bill_walters1

I dislike this lens wide open at 1.4. Jittery distracting bokeh and the subject isn't sharp. But a miracle happens at f2. The lens really gets sharp and the bokeh is smooth and wonderful. At f2, this is a perfect portraits lens. Try some portraits at f2, and you'll see what I mean.

You have MUCH nicer friends than I do.

 

The advantages of the prime lens over the zoom would be improved sharpness and lighter weight. I have a 200mm 2.8 L and find its hand holdable on a bright day, however I often use a monopod, which really works well. With the IS, you most likely would not need the monopod. That is an advantage. Outside of indoor sports, outdoor sports are great with a 200mm with 2.8. Football games shot from the sidelines or end zone with the 200mm (actually 320mm) are great with a crop camera. I personally think the 200mm creates nice bokeh at 2.8, and thus is nice for portraits, but most disagree. You need to take a few portraits and judge for yourself.

The 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.0 are wonderful portrait lenses. They're both light and easy to carry around. If you think you could find use for a longer telephoto, Ed's suggestion of the 200mm 2.8 is a good one. Although most think 200mm is too long for portraits, I've always liked the results. I guess I like my bokeh well done.

I've read quite a few reviews that say the 17-55/2.8 IS has equal or better image quality than the 24-70 2.8 L (and the 24-105 L), Also, many folks on these forums who have both lenses seem to agree. Yet many people still make the statement that one or both of these L lenses have better image quality than the 17-55. Most of these statements seem to be based on the fact that an "L" lens is automatically superior to an non "L" lens. Are there any tests or reviews that actually back the statement that either of these Ls have better IQ than the 17-55,, 2.8 ?

Michael's idea of renting a 70-200mm f4 is excellent. You could do some tests comparing the 2 lenses and you'll have your answer.

 

If you read your own words, you're in love with the 200mm 2.8, and you should be. If your looking for IQ and sharpness, you got it. You also have a comparitively light lens with a fast 2.8. Although the quality of the zoom lens is excellent, its still a zoom and does not have the performance of the prime. (please read some other forums where these 2 have been compared). The zoom is heavier and slower as well. If you absolutely need the different focal lengths you get in a zoom, then the 70-200mm f4 is as good as it gets in this price range. If you are strictly looking for the finest in image quality (with the added bonus of 2.8), you own it. What's more important... top quality IQ or great versatility?

*****It seems to me that the 85 has a better bokeh than the 50. As for the 100 / F2..don't know what to say...I see it's not very popular...or as popular as 85 and 50...*****

 

You're right... the 100mm 2.0 is not very popular... except fot the people who own one!

Check out a few of the forums here that discuss this lens.

 

At some point I think you should check out the 50mm, 85mm and the 100mm for yourself. I think one of the three would be much more to your liking than the other 2. The bokeh on the 85mm and 100mm will be nice and smooth as they both have the 8 blade apeture. There's also a number of people who say 135mm is their favorite portrait lens.

 

Here's a great website with reviews of all the lenses your considering. It also has some examples of each lens in action.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

I agree with Ranier T. The 100mm 2.0 is a great portrait lens. It would give better portraits than the macro plus its smaller and less expensive. The 85mm 1.8 is a great lens, but I prefer portraits on a 100mm lens.

Just want to say I think you'll be very happy with the 200mm 2.8 L. I have this lens and really love it. For most uses its hand holdable. When in doubt, a monopod works well. Along with being deadly sharp, having a fast 2.8 and being lighter than the zoom, it comes in a much preferable color.

I think you would see a bigger improvement in your photos with new lenses rather than a new camera body. If your camera is still in good condition, treat yourself to a new lens or two..

Your selection "A" is a good one. Whatever you do, I think the 85mm 1.8 should be one of your choices. It's small, light, fast, inexpensive and has a great rep. If you bought the 85mm and went for the 50mm 1.8 instead of the 1.4, that would leave plenty of money for a third lens.

Another one to consider would be the Canon 100mm 2.0. I bought one recently and its an outstanding outdoor portrait lens. I plan to buy the 50mm 1.4 soon as I think that makes a great portrait combo. But, if you're looking for one indoor-outdoor lens, I think the 85mm 1.8 might be a good choice. These are all great lenses.

