matthias_meixner2

> I shoot a lot of landscapes and own a 40D.

 

Then, on a crop camera like the 40D you might be better off with the EF-S 10-22, as 16/17mm is not that wide on the 40D

The cheapest option you have is to tape the zoom ring ... :-)

 

At least this should be sufficient to find out, which focal length is right for you.

If you only want to have one lens, go for the 17-55. However, if you plan to buy the 10-22 in the near future, the 24-70 or 24-105 IS will give you more range as it has less overlap with the 10-22.

I would (and have) choose the 24-105 over the 17-55: For travel and group pictures f/2.8 does not really help (or would you like to have half of the people unsharp due to shallow DOF?) while the longer reach comes in very handy. And as you already have the 10-22 the wide angle is already covered, so you lose nothing by selecting the 24-105.

> Always put a glass/cup/mug (empty or full) just out of reach where it > cannot be knocked over accidently -- and never put it in front of the > keyboard, not even for just a second.

 

Cola is very reliable in killing your keyboard (and probably other electronic devices). Our students have killed quite some Sun keyboards this way, and guess these cost quite some more than standard PC keyboards ..

For a comparison of the 70-300 IS vs 70-200 f/4 L IS see <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=9&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=404&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0">here</a>.

 

Wide open the 70-200 f/4 clearly outperforms the 70-300 IS.

Another thing to consider is weight. If you have to carry around it all day long, the 70-200 F/4 IS might be an option as both the 70-200 F/2.8 and the 100-400 have about twice the weight.

> And I wouldn't rule out an conscious decision of Canon to make Sigma

> stuff unuseable again in the future by changing their software

> protocols,

 

Canon has not changed the protocol or their own lenses would have become incompatible. Much more likely the implementation of the protocol by Sigma has been incomplete, which resulted in problems as soon as a new camera used a larger subset of this protocol.

For a comparison of the 100-400 vs 400DO see

 

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=9&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=338&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2"> here</a>

For telescopes you can find focal reducers that reduce the focal length (and image circle). Therefore, it might be an efficient route, when developing a new lens, to start with an existing design and integrate a kind of focal reducer into the last group of lens elements to adapt it to the crop factor. Maybe this is what Canon did when developing the 10-22 and/or the 17-55

Which feature do you need the 40D has but the 400D not? Investing in better / additional lenses would most likely make more sense.

Then there is also the 24-70 which would give the same coverage considering your other lenses and still give you f/2.8 although no IS.

 

BTW. I use the combination 10-22 + 24-105 and think it is OK. But as I do not have the other lenses mentioned I cannot compare it of course.

I took the 24-105 in favor of the 24-70 due to weight.

I know nothing about his needs. I just wanted to make him ask himself the right questions.

It depends all on how wide you want to go. If you plan to have the 10-22 some time it might be worth to consider the 24-70L or 24-205L as this would give you less overlap and less gaps in your zoom range.

What do you expect by switching from 17-40L to 17-55? Higher image quality? A faster lens? Image stabilization? Probably you are better off keeping the 17-40L and complementing your system with a 24-70L or 24-105L IS.

> insert something like a steel ruler inthe slots and get one hell of a lot of leverage.

 

... and break off the front element of the lens if the leverage becomes too large. So this is probably not the best way to remove a stuck ring.

 

One may try to exploit the different thermal expansion of the different materials. Store the lens at high/low temperature (see the manual for the allowed limits), this may loosen the ring enough so that you can remove it. The best way would be of course to "heat" the lens while keeping the filter ring cold ....

All depends on what you shoot most:

 

<ul>

<li> landscape -> 24-105 </li>

<li> travel -> 24-105 </li>

<li> portrait -> 24-70 </li>

<li> outdoor action -> 24-105 </li>

<li> indoor action -> 24-70 </li>

</ul>

 

I have the 24-105 and the low light performance is amazing, e.g. see the attached sample<div></div>

As long as you find a way to get to the contacts without taking apart the camera you may try to bend them back. If you break one off the situation is no worse than now: The slot has to be changed by Canon service. However, if you take apart the camera anything may happen ....

Hello all!

 

These three lenses are equipped with different versions of IS. While for the

70-200L IS f/4 Canon claims a 4-stop shake correction, this is 3 stops for the

70-200L IS f/2.8 and only 2 stops for the 100-400L. So far the theory goes.

 

Has anyone done some tests if this is really what you would see in real world

usage? Does the newer IS generation of the 70-200L IS f/4 really compensate for

the slower max aperture compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 when it comes to camera

shake? Does the 70-200 f/4 + 1.4TC really have a 2-stop advantage over the

100-400L at say 280mm?

Here you can find comparison-shots for different lenses, e.g. EF 50 1.2L and EF 50 1.4:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=9&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=115&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

You can compare different Canon lenses here:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=9&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=253&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

> Along this line of thinking: the 70 to 200 F2.8L IS would be worth consideration.

 

I have ruled this one out due to its weight. As I will mainly use it for travel f/2.8 is not that important but the high weight is a problem. I have only listed the 100-400 as there is no lighter variant of that zoom.

 

I want IS as I will not carry a tripod for the same reasons: Weight and bulkiness.

Hello all!

<br>

I want to upgrade from my EF 100-300 USM which has no IS and is soft wide open.

I have several options:

<ul>

<li> EF 70-300 1:4-5.6 IS USM </li>

<li> EF 70-300 1:4.5-5.6 DO IS USM </li>

<li> EF 70-200 1:4 L IS USM + extender 1.4</li>

<li> EF 100-400 1:4.5-5.6 L IS USM </li>

</ul>

But which one gives the best image quality and is sharp wide open?

<br>

As I also want use the lens for astrophotography I have also a question

regarding the 100-400 and its push/pull zoom: Does it hold its focal length when

pointed straight up or does it creep down following gravity which would ruin

long exposures?

> The only negative aspect of the lens is the weight, but a monopod fixes this issue.

 

Not if you have to carry it around all day long as the monopod even adds to the weight.

> My question then is this, would the APS-H sensor give me a noticeably

> wider FOV and/or less DOF compared to my APS-C Rebel?

 

You can try it out using your existing camera:

 

1) Choose the FOV and other settings you would like to have using your existing camera.

2) Modify the focal length to that of the 1.3 crop camera, this will give you a different FOV but exactly the same DOF as the 1.3 crop camera. (E.g. if you have selected 50mm, set it to 50*1.6/1.3=61mm)

 

By this you can check the DOF you would get with the 1DMk3 for free.