ulrich_brandl

The 28-135 IS is not bad if used as a short-to-moderate telephoto. When I read the list of things you want to do I

would sell the 28-105 and get something in the 17(18)-50mm range. Otherwise you will miss the moderate

wideangle range earlier or later. The Tamron 17-50 mentioned above is a good choice. Canon offers 18-55 and 17-

55mm lenses, the first inferior, the last superior to the Tamron. I personally find IS very useful, if often allows

hand holding where you otherwise need to carry a tripod.

For the XTi the Tamron 17-35mm is ok, but as you consider a full frame lens I wouldn't recommend it. On full frame sharpness decreases too much towards the edges.

Aurora is a Korean brand making monolights. They seem to well built (Aluminium

alloy case, fan cooling, electronic flash power stabilisation, auto discharge)

and priced just in the middle of well established brands and el-cheapo

chinaware. Has anyone practical experience with these products ?

Think twice before you restrict your photography to 85mm. Even in portraiture it is often too long with an APS-C body if you don't shoot head-and-shoulders only. Keep your 2.8 70-200mm and move to full frame, then you will get much out of focus blur and think of something shorter (35mm ? 50 mm ? Standard Zoom ?) to extend the spectrum before spending a lot for 1:1.2.

Tokina has announced a 2.8 10-18mm lens. Other lens maufacturers won't sleep. This leaves no speed advantage for primes. I think the trend goes to faster and better wideangle zooms for APS-C. Unlikely that a manufacturer will spend the R&D costs for APS-C wide primes.

I apologize for the misunderstandable statement. Buying a 400D instead of the 40D would free a significant part of the budget that then could be used for a better telephoto lens.

Within your budget (if you really want to go with a 40D):

 

Tamron 2.8 17-50 (for geneal photography - good quality, makes it easier to stay within budget than Canons 17-55IS)

Canon 70-300mm IS (wildlife - but more reach would be better)

Canon 10-22mm (wide landscapes, dramatic perspectives)

 

A somewhat better (more reach and a little better IQ in Tele):

Buy a 400D instead. Use the saved money for a 100-400L instead of the 70-300m plus a monopod for support. Downside: The 100-400L is heavy and you might have balance problems with the 400D handheld.

 

Or: Go without the extreme wideangle and use the 40D together with the 100-400L (and the 17-50) . This two lens combo brings less drama to wide landscapes but 17mm isn't too bad either.

 

My preference would be to save on the camera body and go out with the beset possible lenses in my bag.

Softness in the coners if used wide open is a typical weakness of most widish "available light" lenses. Look at the measurements of photozone.de, both the Canon 1.8 28mm and the Sigma 1.4 30mm are quite similar here. But, believe me, if you don't always shoot flat objects this doesn't matter anyway. Wide open, the corners normally lie in the blurred regions due to the minimal DOF of these lenses.

 

I have the Sigma (the similar features made me take the faster one)and I'm quite happy with it. Its center sharpness is exceptionally good even wide open and gives the pictures some "leica-look" due to high detail sharpness and smooth background blur.

I was lucky and had no problems with my Sigma 1.4 30mm. The autofocus is a little bit louder than my Canon USM lenses but there is no squeal at all. I would return the lens...

Windows XP cannot display RAW formats on its own. You can download a free raw image viewer from Microsoft's website. Then RAW files are displayed like jpegs. The quality of rendition, however, is far inferior to Canon's DPP or Photoshop, but it is good enogh for a quick orientation from the Windows explorer.

Being new to photography it is unlikely that you start shooting poster sized images. Shooting with a long telephoto is not easy and many bad photos are the result of shooting technique and not due to shortcomings of the lens. Canon's 75-300mm lenses are not top of the notch, they are on the low level side of Canon's spectrum. The Quantaray lens is quite similar, not worlds apart. For 5 x 7" shots both are good enough. For learning tele potography both are quite usable, shortcomings are mainly at the long end, up to 200mm it will be ok. Image quality in telepohtography depends mostly how you stabilize your camera (Tripod !).

 

The better Canon 70-300mm with Image stabilisation and special glass elements are much more expensive and not comparable to the 75-300mm lenses.

 

Don't be frustrated about the buy and shoot, shoot shoot...

 

Ulrich

It will be difficult to get an USM, but maybe another 28-80L where something else is broken.

I own the Sigma 1.4 30mm on a 20 D and I am very happy with its image quality. You shold not worry too much about test results showing some softness in the corners if shot wide open. In real life all the things you shoot are rarely in the same plane. Especially if you shoot at f 1.4-2.0 it is normal (and often desired) that parts of the picture are soft. The center sharpness is good even at f 1.4. Stopped down to f 5.6 the lens is sharp from corner to corner, no difference to my 24-105mm L. Its construcion and auofocus is far better than the 35mm f 2.0 - and it is one full stop faster.

