oak_nj

Since you already have the 24-105mm, I would suggest that you buy an 18-55mmm cheapy lens and see if you use it. If you like the wide angle, then consider upgrading and sell cheap lens. I would prefer to upgrade to the costly 16-35mm, though, if I was upgrading. I wonder if consumer grade digitals will ever have full-sized sensors, or nearly... I wish the multiplier was 1.2, then your 24-105mm would be about a 28-29mm at the wide side. I think that I would rather have a 17-40mm F/4 and a 70-200mm F/4, and possibly a 50mm 1.8 than the 24-105mm, but you already own the 24-105mm.

If you need a rugged camera that has some weatherproofing and you don't mind the weight and the noise, and if you need a spot meter and have use for custom functions, then I would go for the EOS 3. If you want a quieter camera, then I would get an Elan 7N.

There are really some different approaches to this question and what you will be doing with your equipment after the trip, etc.. I have found that I like going places w/ my equipment and I am concerned about the value of my stuff and how heavy it is, etc.. First, you should select a camera body. I would suggest that you attempt to find a used Canon 10D for about ($650) from a "reputable" source. I find that this camera is just fine for what I need it for and for learning, etc. (I don't use for action shots, I don't need a faster powerup, and noise at 1600 isn't too bad), and it is not as expensive as a 20D. The digital bodies get obselete every 2-3 years, etc., and I would rather save extra money for lenses. In fact, I would rather have (2) 10Ds (one being a backup body, etc.) rather than a 20D. Next, I would consider a EOS 35mm body. Buy a used Elan II or 7 in good shape as a backup body ($150)(or EOS 3 for $300) and some film and batteries (just in case). You would also need to get some batteries (get them on Ebay and a car/travel charger) ($30-40)(Maybe someone who has been to China has advise on this on the power concerns)and some compact flash cards. I would get enough cards to over you for about 50-75 photos per day ($300?).

 

Next, I would get the 17-40mm F/4 ($650) or for traveling, I use a modified 18-55mm w/ my 10D but I wish it was a little wider, but it is cheap at about ($70)! After that I would get a 50mm. The 1.8 ($75) is just fine, but I have had no reqrets spending a little more and buying the 50mm 1.4 ($300)and it is one of my most used lenses on the digital body coming in at around 80mm. If I used a full-framed body, I would probably not have spent the money on 1.4. For me, the hardest choice you would be to decide on the telephoto lens. If I was just learning and unsure of where I was going to be going, etc., in China, I would probably get a 100-300mm 4.5-5.6 for about ($200) used. The ultimate travel lens choice would probably be the 70-300mm DO IS($1200?), and although you NEED ;) a 70-200mm eventually, I don't know if you would want to carry on trip, and you might want to get the F/2.8 ($1200) at a later point and time or the incredible 2.8 IS. Lastly, you can use just about any backpack you can find. I have a Gregory Banshee. I don't think it is being made anymore. Maybe something like a Gregory Zulu for ($150-200). I think the Zulu has a hydration pocket and you can access it from the side. You can then make, purchase some sort of cushioning method for your lenses. I use insulated bottle holders and towels that I sewed velcro to to kind of like swaddle my lens like a baby. The backpack will be useful for other things such as purchases, etc., and carrying a tripod. An alternative would be to get soemthing like a Lowepro Offtrail 2 for ($75). This is a versatile hip bag and can be used in conjuction w/ a backpack, as well.

 

As far as a travel tripod, I would get a Velbon mini for traveling ($80).

 

Good Luck.

Please provide some ideas on the cheapest water-resistant, used L lens

that can be purchased. I have recently acquired a EOS 3 and I am

looking for a lens to use in the rain that is preferably around the

normal range that isn't too valuable.

I think it would depend on how much you are going to use it, how you are going to us it, what other lenses you have and what your budget is. I considered getting either one of these for quite some time, and I am really happy that I picked the 1.4, as it is my "low light" lens and it has nice bokeh, and I like being able to use manual focus. I don't know if the quality is that much better or if the slightly larger maximum aperture has really helped that much, but it does focus at a noticeable rate faster than my friend's 50mm 1.8. Given my current lenses, I use it quite frequently w/ the digital multiplier putting it at about 80mm (I like this focal distance), which is nice for shooting inside at gatherings, or outside during night events. If I was using a film camera w/out the multiplier, then I probably wouldn't have used it as much as I do and I would have gotten the 1.8. If I was purchasing something like the 24-70 2.8 or 4.0 or the 24-105 at the same time as the 50mm, then I probably would have gone for the 1.8, since I would have used the zoom much more often. That being said, it is probably the lens I use the most on my 10D.

If it is going to be the staple lens in that range, then the 50mm 1.4 is a nice addition to a 16-35mm or 17-40mm and a 70-200 variety.

