jim_d5

Ok, so my next lens will be a super telephoto. I have about 1100 to spend and

these are my two considerations. I see that both are excellent optically. I

use my 70-200 f/4L for my telephoto now (sports and landscape). I consider the

images from my 70-200 to meet my IQ requirements and would like my new lens at

least match its performance. I think these two easily do that.

 

I will be shooting with a 30D and XTi. I already have good support, tripods,

monopods etc.

 

This is made exponentially more difficult by the fact that they cost the same!

 

But...the 300 has IS and the 400 doesn't. But, the 400 has more reach but one

less f-stop. I would like to get (back) into bird photography and feel the 300

to be too little reach especially if I go to a full frame or 1.3x crop

eventually, which will almost certainly happen.

 

I have an old 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 (no IS) in my closet and have looked at the 300

focal length and don't really know what to think. On the one hand it seems

pretty good reach wise but on the other hand it seems somewhat difficult to get

"intimate" with small subject, like birds, even with the 1.6x crop working in my

favor.

 

I know about the extenders. I have tried the 1.4x and I know it works well but

do not own one.

 

Now, the IS. It would help me zero in sports which consists of college football

(behind the fences) and baseball (also from behind the wall). I often get

excellent results at these games with my 70-200, but it is often not enough

reach especially for football, once again I cannot get intimate. The IS would

help would birds of course. Then I do have a monopod, however the pod is

sometimes impractical at sporting events. Thanks for any personal experience

help here on this decision.

This is normal, Canon mentions it in the manual. It can be two things, the H/V detection sensor ball (or bb) or the flash. With the 30D it is likely the ball. This was not just used with Canon digitals, Alan, but also was used in all (?) EOS film bodies for horizontal or vertical position detection to help the camera's electronics. What for I don't know, I think metering and maybe flash stuff I don't know.

"Most marks on the front element can be professionaly cleaned bu t nothing will compensate for the loss of IQ introduced by even best filters."

 

Hear hear, IQ is degraded. I have never been comfortable with the notion of putting a $100 (Hoya, B+W) protective piece of plate glass on my $800+ L lens. Use a hood, blast the dust off, and, oh God, use the lens cap, see how nicely it fits on there, just squeeze and viola. The front element will not need to be cleaned if you follow these basic instructions. If you are fumbly and bumbly butterfingers than I guess you have other things to worry about. I agree, of course, if you are shooting in rain or the beach or odd climates slap one on there.

 

Otherwise, no mass-produced window panes in front of my expensive glass!

"The 24-70 can focus very close, a high quality fast lens, and it's 24mm on full frame equates to 15mm on the 1.6 crop."

 

What does this mean? Last time I checked the conversion doesn't go backwards, i.e., you cannot take a full frame lens you just took off your 5D and divide by 1.6 and get a superwide on your 400D. If that were true I am sure the architecture photogs would be dancing in the streets and all go out and buy 1.6 crop cameras, while the wildlife and sports guys would be giving up their 1.3's and going full frame.

 

Anyway, I must recommend the 17-40 f/4L, assuming you get a good copy. My first copy is in the return loop because of a corner defect which is unfortunately common. The Canon EF-S 10-22 is also really good though not quite as good sharpness or color wise as the 17-40 L. However, the 10-22 is much wider on your camera than the 17-40. But, after you make some money on some of those shots and want to go with a full frame 5D or its new replacement, you will wish you had gotten a full frame lens as you will not be able to use your 10-22.

 

Finally, the Sigma 12-24 or whatever is supposedly more than adequate and provides a dramatic field of view on 1.6x crops and full frams alike. Unfortunately (or fortunately), all these lenses cost about the same, so your choice will be doubly hard. I chose the 17-40 based on image quality, but I don't do architecture that much. Good luck.

This lens(es) will be for my 30D, 400D, Elan 7, EOS-3 bodies, I am not

considering crop lenses.

 

Okay, this is mostly for my own enjoyment not for working. I usually rent my

glass for projects. My own lenses consist of the 50 f/1.8II, 70-200 f/4L, 17-40

f/4L, 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, and the 20 f/2.8. This has worked well for me, actually

the 17-40 is currently in the round trip in UPS land for an exchange because the

first I got was defective on arrival.