 

Yes - it is not exactly the near perfect lens that a planar type 50mm can be on full frame. But IMHO it is one of the best available options on 1.6 x crop cameras.

Many thanks to all for your contributions. It is clear that the lens hood is much more critical for WA lenses, but I din't assume that is has so little relevanvce for the tele. You saved me lots of times for searching the 'optimal' hood.

I remember dimly that I have read somewhere a recommendation for a deeper lens

hood for the 4-5.6/70-300mm IS on 1.6x crop cameras. As the lens is prone to

flare it might be useful under some circumstances. Didn't find it searching

photo.net. Does anyone have an idea ?

Quality-wise, the 2.8/70-200L is a fine lens, but I would buy one only if sports would be my main subject (Indeed I sometimes rent one for this purpose).Here, its speed is necessary to get the shot.

For portraits it is fine too, but you can get at least equally good results with the (much cheaper and lighter) 85mm or 100mm primes.

 

For all the other stuff (landscape, travel) I would prefer the light and good 70-300L IS. You get good image quality and have 100mm more plus the IS advantage over the similar priced 1:4 70-200L. I can't see a real image quality difference with my crop camera. I wouldn't like to schlepp the 1:2.8 brick in my travel bag. And for the saved money you can get one of the primes mentioned above and still have some money left for a nice week-end.

Did you shoot RAW ?

 

The Windows WIA driver is not able to download RAW pictures directly from the camera. You should use DPP (provided with the Camera on CD).

 

Did you change the USB settings in the camera e.g. for direct printing via pict bridge ?

 

Go through the camera menu and check the file transfer mode.

How good it it is to have a 50mm depends on its intended use...

 

For serious portraiture I would buy a 1.8/85mm - even for a 1.6x crop camera. It gives better bokeh than the 1.4/50mm. For the few situations where 85mm are too long, I'd put in the cheap 1.8/50mm.

If you want a fast "normal" lens, you better buy something around 30mm, as others already have posted.

 

Ulrich

Nearly all wide angle (seen from the 35mm based definition of "normal") lenses have more or less CA. You should not overestimate this in real-life photos, and, if annoying, it mostly can be corrected during digital processing.

 

The problem I have with your question is that it is difficult or even wrong to compare different focal lengths versus optical quality. Indoor 24mm can still be a little long on your 40D, but is more flexible than 28mm. On the other hand, f:1.8 is better than 1:2.8 for indoor w/o flash. If you have to choose between those two lenses, it depends mostly on your shooting stlye which lens better matches your needs. If you're not sure try some shots with a zoom covering both focal lengths.

 

This thoughts shold be the first ones. If you know which focal length and what lens speed you need, you can compare among simlar lenes for price vs. optical quality.

 

Ulrich

For travel purposes the 12-24mm + your 28-135mm will work fine. The 5mm on the wide end make a big difference in FOV, the 12mm is good for dramatic landscapes and reportage-style shots. But I also agree that this combo has a non optimal crossover point. No problem for landscapes and travel, but can be a problem at parties, weddings and other social events. Only you know what you are your preferred subjects.

 

Ulrich

Wait for the new 55-250mm IS and look for the first tests, it will be under $300. Although it is relatively cheap it will come with an UD lens and SSC coating, so I'd expect at least a decent image quality. It has image stabilisation, a big advantage over other zooms in that price range. Nikon showed recently that it is possible to build a similar low cost telezoom with good optical performance. I don't expect Canon will be far behind...

 

Ulrich

You ever shot in a crowd ? Put the camera on a long (2,5m) monopod, an external monitor at the eye level and a remote control...

Now you know what a 4 stop IS is good for too.

 

Ulrich

Actually this is the first time I'm seriously thinking about upgrading from the 20D. As a die-hard APS-C user (it saved me thousands for long telephoto lenses) I mostly appreciate the 14 bit sensor without having to buy a MkIII, ISO display, ISO Auto and the new USB hostng modes. Significantly more than the expetced 10 mpix plus a better AF (yawn).

 

Ulirch

Hi Anthony (I apologize my late response),

I mostly use the Sigma from 1.4 to 2.8. Corner sharpness improves if you stop down, but at 5.6 my 24-105L is still slightly sharper at the corners. Though I wouldn't say the Sigma is bad at 5.6. Both the Sigma and the Canon 1.8 28mm for me are dedicated available light lenses and no perfect equivalent to a good old 50mm for APS.

 

Ulrich

Personally I'd recommend the Sigma 30mm f 1:4. It is the fastest sub 1000$ option. After serious considerations of all the options mentioned above (and some discussion here) I went with this lens and can say that I am totally satisfied. I use it mainly to shoot people under difficult light conditions. Due to a good center resolution you get fine details of the main subject and a slight background blur if used wide or full open, conrner sharpness is no issue here. In real life photography the lens is much better than the tests suggest, I doubt that I will ever do repros or landscapes at f 1.4.

 

Ulrich