thomas_munch

I owned the 70-200/4 IS and ended up selling it, primarily because I discovered that I had little use for IS. For me, IS isn't a substitute for a fast lens especially as the light gets low. And, I don't find IS useful at all for moving subjects; yes, IS can settle my hand but if my subject moves suddenly, the slow shutter speed will blur any movement. I'm typically interested in stopping the movement of the subject and in order to do this, a high shutter speed is necessary. Thus, I prefer my 200/2.8.

 

In sum, when the light gets really low for non-moving subjects (e.g., landscapes), I use a tripod and stop down for critical sharpness. When my subject is moving, I want a fast shutter speed. If I didn't ever use a tripod, and photographed a lot of still subjects, I could certainly see the advantage of IS.

Maybe it's the press the 70-200/4 IS is getting?

 

--tom

The G7 is a great, small camera, but the "super-macro" mode you reference works only at the widest focal length setting.

 

I'd consider a rebel xti (or find a good deal on an xt/350D), with a kit lens for general photography, and the Canon 50/2.5 macro for your product shots. As long as you don't need 1:1, the 50/2.5 is a great lens -- even for general photography.

 

--tom

I recently purchased a 50/1.4 and I, too, like it a lot. Size and weight are nice, AF certainly seems quick enough, and while use at f/1.4 can be challenging due to thin depth of field, I have produced sharp images even wide open. I recently used it for an indoor event where flash was prohibited and the participants liked the results. --tom

Like others have suggested, the 135/2 is an outstanding lens -- super sharp, even at f/2. The 200/2.8 is also excellent and a bit cheaper than the 135, but you'll probably want to have some distance between yourself and the subject for use with a 30D or the other 1.6x DSLRs. I use the 135/2 more often, but I like the 200/2.8 a lot for outdoor work when I need the extra reach. I prefer the 135/200L combination over the 70-200 zooms because I like the smaller size of the primes.

 

--tom

Using a Sigma 10-20 on my 10D, I typically get sharper images than your example. I need to stop down to avoid soft edges, but this isn't unexpected, nor do I find it problematic, with a lens this wide. I don't put much stock in stories on the internet, but if the lens isn't producing for you, I'd try another copy. As a statistician, I do put quite a lot of stock in sampling variance.

 

--tom

The 135/2L is one of, if not the, sharpest lens I've ever used, and its performance wide open is stunning.

 

The 50/2.5 Compact Macro is also quite sharp wide open.

 

--tom

The 135/2 might have shallow depth of field wide open, but the plane of focus is very sharp. If the 135/2 isn't too long for your needs, it's a great lens. The 85/1.8 is a very good lens, with fast AF, but I prefer the 135/2. But, you can get an 85/1.8 at a relatively low price, so you could first see if this lens meets your needs.

 

--tom

I recently purchased a 135/2. The lens is very sharp, even wide open. I was amazed to see the detail straight out of the camera at f/2; indeed, even when used wide open this lens is sharper than most lenses I've used. The out of focus backgrounds are soft and painting-like, and really make the sharp subject pop. The 135/2 is capable of producing amazing images.

 

Finally, the 135/2 is also a good deal smaller and lighter than the 70-200. Since I have no desire to carry a 70-200/2.8, the 135/2 is a much better buy for me. Of course, I lose the "flexibility" of the zoom, but the zoom wouldn't be too flexible sitting in my camera bag because I don't feel like carrying it. I'll gladly carry the 135/2, and I won't hesitate to use it wide open.

 

 

--tom

Your gallery has an array of flower and insect photos. I, too, enjoy macro a lot. When moving to the Canon system (from Minolta AF) about 2 years ago, I strongly considered getting the 10D and the 100/2.8 USM Macro. Instead, I went with the 35/2 and 50/2.5 macro. I still own and use these two lenses, but I did eventually end up with the 100/2.8 USM. Now with hindsight to guide, for my uses, I would have been quite satisfied with only the macro and the 10D to start.

 

If you think your style will suffer with only one prime focal length lens (and you're the only one who can answer this question), then you won't be disappointed in either of the L-zooms. The 17-40/4 is a very nice lens that will get you reasonably wide, but compared to the macro, it won't get you the nice close-up "garden" photos like you have in your gallery. The 70-200/4 is also a great lens if you prefer a telephoto zoom.

 

--tom

I went with the 17-40 as a wide angle solution for the 10D. I prefer primes for their speed and weight, and strongly considered the 24 or 28 (the f/2.8 versions). But, I like the 17-40 a lot. The zoom is high quality, with great build, and it's capable of producing very sharp and contrasty images. It compares favorably with my other primes. I use it for landscapes and in a variety of other situations. The zoom can also be used effectively indoors with bounced flash, but I don't like using flash. Even if the images don't look "flashed", a flash means more weight on a camera.

 

I have a 35/2 that I often use for indoor/low light situations, but I think I would find a 24/2.8, or perhaps a 28/1.8 (USM!) more useful. That said, I'll likely stick with the 35/2; I'm certainly not going to get rid of the 17-40.

 

--tom

Minolta made a (limited production?) white AF body, the 8000i. I think it was primarily a marketing gimmick.

 

--tom

The Sigma 10-20 works with the 10D. The Canon 10-22 doesn't...unfortunately!

