howie_wu

<p>How can you want to "upgrade" to FF and also contemplate the 50D at the same time? This does not make any sense. It's also not clear what your budget really is (the 50D at this point can be hand for $200-250 in good condition).</p>

Even though Canon has lagged behind in the sensor department in recent years, it is still the king of telephotos. I have no

doubt the new version of the lens is superior to the old one in every way -- better IQ, better AF, shorter close focus

distance hence larger magnification, better IS ... Well, except it is bigger and heavier, but I can live with these.

 

I had the version I for a decade and loved it, but I immediately sold it after the announcement as I am convinced that the

new one will be better. (Meanwhile, I have my 300mm f/2.8 II as my telephoto).

<p>The 24-105L is better than the 28-135, and 24mm is better (at least for my taste) as a wide angle (I've had both lenses). The 28-135 gets rather soft toward the long end, but the 24-105 is sharper.</p>

<p>But I actually got rid of both and eventually got the 24-70 f/4L. I think this is a much better lens than the other ones. Sometimes I miss the reach (but I have other lenses to cover the range), but other than that, I am very happy with the 24-70 f/4L. It is much sharper, has lower distortion and vignetting at the wide end, and has a nice macro capability that comes handy when you need it.</p>

<p>Hi, thanks for the replies.<br>

The reason I am asking is that I will be getting a <strong>Celestron SkyMaster 25x70 Binoculars</strong> as a gift. While it is no good for serious astrophotography or anything like that, by binocular standards it is quite powerful. It also comes with a tripod adapter.<br>

I am thinking: maybe I can mount the binocular on a tripod, then mount a DSLR with a lens on another tripod behind it. I know this is not an attempt at serious astrophotography, but maybe for the moon and bridge planets, etc., it is at least fun to play with.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Howard</p>

<p>Can I use a macro lens on a SLR?</p>

<p>Hi, Just curious --<br>

If you have a telescope/binocular without a camera adapter, what is the best way to take a picture? What focal length would be suitable?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Howard</p>

<p>Yes, the lens is hand-holdable.<br /> <strong>However</strong>, if you have not had experience with the big whites, it will take some getting used to.<br /> With the foot, hood, and QR plate, it still weights quite a bit -- the total weight with the camera can be about 4 kg. Of course, you can shed the foot and QR plate, but you probably still want to leave the hood on; so that's still a big chunk of metal and glass. I am 1.71m, medium built and in good health, but I find it easier to use it with a tripod.<br /> I do not doubt those who claim 500 f/4 or even 600 f/4 are hand-holdable. I think it can be due to two reasons:</p>

<ol>

<li>they have the physique of Arnold Schwarzenegger :-)</li>

<li>there is a big difference between handholding a lens for a few minutes and handholding it all day. On a safari I think you have to do the latter.</li>

</ol>

<p>Anyhow, I have not been to a real safari, but I would imagine you would be limited with mobility, so I would think a zoom lens such as the 100-400 would be more suitable and versatile.</p>

<p>In past years (2007 and earlier), the Spring rebate program started on April 15. In the last couple of years it shifted to around end of May. If there is no rebate program tomorrow, certainly there will be one at the end of May.</p>

$900 is probably wishful thinking, but it should come down a bit.

 

When the 17-40 f/4 first came out, it was selling for $800, after about 6 to 12 months, it was selling for around $680, that's a 15% drop. 15% off of $1250 is $1062.5, so I would expect the 24-105 to be selling for around $1050-1100 in 6 months. Taking into consideration that the 24-70 f/2.8 is selling for $1140 at B&H right now, it is reasonable to expect the two lenses to probably stabilize at the $1050-1100 range (one has longer range, IS, one has f/2.8)

 

What would be really interesting, and what I really want to see, is retailers starting to sell the 24-105 in a kit with the 5D (maybe that's my wishful thinking too, since both are what I want).

 

Howard

Yes, I am sure:

 

http://www.eos-magazine.com/EOS%20system%20folder/EOS%20system/Film%20cameras/directoryUS.html

 

I was a little off -- the Elan 7 is EOS 33, the Elan 7E is EOS30, but not far off.

 

Howard

To quote Neil:<br>

<br>

Roughly: Single digit 1 names are PRO;<br>

Single digit other than 1 (3, 5, etc) are SEMI-PRO<br>

Double digit (20D, D60) are PROSUMER<br>

Tripple digit (300D, 350D, etc) are CONSUMER<br>

<br><br>

This convention was more or less followed in the film days. At one point, Canon had:<br>

<br>

Pro: 1N <br>

Semi-pro: 5 (A2, A2E in the US)<br>

Prosumer: 50 (Elan II)<br>

Consumer: 500 (Rebel)<br>

<br>

At another point (even now):<br>

<br>

Pro: 1V<br>

Semi-pro: 3<br>

Prosumer: 30 (Elan 7)<br>

Consumer: 300 (Rebel 2000)<br>

<br>

(there are some newer models I am not keeping track of).<br>

<br>

In the digital line-up, the D30, D60 were odd balls. Now, Canon seems to have settled back to the old convention:<br>

<br>

Pro: 1D, 1Ds, 1D mark II<br>

Semi-pro: 5D<br>

Prosumer: 20D<br>

Consumer: 300D, 350D<br>

<br>

If one were to take this seriously, in the film line-up, all the levels below the Pro level start with the same digit. Since the 5D is the first semi-pro digital, then we can predict that the next prosumer and consumer models should be <b>50D</b> and <b>500D</b> (remember you heard it here first!)<br>

<br>

Howard<br>

The II and 7 in the Elans are not the "numbers" we are talking about here. The Elans are U.S. names. The Elan II was internationally known as the EOS 50, the Elan 7 was the EOS 30, it makes perfect sense.

 

Howard

I have this lens and the B+W UV and polarizer, at least one of those touch the front element.

 

The solution? You can buy a cheap 77mm filter (you can find those for a few bucks each at local photo store's "filter bins") and knock off the glass, then leave the "filter ring" on your lens all the time. I actually found a "filter ring" in the filter bin at my local store and they gave it to me for free!

 

Howard

I have both lenses and I like them both. If I go for a strenuous hike and I want absolutely the lightest setup I will choose the 35mm with a Rebel 2000 body. The 35 f/2, 50 f/1.8 and 28 f/2.8 all have similar size and weight, the 50 f/1.4 is a little larger and heavier than these three lenses. It is not the weight, but rather the fact that on a light body like the Rebels the 35 f/2 balances much better.

 

Optically they are comparable, but keep in mind that the 50 f/1.4 is the only f/1.4 lens that costs less than $1000 and weighs less than a pound. The 50 f/1.4 is a little better at resisting flare. Of course at f/1.4 you can blur the background more which is nice for portraits. USM or not is not an issue IMO.

 

As far as perspective, personally I like the 50mm more for street scene and 35mm more for general landscape.

 

Finally, this is normally how I use them: my main walk around lens is a 28-135 IS USM (although this will change as I just bought a 17-40 for my D60). If I carry one camera body with the 28-135, I will carry the 50mm to supplement it for the f/1.4 large aperture. If I carry two bodies I usually mount the 35mm on the Rebel 2000 since this set up is light and the 35mm perspective on full frame is more "general".

 

Howard

Of course, I meant to say: it is still too *advanced* (in technology).

Is the EOS 3 that much behind current technology in film SLR?

 

No. In fact, it is still too much.