david_french3

I've found the opposite of James. I've struggled for years with unreliable, cloggy Epsons (at

the last count I've had at least 6) so I moved to a Canon (i9100). At the time, Epson had the

edge on quality, but for me the Canon wins hands-down on reliability. Using the i9100 with

OS X and the default colour profiles gives me better results than I used to get using paid-for

professional colour profiles on a PC.

Could you describe better what is happening?

The first time you try to focus, are you saying the image is bouncing around because the IS

isn't working properly and your hands are shaking the lens, or are you saying the IS itself is

actually bouncing the image around instead of holding it steady?

I'm pretty pleased with mine. However, for the style of shooting you refer to I use the 24-70

F2.8 more frequently. That's the lens that usually lives on the body; the 70-200 is the one

that's swapped on occasionally when I need it. But if you've tried both, you'll be familiar with

this anyway.

I took a 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS with 2x teleconverter around Africa on a 10D, and got

good results with both wildlife and people.

It's totally subjective, but I've found I've ended up spending at least as much on each lens as I

have on the body, in order to get optics which do justice to it.

Puzzled that you say you don't get "great resolution". Do you mean the images are blurred?

What shutter speed and conditions? You don't have your lens switched to manual focus? Are

you viewing through a laptop or on the LCD display?

What is wrong with the exposure - under, overexposed?

Can you post a sample image?

Overlaps are handy, if you don't want to have to change lenses every 2 shots. I'm surprised

to hear somebody complaining about a manufacturer having too large a range of products.

You do know it's not mandatory to buy them all?

I don't know the answer to your question, but I find qualitatively the results from my 70-200

2.8 are better than my 24-70 2.8, although most people regard the 24-70 as an excellent

lens. I presume it's down to quality control. A bit annoying, given the price.

I've been reviewing several thousand pics I've taken over the last couple of years with a

10D.

About 6 months ago I bought 2 L-series Canon lenses: the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8.

These were bought to replace a Tamron 28-300 primarily. I also have a Sigma 17-35 EX,

which is supposed to be a reasonable Sigma lens.

There is a real difference in the photos I've taken with the Canon lenses as opposed to the

Sigma and of course the Tamron. I expected the Tamron to be a bit ropey by comparison,

but the Sigma is also rather whopped by the L-series. Trying to put aside the inherent

snobbery in the L-series, and just concentrate on image quality, I can't escape the fact that

these lenses really do make a difference.

At Christmas I covered a friend's wedding; I had to use the Sigma quite a bit, for the wide

angle. The shots I took with the Canon 24-70 are significantly sharper / clearer images.

Of course, now I wish I'd used the Canon a lot more.

I'm now considering whether to replace the Sigma with another Canon. These Canon

lenses do cost several times as much as 3rd party equivalents, but there's no escaping the

quality.

That's not to say that there aren't other lenses in the Tamron and Sigma range that may be

stonkingly good lenses, but I'm going to stick with the Canons from now on.

For reasons I won't go into, I bought a Canon-brand circular polarising filter for my 24-70

and 70-200 lenses. These are 77mm filter size. Canon have cunningly designed the filter

so that lens caps won't fit on it - the end section is not threaded, in fact it tapers. If

applied, the lens cap just pings off. Of course, the nature of polarisers is that you don't

really want to take them off and put them on again each time you put the camera in the

bag - well I don't, anyway.

A possible solution would be a lens cap designed to fit over the top of the whole filter -

something like a Petri dish-shaped lens cap. Does anybody have any idea where to get

one, preferably in the UK, at short notice? I've cast around but to no avail.

Alternative serious solutions also welcome. "Get a different circ pol" is too predictable.

Thanks, David.

I have a 10D, but I shoot mostly JPG for travel shots, architecture, candids etc, only using

RAW when I'm shooting something in controlled circumstances - such as portraits.

I've not found that JPG quality is limiting, even for "good" pics being printed at A4 size and

mounted, but prefer that little bit extra control you get with RAW if I'm doing something I

want to get perfect. Particularly when I'm shooting indoors and want to easily fiddle with the

white balance.

(By the way - you'll need to remove the space which the bbs automatically inserted into that

link, in order for it to work.)

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?

act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7462

The same applies to the 2x.

David

I tested this lens alongside several L-series. I found the overall performance at large

apertures was actually better than the 28-300 L, but not as sharp as the 70-200 2.8 L or

the 24-70 2.8 L. (Obviously with the 2.8s this was at F/2.8, vs F/3.5 for the 28-135.) On

the whole though, I was very impressed by the quality, it was much better than I'd

expected from what I'd read previously.

I bought the 70-200 and 24-70, but I was very tempted to get the 28-135 anyway, given

the cost, as a handy all-rounder, particularly as it has IS. I didn't, and I'm probably going

to regret that over the next month as I stagger round Iceland under the crushing weight of

the 24-70 and 70-200.

Having said this, I have read of people who haven't rated the 28-135 that highly, so it

could be that there are good and bad examples out there. Equally, maybe the 28-300 I

looked at was a duffer.

If I were you I'd try a print at whatever size you want without interpolation. You may find the

results are just cushty. Don't get too hung up in pixel dimensions and resolution; it's really

what you see that counts, not how many pixels you're looking at.