 

Anyway, I want a new lens, what for I don't know, just fun. I lack fast lenses

as you can see. I have considered the 85 f/1.8 very seriously but would *love*

the 135 f/2L. I guess what I really want is a relatively long portrait lens, I

don't like to be as close as I have to be with my 50 f/1.8II. However, macro

capability would be nice, and perhaps this works as a long portrait as well. I

want a lens with excellent image quality, that is what I crave with speed from

this whole purchase. If I get the 85 1.8 or the 100 f/2 I may throw in the 35

f/2 as I hear it is a good normal lens and it is really low priced at 200USD. I

have also looked at the 28 f/1.8 for this, but hear it is an optical let down.

 

I shoot mostly landscapes and am limited with portraits with my current lenses

but do that too. Otherwise I do lots of sports shooting, which the 70-200 works

perfectly for, but I have always wanted the 300 f/4L IS and it realistic for me

to buy that now too.

 

I want some landscape telephoto capability as well. The 135 f/2L is in there

because it is really tempting and I have always wanted it as I hear its image

quality is only bettered by the OOP 200 f/1.8L. But is it really too much

telephoto on the 30D for outdoor portraits, which is where most of mine are?

Thanks for any comments or suggestions. This may be too much of a complex

question and I expect to get some varied answers but I certainly want some fun

on investment.

Thanks everyone, I agree that higher ISO is okay but I make a point not to deny someone their specific requests. Anyway, this has been solved as I now have a way to borrow a 24 1.4L for the time I need it, lucky for sure. Thanks again.

I have this exact same problem and I thought it was just me, too. Keeping everyone in the same plane of focus, as suggested, is almost always impossible with large groups.

 

Recently I shot a group of 40 in three rows and it was quite soft. I was using the Canon 20mm f/2.8, a prime lens with good optics, I used good depth of field and it was tripod mounted with good light. Still a softer than usual photo, now I am thinking how weird that other experience this too.

 

This has been helpful as I am interested in the responses as well. I have to do the shot again (biannually) so maybe I will try all of this.

FWIW, as said before on this forum, I doubt the 30D replacement will be called the 40D. 4 is an unlucky number in Asian numerology as it sounds like the word "death" in Asian languages. Perhaps this does not translate to "forty" as there was a 400D. However, there was the Powershot S1, S2, S3, and now the S5, where was the S4? Interesting.

The 30D is cooler but not better really, just different. To be honest, you would probably do just is well with a 10D in good condition. The 40D or 50D or whatever it will be called will almost certainly have the 400D/XTi's same image sensor at 10MP. I have an XTi as well as a 30D. Having said that I can see no real difference in 16x20 and up prints made by either camera. So does the MP really matter? Personally I really don't see the big deal. The 10D makes great enlargements too, and has most of the features of the 20D.

 

The 30D is probably worth the extra 100 bucks. Though, I really could care less if the screen is 1" 2" or 3 or whatever as I rarely look at it except briefly confirm a shot or change the settings. The image performance will be absolutely no different. So this one is solely up to you. Waiting for the 30D replacement is a waste of time and shots you could be taking with the 20/30D.

I need a lens for a new project that must meet two requirements: it must be

extremely sharp, it must be extremely fast. It must be sharp because I will be

having to make prints at 16x20 and larger with some cropping most likely. It

must be fast because the shots are going to be at parties, clubs, bars, and the

like.

 

So, I hear many good things about the 35 f/1.4L. However, the 24 f/1.4L is also

supposedly good though not as razor like in the sharpness. The lens will need

to capture people and the environment, there will be no need to go wider than

normal perspective or so. Am I missing some other option? Many just say the 35

1.4L is such a lens that there really is no other option.

 

Finally, one requirement is that I am client limited to 100 or 200 ISO. So this

rules out pumping up the ISO and using one of my slower lenses, i.e. my L zooms.

Also, I cannot get a good 16x20+ from a 400+ ISO image, IMO. This is a rather

critical application as the prints will "need to project professionalism" in a

heavily trafficked hallway.

 

I have the skills necessary to use such a narrow DOF. I do not have an easy

time with the $1100. But I have wanted this lens since its release about a

decade ago. My current fastest lenses are the 50 f/1.8II and the 20 f/2.8 (not

really fast). I hear good prints from the 35 1.4L look 3D! Sounds pretty

enticing.

 

Is this realistic for the 30D, what with the 8MP and all? On the 30D is it

overkill? I also have an XTi but it sees limited use on such projects, but I

will use it if I have to. To be honest I can tell little difference between a

20x30 from my XTi compared to from my 30D.

 

BTW, buying a 5D or going to medium format, etc, is not an option. Also,

tripods are impracticable for clubs and bars and so are monopods for the most

part in case you didn't know. Thanks, J.D.

