richard_pearse

I pondered over this for some time and decided from the outset to use primes and my feet! The 135L is my most favored lens for the very reasons mentioned in previous post. Put simply the 135 is very affordable and the results are stellar! I choose the 200 2.8L over the 70-200 and never regretted it! Personally, I think primes should be considered over zooms becuase of the superior performance although the differences have narrowed.

 

Zooms - I use the 24-70L for weddings etc & the 16-35L for school/class shots (tad soft but in right conditions good).

 

If you have the budget and are prepared to zoom with your feet I would advocate Prime lens.

If you are interested I have this lens 2 yrs old used 6 times in excellent condition with hood still covered with a mack warranty make me an offer

Bristol Cameras also have very competitive prices

Thank you to all who took the time to respond. I appreciate your individual experiences. Next step is to hire both the 300mm f4.0 + 1.4 & the 400mm F5.5L and try them out in the field before deciding. But if I get my anticipated bonus I might just opt for the 500mm but i am sure my Mrs would have a word to say about that.

Considering purchasing one of the above - budget does not stretch to

500mm.

 

Does anyone have any experience of using these two lenses?

 

Have looked at various reviews etc, including the 300mm F4.0 as a

possibility, currently, favouring the 400mm F5.6L because of ease of

use, extra reach, weight, size, picture clarity/contrast and the

cost. However, can not find any useful information on the two side

by side.

Hi; I have purchased all of my canon equipment from B&H. I live in the UK use a plug adapter purchased from Curry's/Comet for ?9,99.

 

My Equipment includes 10d, 20d, lenses, 16-35l 501.4 851.2l 1352.0l & 2002.8l. I used B&H because of favourable exchange rate. Never had any problems with any of my equipment and would not hesitate to use them again. even after paying broker charges and vat still considerably cheaper than using UK.

 

I compared prices with 7day off shore but was still better off with B&H.

 

As with any purchase the concern over faulty equipment has to be a consideration, but given my experience thus far can not comment on B&H service or its third party offerings re Mack warranty.

 

You pays your money and takes a chance or bit the bullet and buy form the UK, Ireland or 7day offshore and accept the peace of mind of dealing locally but you pay a bit more!

I use both lens. I prefer the 135 because in my view its crisper and more saturated, although, I frequently use the 200. Both lens are used with the 1.4 on a 10d & 20d. The 200 can suffer in poor light/sunset etc but I consider both to be very good to excellent.

 

If I had to make a choice I would forsake the reach and stick with the 135 + 1.4 on my 20d because there is a very marginal difference in quality over the 200 + 1.4, which in my view is noticeable. Re 135 + 1.4 v 200 the difference is so slight only the very discerning is going to quibble, but you will have the advantage of two 135 and 189 reach excluding the 1.6 factor. Moreover, if quality is paramount in your decision the 135 is better.

 

In an ideal world the quality and price would be equal!

I thought mine was a little soft but that was because this was my first zoom and seeing i was coming from primes it was noticeable, but from the clients perspective they were happy.

 

On saying that i have now got use to the 24 - 70 which i consider an excellent lens also had a friend use it and demonstrate it to me, he had no problems with softness. In my case the softness was twofold; 1, prime to zoom 2, poor technique coupled with too great an expectation.

No I do not know where to source the 50 1.0. However, I use both the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.2. Both are very, very good portrait lens with the 85 1.2 in my view being stellar.

I use both the 135 & 200, both are excellent. If I was pushed my preference is the 135, although, the 200 pushes it to the limit. Personally, because of the stop down I use the 1.4. Unfortunately, I have not tried the 2.0 mainly because of stop down but also because of reviews that hinted that there is greater degradation with the 2.0, although, the loss is very slight with the magnification factor of the camera's i use the 2.0 was not critical, although, if i ever move up re camera i might and its a big might (subject to bank balance)would consider the 2.0.

 

I guess it depends on your use. I use the above combo on a 10d & 20d for when I am doing wildlife (birds and small animals - farm stuff etc). Love to post a couple of shots for you to see but until i find out how to do this i can not.

Hi I am located in the UK and I have purchased all of my canon equipment comprising 10D, 20D, 16 - 35, 24 - 70, 50 1.4, 85 1.2, 135 2.8, and 200 2.8 plus other bits from BHPhoto because of the favourable exchange rate. plus they offer extended warranties whether or not this is of interest is down to you. Personally never as of yet had any problems with any of the equipment. Only down side was they would not take my VISA but accepted bankers draft/transfer.

