jonny_mac

I have this lens on the 350d and it works fine. I restrict it to the center focus point because it is easier for me to focus that way. The focus is going to be slower than your 70-200 due to the system used in the 85 f/1.2, no matter what camera you use.

 

That takes a lot of faith to give up your other great lenses for this beauty, as nice as it is. I don't think you can truly replicate the super shallow DOF with any other lens 2.8 and over though...

WW (Retired) points well taken. However, when one is purchasing equipment that may costs thousands, they had better well be able (esp. the owner) to explain it in the simplest of terms.

 

You are right we have no way of knowing what was said.

Well Ken perhaps my response was a little too strongly worded and I apologize if I have offended you.

 

I guess I was looking through the eyes of the OP and that they may be "mislead" into thinking the 24-105 wasn't right for them...

 

Anyway, hope we can move on.

Well Ken if you want to continue your less-than-well-informed and misleading comments then that is your business. It's a kit lens for marketing purposes as Canon obviously felt that FL range with IS is going to sell more cameras than the 16-35 or 24-70.

 

Do my fast L primes make your 24-70 entry level? I could say my 85mmL and 135mmL make the 70-200 f/2.8 L an entry level lens, because they don't have the compromise of being a zoom. Sounds silly doesn't it?

 

Another example, the 70-200 f/4L IS. Cheaper, better IQ, and better IS than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Is it entry level? By your criteria (slower L lens in a comparable focal length) then it would be.

 

They are all different lenses for different situations, and all have advantages and disadvantages. By putting a label on it, it just serves to misinform.

The camera store owner is an idiot. The reason your photos may not be tack sharp is due to shutter speed and motion blur. If you are shooting at an appropriate shutter speed for the FL, your photos should be sharp.

 

If you are doing indoor sports with low light, you are better off getting a fast prime.

 

My XTI works well with my 24-105L, 85mm f/1.2L, and 135mm f/2L...

 

Keep the camera and work on learning to enjoy and use your new lens!

Paul,

 

Yes usually you hear those comments from 24-70L owners, haha.

I agree with what was said here, but I wouldn't say the 24-105 is an "entry" level L lens. There is nothing "entry" level about it. The build quality is just as good as other L lenses. It costs just as much as a lot of other L lenses. It has trade-offs compared to other lenses, such as the slower speeed (f/4), but instead has more zoom and IS. I have this lens, and it is excellent.

Here's an alternate idea. Spend just a few $$ more and get the 70-200 f4L IS and get the 135 f/2L as well. Then, you have an even faster prime with better IQ than the 70-200 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/4 IS has better IQ than the f/2.8 as well. Best of both worlds, and you have 2 of Canon's best lenses.

I wouldn't buy a 3 year old camera myself as Canon really needs to update it. I guess ask yourself if you would feel OK about it if Canon updated it next month, and you had bought one already? If so, then get the camera. If not, then don't. With Nikon's recent offerings with such terrific high ISO performance, I thing Canon must have a surprise up the sleeve to compete. If Canon doesn't, then its market share is going to erode more...

If you are shooting at the proper shutter speed, they should be equally sharp. I have heard that the 17-55 IS has excellent sharpness even besting the L glass, however.

You are handholding a shot at 1/15 and it is blurry? You are right in that it is your shutter speed. The non-IS is going to need a higher shutter speed than that. If you can't get fast enough then a quick prime is in order.

You may want to think about getting a prime in there that's faster than 2.8 before getting all

of those zooms. Once you go below 2.8, you never want to come back!

>>>The first thing I did when I decided to spend money on my hobby was to buy lenses. I

have three fast lenses, 28 mm 1.8, 50 mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8. I know it was sort of stupid

to buy three primes instead of one fast zoom but it is done now and I really like them

especially the 50mm<<<

 

I agree with WW, I think primes rock and that the IQ per buck spent is excellent. Sure it is

more work to switch lenses but if you think about being creative they are so nice. No

zoom can replicate that 1.4 and 1.8 DOF you get on those primes. It seems people (and I

realize some need them for what they do of course) sometimes think that the only way

they can go is to buy the 16/17-35/40, 24-70, and 70-200 and we will all have the same

setup.