 

That said, the Sigma is a decent lens, especially when stopped down a bit (not a surprise here for a wide zoom). And, it gets one a wide angle zoom on the 10D! --tom

I owned a 70-200/4L. About one year ago I sold it to finance the purchase of a 200/2.8. I don't regret my decicion. The 200/2.8 is very sharp wide open, and for my uses the f/2.8 v. f/4 often means the difference between action stopping shutter speeds and a blurred moving object. The 200/2.8 is also a bit shorter than the zoom, so it fits in my favorite small camera bag.

 

The 70-200 is a very sharp zoom, but like you suggest, I found myself at the long end of the zoom most of the time, so the move to the 200 was justified. I have an 85/1.8 to cover the short end. If you don't mind the "inconvenience" of the 200 prime, you'll likely love the images that you can create with it.

 

 

--tom

I was in a similar situation and I ended up getting a Sigma 10-20. I use a 10D so the Canon EF-S 10-22 was out of the question; I would have paid extra for the Canon if it fit my DSLR. In the end, I broke even on the purchase of the Sigma, but I don't think you'll be able to get something along this line for under $300. --tom

I VERY much like the idea of a 17/2.8, or something along the lines of the response from Tom S. Even a 20/1.8 USM would be very much appreciated, but I'm not intersted in an EF-S version (I'm a 10D owner, too). And because this is a "wish," let's make it L-build quality without the L-price.

 

--tom

With some searching you should be able to find a better deal than $100. I bought a 650 in nice condition about a year ago for around $25.

 

--tom

Looking at what you've posted, I think a little post-processing in photoshop will produce an very vibrant image. Even a quick, basic levels (or curves), and saturation boost would help...

 

I can't help you with a comparison with your Nikon experience, but I know that my 10D images don't shine until they have been post-processed, and I'm certainly not alone.

I switched to Canon several years ago and faced a similar decision: Digital Rebel with several extra-nice lenses or a 10D with a limited set of lenses. I went with the 10D, and over time, I purchased the lenses I wanted, including the stellar 200/2.8 that you mention. I'm very glad that I went this route.

 

While nice glass is certainly important, if you prefer the 30D and its controls, I think you'll be disappointed with anything less. That's not to knock the XT, but you've already indicated that you like the 30D (while others praise the XT). Your current lenses will certainly allow you to enjoy the 30D. And, you will undoubtedly, eventually find a good deal on a used 200/2.8(not my 200/2.8, though!).

 

--tom

I own both the 100/2.8 USM macro and the 85/1.8, and use a 10D. The 85/1.8 is smaller and has faster AF in my experience, and I think it makes for a better portrait lens, especially due to the ability to shoot between f/1.8-f/2.5. The f/1.8 also gives you the ability to get movement-stopping shutter speeds in darker conditions. I do notice some purple fringing in high contrast situations with the 85/1.8, but my copy isn't nearly as bad as some I've seen on other discussion boards. I also like the 85/1.8 because I have typically a bit of room for cropping (compared to the 100mm focal length) if needed.

 

 

That all said, the 100/2.8 is a great lens - it's a bit larger (longer and heavier) than the 85/1.8 and it's very sharp. With the hood on, the 100/2.8 gets even bigger (I don't have the hood for the 85/1.8). The 100/2.8 is certainly capable of blowing out backgrounds nicely, and it obviously gives you the ability to focus closer. Sometimes I also like the extra reach of the 100mm. Of course, the 135/2 would solve my extra reach issue and it would be plenty fast, but that's a different story. In sum, you won't see many complaints about the 100/2.8 USM!

 

 

I don't think the 85/1.8 is *significantly better* than the 100/2.8, but in certain situations, I strongly prefer the 85/1.8. Overall, if forced to choose, I would probably lean toward the 100/2.8 but that's only because I've been using it a lot lately in soft-lit outdoor conditions. If I were doing more indoor work, the 85/1.8 would be the clear choice for me.

 

This is a tough decision, but in the end, I don't think you can go wrong with either lens.

 

--tom

I own a Oly-7070; I got it to replace my (stolen/lost) Canon G2. The Oly is a great little camera, but I don't use it much, compared to my 10D. Maybe I should consider selling it before the market collapses!

 

--tom

I sold my 70-200/4 and bought a 200/2.8. For my uses, I know I made the correct decision. The zoom is nice, but it's a bit larger (in length) so it wouldn't fit in my favorite camera bag, and I wanted the option of f/2.8. The 200/2.8 is a fantastic lens.

 

--tom

I use the hood from the 24/1.4L (EW-83DII) on a 17-40 for use with my 10D. --tom

I strongly prefer the size and build of the 10D. I also very much like the traditional EOS quick control dial on the 10D. That's not to say that the 350D is poorly built, but I just like the feel and handling of the 10D better. As you can see from the other posts, these are very subjective criteria so I would try to hold both cameras if at all possible. --tom

How many rolls are you going to try? I certainly wouldn't pay a bunch for something you're not going to use regularly. I was in a similar situation about a year ago and I bought a used eos 650 in great condition for twenty bucks. It gets the job done.

 

Prepare yourself: You'll notice a HUGE difference when looking through the viewfinder of the SLR compared to your DSLR.

 

--tom