Just bought the black XSI body for $669.00 at BUYDIG. I think that's a decent price!

Well, I finally decided..... When I found I could get an SXI body for $669, I bought one (at Buydig). Most other stores had this around $749 and up. I decided against the XT, not cause of IQ, but because the SXI has a better viewfinder. I had a rough time looking thru the lens of these cameras and every little improvement helps. Plus, I'm getting many new features as well. I also ordered the 200mm 2.8 L and the 100mm 2.0. I got these for $695 and $410 at Norman Camera. (it's a small Kalamazoo Mi store that got nothing but raves from what I read). I've held off on the teleconverter, but I will get that highly rated Tamron 17-50/2.8 later this week. I'll get the 50mm 1.4 later (and one day I want the 135mm 2.0 L !)

 

I really think the best camera of all suggested was the 40D. If I could get a new 40D for $669 I would have bought it. But I like the feel of the smaller XSI, and I can't wait to use it. I hope this camera will bring out the best of those 2 prime lenses! Thanks to everyone for their comments and suggestions.

thanks, Art.

Thanks for the comments... Several mentions about the 135mm 2.0. Everyone sure seems to love the IQ of this lens. It's good to know it works well with the 1.4 T.C. But, for a little more than the price as this lens, I can get the 200mm and the 100mm which will cover more ground for me. If for any reason, the 200mm doesn't work for me, I would sell it and immediately buy the 135mm 2.0 without hesitation. Could this be the best quality lens Canon makes? I handled the XSI and the 40D today. The XSI feels better in my hands, but I'm sure I could adjust to the 40D. Of course, the XT feels ok as well. Several folks mentioned earlier that the viewfinders in these cameras are nothing to write home about. After trying to manually focus on several today, I agree. I guess the auto focus works pretty well in these. (it better!) There's a lot to consider here and I'll make a decision within the next few days.

***What about Canon 100 2.8 macro instead of normal 100 2.0? It´s a bit slower but it´s a macro.***

 

I've thought about that. Having the macro would be neat, but I know I'd use it very seldom. For my uses, It would be more practical to have the faster & lighter 2.0.

***One thing that the generation of photographers who have never shot film with an SLR tend not to realise is that with a crop sensor you need a lens that is a stop and more faster as well as the more obvious 5/8ths the focal length in order to duplicate a full frame image for both framing and depth of field. This is why I regard fast lenses as even more imprtant for crop bodies.***

 

Yikes! losing a stop is never good. You're right... a fast lens is a must! John... is that 30D the same size as the 40D? At this point, I'm still leaning toward the XT, but I did see SXI for $699. All this info is really appreciated. I've learned a lot from this post.

Chris, BG, G Dan, Neill... thanks. The 1.6 factor is something to consider with these primes. My thinking on the 200mm was this... When I shot film, I had a Canon 200mm 2.8 and a 300mm 4.0. I loved the 300, but rarely used it cause of its size. My 200 I used all the time, but often wished it was a longer length. I'm thinking here's a chance to have a 200mm (which I've handled before) but REALLY have a 320! With the 100mm 2.0, I'm thinking I'll use it a lot as a walk around lens. But this light lens will actually be a 160mm. Imagine 160mm in that small light package! Then again I could forget about the 100mm and 200mm and get that great 135mm 2.0. But then I wouldn't have my long tele or my very light walkaround. I do worry a bit about no IS in that 200mm, but I didn't have a problem with my old FD 200, so I think I can handle it. I also am comfortable with a monopod. A Question... when you look thru the viewfinder of one of these Cameras, what you see in the viewfinder, is that the full frame, or is that the actual view of the 1.6 crop?

Steve... I've checked completed items on ebay and the 30D is going used for $800 to $850. just too expensive. William.... thanks for the clarification on the 1.4 teleconverter.

 

Kari... Thanks for the suggestion of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di. The reviews are great. I may just replace the shorter Tamron zoom and the Canon 50 1.4 with this one!

Thanks for the responses. When I reviewed camera bodies, the one I liked best was the 40D. When I checked it out in person, I just didn't like the size. I have large hands but preferred the smaller bodies. With the 40D combined with a zoom, it would be quite heavy to carry around. I should have mentioned, I prefer prime lenses as they have the faster aperture, thet're lighter and better quality. Thats a nice combination! One of the X series camera with the 100mm 2.0 would be very light and easier to carry than the 40D with a zoom. Although the Canon 24-70/2.8L would be wonderful, but its too expensive.

