stillbound

YES - B/H HAS THEM FOR SALE as well as a few other dozen outlets...

 

All annoyance at the caps aside - the lens will probably not be long enough for sports aside from those you can get very close for...

The Problem is your next step up will be too long for normal portraits and will also run you somewhere between 4 and 8 grand...

Having had a chance to play with all the lenses listed above aside from the tamron (my exp. is that the 3rd parties just don't focus as fast as the canon glass) I'd say that the 55-250 is the no brainer. At half the price of the 70-300 it has equal IQ and is 30 percent lighter...

The 75-300 (both versions) should be discontinued as they are both awful and while the merits of IS in shorter lenses have been argued extensively I don't think anyone would argue that having the stabilizer on a 400 - 500 mm equivalent lens is not a smart move...

Not to be a jerk - I really don't mean to be but when you drop that last sentence into the post it makes me take you less seriously. Not sure how many others feel this way but I think I'd ask a professional for advice rather than think they'd be asking me for advice...

(I think that what makes me more sensitive to this is the abundance of "I shoot weddings" people out there that are making it harder and harder to make a living shooting while producing inferior results. I know that eventually some sort of Darwinism should take hold and the cream should rise etc etc but in the meantime the "I shoot professionally" crowd that doesn't seem to have really suffered through a real learning curve gets to me...end apology)

 

For the record I've had this conversation with many shooters just getting into Canon systems and short of street shooting where the extra f stop may be needed I'd advise the 17-40 as well as the majority of your shooting will be done at f11 and up and hopefully on a nice sturdy tripod...

the only place that the 1D3 was a fiasco was on the internet - if you watch sports or talk to pro's they are all still using big white glass and they are are mainly shooting the 1D3

Check this one - http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3275&navigator=3

Seems a good price point - if you spend much more than this you should just buy the canon (this one is around 600 at b/h)

JC

you're just not shooting fast enough. If you want to freeze it solid it needs to be at least a 500/th of a second...

Just to overcome your own hand shake you would need a 320th by most common theory (the inverse of the focal length which is 320 at 200 on any aps-c cam {you didn't mention the cam i don't think})

I think you should try again but shoot TV and set it to 500th and see if that makes it "sharper"

JC

and all the noise that comes with it

not sure what you are looking for - it's fairly common knowledge about the sizes of the sensors and by the last sentence of your post it seems you want to know which produces better images.

 

That would come down to usage. at anything about 1600 the 1D3 is superior in my opinion and even for smaller output at lower ISO's it handles itself quite well. If on the other hand you are in controlled lighting and need giant prints the 1Ds can't really be touched (no matter what the nikon guys want to say about the beloved D3)

the gap from 55 to 70 is about three steps for a normal sized person. I have had people actually do this on occasion. Take an image at 70 then put on the 55 lens and step forward till they get the same shot. It is about 3 steps.

The 16-85 nikon is nothing but a better built 18-200 - no slip and less distortion due to the lack of zoom...it's not any faster or even really sharper.

some of the pics look great and some look noticeably noisy (as expected from the above 1600 and above images like the boxer) but i will say they would have been much better off sticking to 10mp with all the rest of bells and whistles that they added. (truthfully I'd love to see them bring the 1.3 format to the smaller cameras but with all the efs lenses that probably won't ever happen - 1.3 is a superior format as shown in the IQ of the 1D series for two generations)

i think the guys that say there is not much in difference between those two lenses haven't used them...

the clarity and color of the 1.2's are far superior to their slower counterparts...

the light is the least of it...

JC

shelly...

then what do you call a non circular fisheye?

If you are going to jump in then please say something useful...

JC

of course it's due to the lack of IS - we had this discussion a week ago and as usual there were the "I don't need IS" people out in force but the fact remains that it is better to have than non to have...

For you the 24-105 IS may be a better choice due to less weight, IS, and I'd assume you don't do much wide open 2.8 shooting for city scapes etc...

JC

the 4.5 is circular...I assumed that he wanted a true 180 which would be rectinlear in my opinion but maybe i'm wrong about his desires...

the rectinlear fisheyes for canon from the 3rd parties are 167 degrees on canon...180 on nikon

JC

NO fisheye gives 180 on a canon crop sensor...

they are all designed for nikon to be 180 with the 1.5 crop...the 1.6 will give somewhere around 170 degrees...

My bigger question would be how did he buy a 20D brand new?

JC

if you want to say that a 24-105 2.8 would be big that is fine but don't say that the is would add to it...

the 70-200 is and non is lenses are the same size...a few oz difference between them.

a more welcome lens to me than a 24-105 2.8 would be a 20-85 ish 2.8 is lens...before someone says it can't be done remember that until a few years ago the 28-70 was standard rather than the 24...

the little extra width would mean more to me and the reach up to 85 at 2.8 would make for an amazing portrait zoom/wedding lens

JC

why would it cost more than 2000?

the 70-200 2.8 IS costs 1600'ish

why would it have to cost more than that...

and the answer is that yes I'd pay that if it was as sharp or sharper than the current 24-70 with the added advantage of IS

 

As for the statement about it not helping to stop motion that is true but it still takes out your motion...would you not use a monopod/tripod when you could? even if shooting wildlife or other moving subjects?

Me also...

the arguement that you don't need IS at smaller ranges is all about pride. A sharp image at 70mm at 100th of a second would be that much sharper...unless you don't believe in the concept of IS (which I've hear from people) then you have to realize that every bit of shake removed makes for a sharper image. It's like saying "i'll never use a tripod with my 24-70 because my hands are rock steady". It's that silly

 

JC

www.pbase.com/josephwcarey

17-40

16-35

both by canon

sigma makes a 12-24 that is full frame for around 700

JC

the entire UV thing is almost a myth - hate to say it but digital cameras don't need them the way that film did. On the other hand having something to protect your expensive piece of glass from scratches and such is always a good idea so I would recommend either the hoya pro 1 series of clear filters or tiffen has a new series of titanium coated filters on the way that look great (saw them at pma). The hoyas are thin but still accept a cap and are black on the inside to reduce flare. For right now though the hoyas are probably best - who wants to alter a 1000 dollar piece of glass with a uv filter that will alter your images?

Nikon does clear - that should tell you something

I'd grab a 3 if you can...

amazing camera at great deals -

check b/h used

JC

Just from what i've seen i'd be leaning toward waiting for the xsi. Many of the trade offs that you had with the xti vs the 30 are gone (if not all of them) and the camera will have the added value of 3 years newness when it comes to sell it off for your next camera...

Good luck

JC

the 55-250 came out in Europe and by all accounts will be out here when the xsi hits...

in early tests it tested better than the 70-300 just as the new 18-55 is testing better than the 17-85 if sharpness is your main concern. Build quality on both the new IS lenses is lacking but then again the 70-300 is not exactly L build either.....

 

www.pbase.com/josephwcarey

Not to be a party pooper on the 17-85 but it is the most over priced lens ever...slow and not built all that well either. yes it cover a great range but it isn't all that sharp and it just costs too much for what it is...

 

As for my opinion on the 18-55 IS - i posted an independent review as well as having read others all saying the same thing. It's probably the best kit lens canon has ever made...

whenever someone asks me this I ask them if they are ever going to shoot the lens at 2.8. Generally landscapes are shot at f8 and slower so I don't generally see the reason to pick up the 16-35...in my exp it is not sharper than the 17-40 and just as in the 70-200's the price really comes down to the extra price of manufacturing 2.8 lenses...

 

if you are on full frame and will use the lens for landscapes I'd save the money and get the 17-40