from Minolta MD equipment to a Canon 300D about a year ago. I have since upgraded to a 10D and recently purchased an old EOS 100qd (Elan) in great shape for using my 17-40 f4L as a 17-40! (And for shooting with B&W when I feel nostalgic.) Since I didn't have any Canon film gear to begin with, I just looked for the camera I felt would give me the most bang for the buck. For my needs and experience, the 100qd was the way to go-- and cheap at $119.

These are all great suggestions. I was able to find a mint condition 50 f1.8 mk 1 for a little over $100. You get most of the fuctionality of the f1.4 for a MUCH lower price.

I own and have enjoyed the 28-135 IS on a 300D for a year now. I can tell you that it performs very well and is a pleasure to use. However... when I bought my camera I chose not to get the kit lens and got a 17-40 4L instead along with the 28-135 IS. I am currently saving for a 70-200 4L as my next lens and will decide whether or not to keep the 28-135 IS later. Once you've owned and really lived with an L lens, you truly yearn for more. I recently picked up a mint condition 50 f1.8 mkI and like that lens as well. I think if I had to do it all over again, I would have the 17-40L, 50, and 70-200L. The walkaround usefullness of the 28-135 IS is what really makes me think twice about selling it. But if I were going to make a decision now based on optic and build quality, I would choose one of the 70-200L's every time.

I understand the whole mirror thing. What I want to know is, does

the camera compensate for the light-loss to the film and is the view

finder particularly dark compared to other eos bodies? I shoot with

a canon DSLR and am interested in a film body for times when I would

like my 17-40 to behave like a 17-40! (Or times when I feel

nostalgic and just want to shoot TMX or Ilford)I was originally

thinking about getting a 630 in good shape (very inexpensive with

nice feature set) but the RT is fascinating. I would appreciate

info and opinons from anyone who has used or owned an RT.

It is an excellent lens. However, you may have the field of view of a 27-64, but you have the depth of field and perspective distortion of a 17-40. I would be very careful in terms of architecture and line convergence.

The Nikon 6T is excellent, much cheaper than the Canon 500D, and at 62mm does not vignette a 72mm lens let alone a 67mm lens.

Keep in mind that the extra $$ for the 17-40 pays for more than just image quality. I bought a DRebel at the same time a good friend of mine bought his. I happened to have the money for a 17-40, he did not. He takes many good pictures with his lens, but longs for the USM speed, constant aperture, manual focus ring, distance scale, and build quality of the "L" lens. Will he rush out and replace his 18-55? Probably not. He's more likely to buy a 70-200 f4L or 100 f2.8 macro. Do you have all the focal lengths you want? Perhaps your 17-40 is a bad copy. Perhaps your 18-55 is a great copy. Only you can decide if ALL the qualities of the 17-40 together are worth the additional $600-- or is there another lens you might like instead?

I would get the 17-40 4L. The image quality is outstanding, and the depth of field would serve you nicely. I would also throw in a 50 for those times when you want just a little more length and/or a fast option. I guess it really depends what kind of budget you have and how long a lens you need. I just know I wouldn't trade my 17-40 for the world... well maybe for a 16-35 f2.8! Ah, it's only $$$

Are you currently shooting digital or film?

Thanks for all the input! The more I thought about the situation the more I realized I need enough nickel and dime items to easily make up the $500 price difference. So I think I will be the proud owner of an f4! And an extra QR plate, tripod ring, extra batteries, more CF memory, 1.4x TC, etc., etc., etc. Thanks again!

I currently own a 17-40 f4 L, 50 f1.8 mk1, and a 28-135 f3.5-5.6

IS. In the next few months I will have saved about $1100 to spend

on photo equipment. I do mostly nature photography, but also enjoy

chasing after my children and do some event photography (indoor

sports) for school (not for pay). I've had my sights set on a 70-

200 f4 L for a while, but have recently been tempted by the 70-200

f2.8 L. I can get the f4 and some other equipment such as the 1.4x

TC, additional memory (I use a Digital Rebel), etc. I know

technically the f2.8 only offers an additional stop, but... it is an

additional stop! I thought if I get the f4 I might also sell the 28-

135 in favor of a 100 macro or something. If I get the f2.8 I feel

like I'll probably want to keep the 28-135 for those times when I

want a smaller lens. (Plus my wife also uses the camera, and she is

NOT a photographer) I'm very interested in a few opinions from some

folks who have owned or used these lenses. Thanks for your input

and advice!

Bravo Ian! I'm glad you delved into the DOF "problem". I have a 17-40 with my 1.6x camera and usually find the increased DOF helpful-- especially when capturing moments with my children. However, with longer lenses it can be frustrating to get the subject isolation I want.

I have recently purchased a used 50 f1.8 mk 1 in superb condition

and would like to purchase a lens hood for it. There are several

options that supposedly will work, but the range of prices for the

hoods is quite broad. Does anyone have any practical experience

fitting a hood to this lens?

I am planning on going on a photo seminar in April to Great Smokey

Mountain National Park. I feel the need to carry a spare battery

with me but balk at the $50 cost. Does anyone know of a reliable,

relatively inexpensive replacement for the Canon BP-511 that works

well in the Digital Rebel camera AND the Canon charger? Thanks.