 

Jeff... Is the 30D the same size as the 40D?

 

Colin... I was under the impression that the Canon 1.4 teleconverter worked with the 200mm 2.8 & the 100 2.0 ? What kind of lens is the 1.4 tele suited for?

 

Kari... thanks for the advice... You said "Viewfinder will be horrible after film cameras" You're right. When I first looked thru a DSLR viewfinder, I said "Where's the split screen?"

I'm a former amatuer film photographer who decided to go digital. Thanks to some good feedback on a recent post, I

have now decided on my lens selection. (Canon primes... 200mm 2.8 L.... 100mm 2.0.... 50mm 1.4...Canon 1.4

teleconv.... Tamron 17-35 / 2.8-4) I'm ready to order next week, but I'm still unsure on which DSLR I want. I've

narrowed it down to the XT, XTI or XSI. With the cost of these lenses, I'd prefer a low priced camera. The XT is

$385! The reviews I've read on the image quality have been excellent. I hear its build & viewfinder (among possible

other things) are a drawback. I know the XTI is an upgrade, but is the image quality any better than the XT? The XSI

seems advanced. I like the idea of the 14 bit processor, but that seems like too many pixels for a small sensor? But

reviews seem great. The cost on these 3 are 385, 550 and 750. Right now, I'm leaning toward the XT. The price is

right, and it might be good for a first DSLR, and when I'm ready to move up, an SXI would be cheaper. My question

is... I'm investing in some nice quality lenses. Is the XT a good enough camera to get the most out of these lenses?

Or would it require an SXI to do so?

 

If it matters, my photo interests are portraits, nature, sports and street life.

thanks for the posts guys... To answer William's question, my old film gear was Canon.(had an EF camera) I loved my FD 200 2.8 lens and my 300 4.0 as well. (wish I could use them with a DSLR!) Had a nice 135 2.0 Vivitar and a Canon 50 mm & a Canon 28 mm. But that 200 gave great sports & portrait shots! It was my favorite lens. I think I would like something in the 50 to 100 mm range, but with the crop, that might make a 50 a good choice ? And a silly question... do most DSLRs start with ISO 100 (like the XTI)? I thought most had ISO 80? and does it matter ?

After being into film for many years, I decided its time to go digital. My main photo interests are portraits, sports,

nature, street life, and misc. I'm not a pro, just an amateur. I use Adobe Elements, but will get CS3 soon. On a forum

here, I read that a DSLR newcomer should spend less on the camera, and invest in better lenses. So with this in

mind, & after reading reviews & articles on gear, here's what I'm considering... For a camera body, possibly a Canon

XTI (aka the 400D?). 10.1 m/pixels seems like enough, it gets good reviews at a decent price. Regarding lenses...

All I previously owned were prime lenses, but I'd consider zooms. First I liked Canon's 70-200 mm f4 lenses, the

regular & the IS. But I do half my shooting in that range & I don't want to haul around a lens that size, that often. I

then read 2 incredible reviews on the 200 ml 2.8 L. Since it's lighter than the zoom, has a faster lens, better quality

(?) & an ok price, this would be my first choice. (I'd consider the Canon 1.4 converter as well) My other

consideration is the Canon 100 mm 2.0 lens. Again, nice reviews and a fast light lens. I'd use this one a lot, & I'd

rather carry this around than a zoom.

 

After this, I'm not sure what would round out my new lenses. Tamron 17-50 2.8 or the Tamron 28-75 2.8?. Are the

Tamron's as good as their reviews? I could also forget the zooms and go with another prime lens or two. (how does

a 50 mm work with that crop factor?). Can anyone personally recommend the 200/ 2.8 L or 100/ 2.0 and are these

primes a decent fit with the XTI? I'd appreciate any feedback, comments or suggestions. I'm sure there's options

I'm not even aware of.

thanks again !

You folks have really helped with your suggestions. And to answer Marc's question... Is there much savings on the dual-core versus the quad-core? Not really, in the packages I'm looking at its about $40 less. Thanks again.