 

If I wanted to get a cheap EOS body (Elan II, etc.) to use on vacation, then I would probably get the cheaper 50mm to walk around with just in case it was stolen, etc..

 

 

I hope this helps.

 

Joe

How does this lens function at F/4?

I hope some of you are willing to let your 24-70mm F/2.8 go at a good price to help furnish the cost of the new lens... Let me know ;).

Maybe in the future, digital SLRs will be able to change their sensor size and focusing distance, essentially having a larger one that can function as a smaller one. So, if someone buys a digital SLR, he or she can use the advantages of either the full-framed or 1.6 crop sensor, or maybe any variation in between. In fact, maybe a camera will be able to incorporate an even larger sensor size equivalent to medium format. This might necessitate a new type of medium format EOS lenses.

I think I'll wait for the equivalent of the 24-70 F/2.8 IS, especially if full-frame cameras will be that much more accessible.

How good do you think that lens will be wide open?

Does anybody know where an all-black EOS 55 can be purchased? Is

there a Japanese importer that might have one in decent shape for

sale? It seems that one of these is extremely scarce in the United

States.

I will be vacationing in Cape May in September, and I was wondering if

any of you know of any good photo opportunities. I was thinking about

going to the zoo and possibly taking a whale watching charter boat,

but other than that, I will be looking for some other "assignments".

I thought maybe some migrating birds might be passing through, etc..

BTW, I will not be taking my dig. SLR, but rather one of my film

bodies, as it is more dispensible in the salty environment. I would

also appreciate some recommendations for film.

 

Thanks!

Check out a used Elan II/EOS 50 if you can pick one up. It would also probably be all you need until moving to digital. The only thing I don't like about the Elan II (or the EOS 30/Elan7 for that matter) is that they don't have spot meter. If I could only get a used EOS 5 with the dial fixed and TTL flash technology....

I have been thinking a lot lately about what gear I have. If I were you, I would probably sell the Digital Rebel for about $350. Then I would pickup a used 10D with low actuations in good shape for about $750. I would keep the 50mm for portraits (80 something on digital 1.6x) and low light situations. I would sell the 24mm (not too wide on digital) and then get a 17-40mm F/4 and a 70-200mm F/4. If you have anything left over in your budget, get the 1.4x. You would be pretty well covered in the digital range and you would have a little reach on a digital, approx. 400 w/ a F/4 of 5.6. That would give you a versatile and low weight setup. If you have any money leftover, or can sell some of the other lenses, invest in a good tripod.

I use mostly a Canon digital body and I have a 550EX. I am

considering buying a couple of lights with light stands, a softbox a

couple of grids, etc., to use for portrait and wedding photography. I

am leaning towards Alien Bees, either 400s or 800s. Does anybody have

opinions or reviews of one of these setups, or have an alternative

recommendation. Thanks!

I think a card reader is the way to go. I just wish I could use it in other people's machines as well, without installing the software. Although it is quicker to install the software on another machine than all of the bundled Canon software.

 

On a side note, I have to plug the card reader into the back of my PC and it is annoying. Also, sometimes I forget that I left it plugged in, and on one occasion, I went out shooting and forgot to put the CF card back in the camera. Luckily, I had a smaller backup card with me.

If you are looking for a Canon lens that is faster, there aren't that many options in your price range. The best choice for you would be to buy the Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 or 1.4. The 1.8 is about $90 and the 1.4 is about $300. It is a fixed-length prime lens, though. Probably the best choice for you for just a little more would be the Canon EF 17-35 F/4 L lens for about $660 if you can live with an F-stop of 4. The 28-135 isn't going to help you that much in low light situations, but the IS might be useful. If I was in your situation, I would sell the Sigma and get a Canon 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 for about $80 and a Canon 50mm 1.8. You could get these for about $200. After that, you could decide if you need another lens. At that point, maybe the 28-135 might be nice, the 75-300mm or 100-300mm, 70-200 or 24-85mm.

I've decided that the 16-35mm is the way to go.

 

So my lens lineup would be as follows:

 

16-35mm

50mm

70-200mm IS

18-55mm modified kit lens (10D)(backup)

 

and I could sell the 100-300mm

and get either the 300mm f/4 and 1.4 teleconverter

or the 100-400mm IS and teleconverter (800mm w/ 1.4x and 1.6 digital body? but soft?)

 

Other possible future additions:

10-22?mm 3.5-4.5mm

70-200 4 for hiking

 

I think it would be great to have a full-framed and a 1.6x digital body as backup in the future.