I second Giampi, B&H or local. Do not expect to pay less than B&H's current price and get a good copy that can be returned if it does not meet your satisfaction.

"So the spot-metering should work perfectly fine with the split screen as long as it is not blacked out?"

 

--I don't think this is possible, but once again no explanation from Canon. Someone please.

 

By the way, if you are shooting negative film it is unlikely to matter because of the film's latitude.

Years ago I made a complaint here about this issue with my EOS-3. I began using the Ec-B screen and never thought to change CF-0. Unfortunately, most of my subsequent photos' exposures were affected. It wasn't until I figured something was wrong with the camera when I actually noticed the CFs started at 0 not 1, duh. It is clearly stated in the manual and on the Cust Func cheat sheet. However, my model did not have the "CF-0" printed in white on the focusing screen tray.

 

Anyhow, I think the reason you are always getting the same reading is because that is what the camera has the function for. It is still confusing to me as well so you are not the only one. But I think the camera always reads correctly with large aperture lenses. I still don't really know, and the manual is very Canonesque and thus VERY vague.

 

I wish someone would explain this to me as well.

Well, I just ordered the Hoya Pro D S-MC Clear filter. You guys convinced me. I decided to dump the UV option and save 20 bucks. I have since read a few comments on this clear filter that you cannot distinguish images from when the filter is on and not no matter the shooting condition. I will not try and go around looking for a direct lighting scene to make the filter "show up". When did we all become so critical? I have become overly obsessed, albeit unnecessarily, with image quality, and I am desperately trying to go back to just taking pictures. I keep saying to myself, "leave me alone".

Well, I have the 30D as well, I also have the Canon 20 f/2.8. The 20 2.8 is a fine lens and has been one of my main lenses for about four years now. It has good image quality, on par with that of my 17-40 f/4L and is very reasonably priced. However, on the 30D it is a 32mm. What I say to that is...whatever. That still seems wide to me, but I certainly do not use it for interior shots.

 

I think the 20 2.8 would be your best bet if you want to shoot hand held due to the faster 2.8 max aperture. And assuming you do not what to spend loads of money, which is my conclusion from reading your post. I can commonly get sharp shots with this lens at 1/15 sec with around ISO 200 indoors.

 

But if you will be shooting with a tripod, which you should be if this is serious work then the EF-S 10-22 is your best bet. The image quality is surprisingly good and on par with the 20 f/2.8 and the 17-40 f/4L. My personal conclusion is the 17-40 edges all of them out in overall image quality but it is a 27mm on the 30D.

 

Luckily, I own two of these lenses the 20 and 17-40 and have at least tried the 10-22. Keep in mind if you ever decide to get a full frame camera like the 5D or its successor or, heaven forbid, you shoot chromes (recommended for your application) with a film camera then the EF-**S** 10-22 will not work with it. For the widest possible shot your only option is the 10-22 but the other two are there if you are willing to compromise and all are relatively affordable in this field.

I have just received a Canon 17-40 f/4L. Good lens for my 30D and Rebel XTi. I

usually do not use protective filters, all of my other lenses are used naked or

with hoods usually. However, this particular lens seems to need a protection

filter...large front (ashperical mind you) element and a moving non-sealed front

element.

 

So, I have no problem spending the 80 bucks for a good filter. But I am trying

to decide whether to get the Hoya Pro 1D SMC UV or the B+W MRC UV Haze 010. I

have read many like the B+W and feel the Hoya is cheapy. However, some say the

Hoya coating is better. I cannot decide. I feel it is an important decision as

I want to keep it on my 17-40 just about all of the time and would like it to

interfere with the image quality as little as absolutely possible.

 

Finally, should I get the slim version of the B+W or the regular one? The Hoya

says it is already slim, is that slim enough? If anyone has a protection filter

on this particular lens please let me know what you use and the results.

 

Also, on the Hoya, does anyone use it and find they can still easily and safely

attach the default Canon lens cap? Thanks, J.D.

Ok, surely I am not the only one to want this stuff. I go to sporting events

all the time and see photographers, among whom are just about all using Canon

equipment. They all have plenty of cool Canon stuff, i.e. a Canon t-shirt with

a big red Canon logo on the back, or a red sleeve on their monopod that says

something like Canon on one side and EOS Digital on the other.

