bob_hum

<i>Because I don�t think I�m going to need wideangle shots, I still think my original suggestion for the first zoom (Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM) might be a good one for me, despite the weight of it.</i>

<p>

I can appreciate your desire for the 24-70. It *does* seem to have it all: dust/weather resistance, large aperture, 'L' optics, a good focal length range (on a film camera), and reasonable macro capability (0.29x). If you've got the money and don't mind the weight, I'd say go for it.

<p>

On the other hand, if you intend to use this lens stopped down (~f/8) fairly often, you might want to consider the 24-85. It's light, inexpensive, and it shares a filter size with the 70-200/4L.

<p>

<i> Is there any reason why I should get the 70-200mm lens instead of the 100-300mm one? I like the idea of being able to zoom to 300mm with it, and I don�t think I�d want to be limited to anything less then that unless I got a third lens (and I don�t think I want to do that right now), so I�m a little reluctant to get the 70-200 one.</i>

<p>

The build quality of the 70-200 is better than that of the 100-300. It's also faster/quieter zooming, and a stop brighter. This last point is important to me - I find that f/5.6 lenses make the viewfinder depressingly dark. You can add a 1.4x teleconverter if you really need to go out to ~300mm.

The 24-70/2.8L and one of the zooms you mentioned would work, but be forewarned that the 24-70 is a fairly heavy lens for the focal lengths offered. For your purposes, maybe replacing it with a 24/2.8 and one of: 35/2, 50/1.4, or 50/1.8 would be better.

<p>

I've never used the 35-350, although I *did* own the 100-400 for a while, so I've had the heavy, push-pull zoom experience - I can't say I liked it very much. However, the incredible all-in-one focal length range of the 35-350 is hard to ignore.

<p>

Keeping price & weight in mind, but also wanting quality and versatility, my choice would be a 17-40/4L and a 70-200/4L. To save some cash, replace the 17-40 with whatever wide-angle prime you like.

<p>

Good Luck, and Happy Shooting!

I started with the EOS 300 and used it for a year before moving to the EOS 30. I have never looked back. My vote goes to the EOS 30/33.

<p>

Alternatively, you might want to consider an EOS 50/50E. It is the discontinued predecessor to the EOS 30/33, and may be purchased used for about the same price as a new EOS 300. Have a look at this site for specs: <a href="http://photonotes.org/reviews/5-50-30/"> http://photonotes.org/reviews/5-50-30/</a>.

<p>

Happy Shooting!

"<i>The way I see it, some folks really like fisheyes, and some folks just don't - the Zenitar is a cheap way to find out which group you belong to.</i>"

<p>

This is the reason I got mine. If I used it a lot, I'd now consider buying a Canon (as I use that system). But since I only use it once in a while, I'll hang on to it. The price is right.

"<i> Will the G2/G3, being 4.0 MP still give me quality shots? It looks like the features on these outweigh the loss of 1MP, but that still concerns me. </i>"

<p>

Quality shots? That depends on what you intend to do with the pictures. I assume you'll be making prints - so how big will they be?

"<i>...would i notice a differnece in picture quality from the two?</i>

<p>

Probably not. To me, the major differences between the two lenses lie in the maximum aperture (obviously), and the physical characteristics (full-time manual focusing, distance scale, metal mount, etc. on the 50/1.4). With the samples I've used, I would say that optically, they're fairly comparable.

<p>

"<i>My question here is would this lens [28-135 IS] be up to the quality potential of this camera or for that would I only get such results from the L series?</i>

<p>

It's all a matter of which compromises you are willing to make. Probably, the 10D will see a difference in optical quality between this lens and the L lenses (especially at large apertures). But this quality requires an increased cost and weight. My recommendation would be to start with prime lenses (some of which exceed the optical quality of L series lenses). For the 10D, maybe the 28/2.8 (or 28/1.8) and the 50/1.8 (or 50/1.4) would be a good place to start.

"<i>Posters should still do a search before posting their question... not doing so is just annoying! =)</i>"

<p>

Maybe the "Post a New Message" page can be set up so that a search is MANDATORY before posting a new question. The way it is right now, someone who doesn't want to read all the fine print can easily bypass it.

It's not the best that Canon can do. I got a refurbished 100-400 that was dust-free. Mind you, after a year of use, it become fairly dusty, probably due to the push-pull nature of the lens. It's really up to you whether it's worth the hassle of sending stuff back. Just know that this lens WILL become dusty eventually....