If the results you get are not to your satisfaction, try interpolation, but it's a pretty naff way

of working imho.

That's interesting, Dan. I shot some rapid-fire shots (about 6) in Jpeg format on my 10D,

and the viewfinder showed white as it automatically reviewed each one, but when I went

back to look manually, they were gone. This isn't the same as described above, but it

does seem to be related. It's only done it once and I hadn't pressed anything apart from

the shutter button, so it's difficult to know how to avoid. But nice to know it's not just me

going crazy.

Yeah, great idea - a beginner is asking for zoom lens recommendations, so you suggest

he gets some fast primes!

Is a beginner really going to spend a lot of money and lug around a heap of heavy lenses?

In what way will this help exactly? :)

Here's an idea. If this is your first D-SLR, how about a Tamron 28-300 for $369. I can

feel all the purists shuddering in horror. However, for the money you will get a very wide

range zoom which will happily cover game, and let you experiment so you can find out

what range best suits you when you decide to spend more money next time round.

Of course, this lens isn't as fast or sharp as an L-series, but for the money, the image

quality is OK (I've taken some pretty good shots with this type of lens) and it's a stepping

stone to deciding on better quality kit for the long term.

Nowadays I use L-series lenses, but that's because my photographic skills have caught up

with the quality of the gear. As a relative beginner, I wouldn't have had any great benefit

from an L-series over a Tamron, because I didn't have enough mastery of the other

paraphernalia you need to learn. In the same way, you don't go out and buy a Ferrari as

your first car.

An even cheaper alternative would be a Tamron 28-200 for around $240. Sigma also have

equivalents. At this price, you might as well have one anyway, as a catch-all backup lens

in case you have gear problems.

I'm sure I will be shot down for saying this, but think about it!

I compared the 28-300, 70-200 and 100-400 L series lenses alongside each other. I

found the 28-300 (which was the one I was most hoping would be good) just wasn't as

sharp as either of the others. Because it's also relatively slow I ruled it out. (I went for the

70-200 and a 2x teleconverter and have no regrets.) However, the 70-200 is no less large

and heavy than the 28-300, not that you'd notice anyway.

Personally I'd recommend you look at the 24-70 F/2.8 L, which I also have; or the 70-200

F/2.8 L. You *may* find that your 28-135IS is nearly as good as the 24-70 in terms of

clarity, because some of the 28-135s seem very good (although some of them aren't), so

do a comparison with your own lens and see if you think it's worth it. (In the testing I did,

the 28-135IS I was looking at, which was second-hand, was actually sharper than the 28

-300 L series at wideish apertures.)

This said, neither of your lenses are a disaster, but have a play with various Ls and see

what you think. By the way, I like your photo!

...particularly true for those of us who use the RSS feed. I don't bother reading anything

which looks unclear.

If you've decided on the 1DS for the primary body, personally I'd go for the 300D as a

backup. Notwithstanding the colour and plastic, I think people are overlooking the fact

that it's a pretty good camera. Only a couple of years ago the 10D was pretty much state-

of-the-art prosumer, and the 300D is the same thing with less lipstick.

I think you'll find it fiddly and irritating to switch between digital and film. If you *weren't*

going for the 1DS my vote would still be with the 300D - that would give you a chance to

get your eye in and get used to working in digital before you upgraded.

I worked with film bodies for several years before moving to digital. My photography has

improved immeasurably since I switched, due to the different way one works with digital,

and I really can't think of any reasons at all I'd want to use a film body again. I don't claim

film is obsolete, and I know many people here happily use film all the time, but digital sure

works for me.

7dayshop ship from the Channel Islands, and I would imagine from their prices that they

are using grey imports, which isn't necessarily a bad thing providing the warranty is valid.

It does also mean you can avoid VAT on consumables providing each package they ship is

under ?17, but that doesn't help on a body or lens.

You can buy grey stock off eBay, shipped from Hong Kong or the US, but legally you are

obliged to pay import duty and VAT, although it's up to the individual whether to (illegally)

not declare this and take a chance. This will give you lowest prices, but highest risk of it

all going pete tong.

Mifsuds don't ship grey imports, but their prices are usually good for a mainland retailer.

My 10D was an insurance replacement for a Minolta SLR I ruined by driving through a lake

with it under the driver's seat of my 4x4 (for safe keeping, obviously). It was deeper than

expected.

The first outing for the 10D was to Stockholm, where I bent over to pick something up,

and the camera fell out of the bag, because the bag catch hadn't clipped properly. It

bounced across tarmac and the lens was torn off. Fortunately it was only a Tamron lens,

which meant the lens took the brunt of the damage, not the camera.

Infuriating, isn't it? Suffice to say I take very good care of everything now :)

I've noticed a tendency on this and other forums to assume the user is almost certainly

going to be at fault :)

In many threads there appears a standard reply along the lines of "Go back to college, Son,

and git yerself a polaroid until you learn to handle a real man's camera". <spit> But there

is a tendency to underestimate the capabilities of some people who post on these forums.

Not in all cases, but in some.

Let's not always assume the user is a moron, and "we" are the only people who understand

how to use a Canon camera. Occasionally this is true, but Canon kit is far from infallible.