I already have a 50mm 1.4 and the 70-200 2.8 and I mostly shoot

digital with the 1.6x. I am going to purchase a wide angle lens and I

am considering the 16-35 or the 17-40 for portrait shooting and

possibly wedding shooting, (and nature photography on the side). Do

you think that the faster, heavier, lens is worth it, or can the 17-40

F/4 handle most situations? I'm probably leaning to the 16-35 because

it will give me a wider shot (and that extra stop), though. As for

the 24-70, I am considering it as a nice range for lower light, inside

photography at parties and events? It is a little lighter than the

70-200 and I can handhold it. I wish it had IS. Maybe IS isn't

practical for mid-ranged zooms, although the 28-135 has it. How much

better is the 24-70 than the 28-70? My dilemna is that if I go the

cheaper route and get either the 16-35, or the 17-40 and the 28-70 (or

possibly the 24-85), I might be able to swing the funds and get the

300mm and 1.4X or 100-400. What are your thoughts on this? Also, do

you have any ideas if Canon will be releasing something better in the

near future, such as a 24-85 L IS (Someone mentioned to me that this

is a possibility)?

 

Thanks!

Thank you for all of the responses. I actually made a typo above, but everything else was consistent. I was shooting at 1/25, not 1/4.

I recently took pictures of a graduation with my 10D and the IS lens

in low light. I was not using a tripod, but I was using a 550EX

flash. I shifted from Aperture Priority to Automatic Depth-of-field

mode to take the shots. With the A-DEP I bumped the camera up to ISO

1600 because it consistently chose F/4 to get the shots. The problem

I was having was that the camera would focus in on the background

walls. I don't think that this only occured because of my

learning/skill level. Can anybody help with this. In Av Mode, I

chose F/2.8. The exposure was right on with ISO 800 and a shutter

speed of 1/4. Only about 1/3 of my shots seemed to be "acceptible"

shooting at this slower shutter speed with the IS turned on. I

believe that that would be about 3 stops slower than I should have

shot at 1/200 when using the lens zoomed out to 200 and the Canon

literature says that you can shoot at up to 3 stops. Extending the

Zoom out to only about 130-140mm, I had a much better chance of

getting my shots without camera shake since I was reducing the minimum

shutter speed needed. Does this sound like an error on my part (That

lens does get heavy), Is 1/3 of shots OK a decent result shooting in

such low light, or does it sound like something could be wrong w/

lens/camera/flash?

 

Thanks!

I recently acquired a 550EX and it seems to work for the basic

functions, however, the AF-assist beam emitter is really scuffed up. I

have noticed that it focuses just fine in low light w/ the 10D, but

the Elan II doesn't seem to be focusing. Is this a problem with the

camera body, or might it be a problem with the flash. Also, I was

wondering if it would be worth getting the emitter replaced. If so,

would it be beneficial to have the "bulb" in the flash replaced as

well. Has anyone had to make these repairs. If so, how much did it

cost. I called Canon and they said I could send it to them in New

Jersey and then they would give me a repair estimate. Thanks!

In the last line, I mean aperture and shutter speed, but I guess you guys figured that out.

For digital SLRs and Canon in particular, is the sensitivity of the

digital sensor (ISO speed) actually a REAL "meaningful" limitation on

the camera and the chip's sensitivity? Or is it built into the

camera's ability to capture an image to replicate the film ISOs in

order to please photographers and make them feel more comfortable and

to maintain the photographer's "laws of physics"? I am wondering if

possibly it is built in just for marketing (such as the Canon spot

meter dilemna)to advertise different ISO scale and to necessitate the

need for consumers to purchase faster lenses for lower light shooting.

Is the 800 ISO in a film camera comparible to the setting in a

digital camera, or could the digital camera capture the same image in

the same light at a different "sensitivity" setting sort of similar in

concept to the ACCEPTIBLE range of depth of field. I am sure that

there is a sensitivity issue in digital cameras, but is it the same

magnitude as in the film? The chemical processes and reaction to

light in the film dictate the ISO speed (I assume), but is that also

true for a digital camera? Why couldn't a digital camera have a

sliding ISO scale that would have the set ISO speeds for

traditionalists, but would also let you to adapt to your light level

needs. Would this function be helpful? It could possibly be set with

an automatic ISO setting similar to auto exposure that could maximize

the shot say on the histogram when in MANUAL mode based on a selected

ISO and shutter speed. Please set me straight... Thanks!

Thank you all for the input! Acutally, you have helped me narrow it down and make a decision. I was going to buy the 70-200 F/4 now. But I think I will wait and see if it comes out with an IS model since many of you like IS so much. I think I am going to buy the 700-200 F/2.8L IS for now since it is such a versatile lens, and I will buy the 50mm 1.8 as well. If I find I like the 50mm and actually use it a lot I will sell and upgrade to the nicer lens, maybe to the Macro. If I don't use too often, then I will just keep it for times when I really need a fast, light lens. I will try out the 70-200 IS and if I get sick of the weight, then I can sell and buy some primes and the 70-200 F/4L which might have the IS by that time.