 

The list goes on and on. Another one, big Canon decals on thier lens hoods or

white lenses. So where do you get this stuff? I have heard of a Canon

Corporate Collection but all the links I see to it are broken. Do you have to

be a CPS member?

 

Also, whenever I go into Camera shops I see big Canon banners and flags. I am

in college and like putting things on my walls, and being a big Canon fan I

would like to have one of these banners. But how?

 

I have searched for quite some time on the internet which has produced hardly

anything. This stuff seems really hard to find. Anyone know a good source?

Preferably one that will take a credit card and ships to the US :-)

I agree, I have several early 90's Canon lenses and they all AF very accurately to this day. I don't think a printed circuit board in a sealed casing "ages", so if it controls the AF how can the AF age?

"was wondering if I can purchase ANY specific NON Canon DSLR body and make it work with the lens I already have."

 

Well, NO.

 

"Prefer avoiding purchase of a Canon DSLR body"

 

Why? They have the best sensors, with very low noise, great features. Get a 30D, I did and absolutely love it. Previously, I shot only film (1 year ago) and had no DSLRs, I was really late, you are even later.

 

Some say there is no reason to spend the extra money to get the 30D over a Rebel, and let me be the first to say I STRONGLY disagree. I think the size of the 30D as well as its metal construction and 5fps capability is important to me since I use it in my sports work. Plus, despite numerous "facts" in technical reviews, I still believe the 30D has slightly better overall image appearance than the XTi, whatever.

 

If for some strange reason you do not like the 30D then please explain, because its faults are far and few between.

I would have to recommend the 17-40 f/4L. It is an amazing lens and affordable for an L. Its sharpness is on par if not better than its bigger and twice as expensive brother the 16-35 f/2.8L.

 

I am not happy with the many comments that these EF-S lenses, the 17-85 and the 10-22 are "L-class". They simply are not, I have compared them. Each of these EF-S lenses have L quality sharpness in the center. However, they certainly do not have the contrast or the color reproduction of any L lens. When I compare color rich images shot with the 17-40 L compared to the 17-85 IS, the L images just jump out at you and seem to come out of the paper while the 17-85 clearly lags in vivid contrast and the perceived subconsious effects and detail that entails.

 

I think the most obvious and undisputable advantage of L glass is all in the colors. It is this that sets them apart. Because image quality factors such as tack sharpness, nice bokeh, low vignetting, etc can be found in non-L glass. But the color aspect is exclusively L, with the only exception being the 50mm's even though the 1.8 isn't quite L contrast wise.

 

I have come to the conclusion that the red ring and the letter L mean something, indeed. Even on the affordable L lenses, you get L color, contrast, and IQ in all its glory. That stamp is Canon's approval and I am now a true believer, once you go L you can't go back.

Constant aperture L zooms are excellent and rival some of the L primes depending on the lens. If not, then you have a bad copy, because my 70-200 f/4L says otherwise!

I called canon and the customer support dude said to just peel the sticker off and throw it away. He said for warranty support all you need is the receipt and they find the serial number embedded in the camera through software. So I guess the days are gone where printed serial numbers matter, ha.

Hmm, so if it is in the camera's software or hardware somehow does the sticker need to be there at all?

No, I have already exchanged it once due to a defective light meter. Plus I need the camera this weekend as a backup for a shoot, it will probably exceed the 200 maximum exposures for a B&H return. Plus, I think I have a particularly good model in that exposure seems accurate. It is not underexposing like many copies do. I would rather keep it and try to remedy this issue myself. Will Canon simply fix the sticker or attach a new one for free since it is well within the 1 year warranty?

Ahh, indeed, Canon's 28-105 is a great lens and a good value. I have had a mk. I for more than a decade. The mk. I and II are the same, tho the II has better damped zooming action and looks a little different. I have a II as well! Image quality is good for such a low priced zoom. It is certainly soft on the edges but not too bad. I use it exclusively as a travel lens now that I have some L glass. I find the focal range on my 1.6x crop bodies to be acceptable for short trips to the coast, etc.

 

It is quite rugged too! I have managed to drop, kick, and slam my mk. I into to a tripod leg (15 years old) and it still works just fine, though the zooming action is a little clunkier. And yes, I like to use it on all my EOS cameras. I know many others, pros too, who adore this lens.

 

The only other EOS-age product that gets similar (somewhat odd) admiration is the A2/A2E, which seemingly everyone who has been in the Canon community since the eighties has owned and loved. For some reason we cannot part with that camera or this lens. Timeless I suppose, or just cheap thrills?