 

Have considered Hong Kong via ebay but just did not feel right although prices are very competitive when you factor in exchange rate taxes that you will pay irrespective of their assurances and shipping insurance the actual saving soon disappears along with the additional worry of getting faulty equipment and having to send it back at your cost.

 

Channel islands via 7dayshopping offer some competitive prices compared to the UK mainland. I am considering a 300 F4.0 and 100 macro in the near future.

 

I hope this helps.

 

You pays your money and takes a chance

 

Richard

I currently use a 10d & 20d. Question, which macro lens to use?

prefer a lens with greater distance between the camera and subject.

If canon 100 or 180 any one have experience of these or is there a

better macro lens e.g. sigma etc.

My wife and I shoot weddings with the 10D & 20D. The 24 - 70l is kept on the 20D with the exception of a bride/groom shot when I change to the 85L. The 10D is interchanged with the 16 - 35l and the 135L. These combinations cover all that we need.

 

The 24 - 70L is a good lens but you can see the difference between the primes, but for the punter they are quite happy to accept it because the quality is close to the prime. Moreover, we explain to the bride/groom the advantages/disadvantages of the lenses that we use and produce a minimum of 120 proofs for them to choose from.

 

Basically the 24 - 70L is a great versitle all purpose walk amongst them style lens. In a controlled situation (especially portraits)I prefer the primes and use my feet because in my view the difference in quality is there and you can get some great DOF.

 

The 24 - 70l gets a lot of work because of its flexibilty but I always complement this lens with the primes at my disposal and I would not use the 24 - 70L in isolation.

 

I hope this helps?

 

Richard

I shot a wedding this saturday and on three of my pictures i had a

small opaque red disk (quarter of an inch diameter) in the exact same

place mid upper left of the picture. I was using a 20D with 24 - 70l

combination. I took over 300 shots but only three had this red disk

in them.

 

Never seen it before can anyone advise?

Michele, I have been using this lens as a walk about on a 20D, thus far I have been amazed at the quality the sharpness and the saturation obtained througout its range including clear definition of brick constructed property, admittingly I have not tried beyond ISO 400 yet. So far with the 1.6 factor printing upto 12 * 10 it pushes some of the primes that I use. Given that others have experienced problems with this lens if you get a good one which I seem to have its a very versatile lens covering approx 35 - 112 allowing for the factor.

 

Interestingly, it seems to perform better on the 20D than the 10D, perhaps others have experienced this? As regards its sweet spot I have not been able to determine this other than to state I rate this the best Zoom I have used.

The dye subs been used are HiTi 730 and Kodak 8500. These do not offer pure B&W because of the color process used. Hence the question.

I currently use the 20d with 10d for back up. My market is schools,

playgroups, events where i print on site; sizes offered using dye sub

is 6 * 4, 7 * 5, 8 * 6, & 10 * 8. I want to offer B&W printing as

well. My question is: what type, sort of printer to use for the 20d

for B&W prints or would it be better to out source (lab)

Personally, its a question of peace of mind.

The comments already made re the quality of the 20D is spot on. Like you I was also a little reluctant to take it out of the box. Its small and very light and hard to imagine that the build is so good.

 

I have always extended the wanrranty (3 - 7 years)on the eos equipment that i have because if the warranty is transferable, which mine is, the second hand value is potentially higher should you ever want to sell it; thus mitigating, to some degree, depreciation on your equipment.

I have found the 50 1.4 is good, just walk in and out from the subject to get your shot, sometimes, subject to distance the 135l is excellent, if its an individual the 85 is good but i personally have never managed a group shot with this lens. A zoom 24 - 70l is good but generally needs lighting if shot indoors. 80% of all my portrait shots in the few months that i have been shooting have been with the 50 1.4, exposures taken approxiamtely 2000, keepers about 7 - 10%.

 

today just shot a playgroup of 40+ children, two lights with backdrop was used, total shots approximately 500 all with the 50 1.4, will be taking back 135 photos for them to select from. you could get the 50 1.8 but the discussion groups show it to have a poor build quality compared to the 50 1.4

 

hope this helps

I am a total beginner, but people keep asking me to do photos for

them and they pay me! Currently using the 20d with various 'L'

glass, been asked to produce a 6foot * 3foot cardboard display of a

dog-handler to be displayed in at least 20 retail outlets, sharpness

not critical, can the 20d images cope with such an increase in size?

 

Please help

 

Richard