>>The difference with an 18x zoom was extraordinary and it was quite exciting to be able to stand 15 or 20 metres away and photograph my children's faces in extreme closeup, while they were splashing under the sprinkler in their swimming costumes. I can't say if the quality was compromised as I am not a professional photographer - but the photos looked pretty good to me!<<

 

You may not have noticed it, but you can't handhold an 18x optical zoom consumer cam and get good pictures. Try a 100% crop of those pics and I'm guessing it will look like crap.

 

Here's something to try if you like the idea of getting close. explore cropping your pictures. Say you want to get a face shot and your camera will only get a upper torso/face. Crop the picture in your editor and I'll guarantee you will get better results than you would have if you would have had that 18x zoom.

 

Look at some of the reviews of the big large range zooms like the 28-300. They can't match the IQ of the shorter zoom lengths.

 

When you trade up to a DSLR, you are putting your picture quality at a priority, and there are some tradeoffs. By DSLR standards, those pictures you took with your P&S are blown away!

For the next round, I would predict that they will occur in late may. You can google "canon rebates spring 2007" to find out when they came out last year, but it was in may. In the past, it has been in April. However, they extended them this year as in 2007, so I would guess they will come later in May just like last year. The round after that will be in the fall again I would guess.

Here's a more interesting philosophical question:

 

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Wow...the level of discourse on this thread isn't what I would expect from someone bearing

the hero icon...

Thanks for all of your responses. I have been convinced!

 

Yakim I appreciate your counter-argument. For me the main advantage of the 70-200 f/4 is the weight and better IS, and the fact that I'll more likely use it given that it isn't such a beast.

 

The main advantage of the 135 is the awesome IQ and the extra speed for sports.

 

If I could have the 70-200 f/2.8 and 135 f/2, I don't know that I would.

I was thinking about getting a telephoto setup in the future and this combo

appeals to me more than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I use a crop camera and have the

10-22, 24-105 f/4, and the 85 f/1.2. These two would pretty much round it out

for me for a while, but it will be a bit before I could get both of them.

Reasons why this appeals to me more than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS:

 

1) Better image quality with just a little more cost. The 70-200 f/4 IS and 135

f/2 seem to be among Canon's sharpest.

 

2) I don't shoot weddings/gigs so I don't need something ultra-versatile like

the heavy zoom. I want also to have a travel kit and could see bringing the

70-200 f/4 but not the 70-200 f/2.8 on a trip.

 

3) I would have a pretty good telephoto prime setup with the 85 f/1.2, and could

use the 135 with a 1.4x and have a pretty darn good 200 f/2.8 equivalent.

 

4) The higher speed of the 135 f/2 would be useful for indoor sports.

 

 

Any downsides to this set-up/reasoning? Just curious who else went with this

combo and why...

I agree with Colin here... although I personally wouldn't buy one of these gizmos I don't see

why he needs to mention FEC in the before and after picture. Basically, the photo is possible

with the flash/camera/gizmo that the photographer had, and it wasn't without the gizmo.

Who care's what the camera/flash settings were?

Check out Chuck Gardner's EOS flash tutorial.

One last thought....it seems that the 135 f/2 would make the 200 f/2.8 redundant as you

could mount the 1.4x extender on the 135 f/2 and have pretty much the same thing.

Hmmm....Colin is right. You should decide if you want the better versatility of a zoom or better IQ/DOF control of the primes. The difference between the 85 f/1.2 and the 70-200 f/2.8 in terms of the look of your portraits if you want the shallow DOF are miles away though. Look at the review of the 85mm f/1.2 for examples on this site.

For portraits the 85 and 135 can't be beat. I prefer the 85 and have that one myself. It is truly a great lens. I think the 135 is my next one. The 24-105 you mention is one I would only get if you want to travel so that doesn't bring a lot new to the table for you.

Search for b&h on supercoupon.com and you will find a bunch of codes. I got my 85mm

f/1.2L for $1589 with it.