You can narrow down your choices at this site: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp"> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp</a>.

<p>

If you have an external flash for the Elan 7 and you want to use it for your digital camera, you'll have to get a Canon G1, G2, or G3 (or perhaps a Pro70 or Pro90 IS). Otherwise, you don't necessarily have to stick with Canon. Good Luck.

Have a look at this, if you haven't already: <a href="http://photonotes.org/reviews/5-50-30/"> http://photonotes.org/reviews/5-50-30/<a>.

"<i>It was the Zenitar and I did use EC. I think it was about -1, but I don't remember exactly.</i>"

<p>

That's not too bad. When I asked the question, I was wondering whether the 10D has a metering problem with MF lenses, as my Elan 7e does. Left unchecked, my Elan 7e underexposes shots taken with my Zenitar by 3~4 stops. I'm glad the 10D doesn't have this deficiency.

A good "First Impressions review". I especially liked the Example Set #2.

<p>

I'm assuming that the fisheye lens you used was a Zenitar. Did it cause any metering inaccuracy on the 10D?

Nice pictures you've got there.

<p>

You might consider an "action" shot with the butterfly turned ~45 degrees (instead of a straight side or back shot). You might also consider not using the flash for some of your shots, in order to create more contrast and change the mood. I'm including a example of what I mean.

<p>

Have fun!<div></div>

The most emotion-inducing lens I've owned is the Canon 100/2. I started photography with a 50/1.8 and a 28-105, so this fast prime was my first "expensive" lens. I got a lot of joy using it because it was compact, balanced nicely on an Elan 7, and had such a large maximum aperture.

<p>

Nonetheless, I eventually sold it for the 100/2.8 USM Macro, for the macro capability, and because I rarely shot at f/2. I believe this was the smart decision. However, I don't feel as much attachment to this new lens as I did to my old one, even though the new lens has given me the better pictures. Strange, huh?

I bought the Ukrainian Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye lens from <a href="http://www.kievcamera.com/"> Kiev Camera</a>. They seemed reasonable.

Popular Photography (& Imaging) published a review of this lens in their April 2003 issue. Not surprisingly, it's weakest performance is at 300mm.

It's a shame that Minolta doesn't make a DSLR. I'm sure it'd be very good. Anyhow, to answer your question, keeping in mind the effect of the sensor size, and assuming your desire to maintain the field of view of your current lenses, you'd have to get the following:

<p>

28/1.8 or 28/2.8 (~45mm equiv.)

<p>

28-135/3.5-5.6 IS (~45-216mm equiv.)

<p>

16-35/2.8L (~26-56mm equiv.) or maybe the new 17-40/4L (~27-64 equiv.)

<p>

Obtaining really wide angles of view will be expensive. For example, it would cost about US$1800 to get a new Canon 14/2.8L in order to give you the angle of view of a 22mm lens on a 35mm camera.

<p>

There are, of course, many third-party options to consider. (For example, a new Sigma 14/2.8 costs about US$800.) As well, if you are willing to juggle your ranges a little, you may find "better" options than the ones I've listed. For example, the unassuming 50/1.8 would become an 80/1.8 (for about US$70!).

For your applications, I think the 85/1.8 would be better - 200mm can be a little long.

<p>

Do you intend for this to be your only lens?

Sorry to hear about your misfortune. Did your friend have insurance? His insurance may cover items that he borrows.

<p>

Regarding the lens question: It would probably be hard to go from a 50/1.4 to a 50/1.8, especially if it's a focal length that you use a lot. This is not a comment on the maximum aperture, but on the ergonomics of the lens. The 50/1.4 is nice and solid with a distance scale and full-time manual focusing. The 50/1.8 (the mark II, at least) does not have any of these niceties.

<p>

For macro, I would much rather have a dedicated lens than a zoom + tubes/diopters. Also, the larger aperture of the 100/2.8 macro (over the 70-200/4L) would probably be advantageous in low-light situations.

<p>

So I would recommend option (1).

Bill, thanks for the response. Certainly, post your impressions after you've shot a couple of test rolls.

Bill, congratulations on your satisfying purchase. I'm glad that you actually came out ahead financially (with the sale of the two L zooms)! A quick question for you: Do you use a UV or skylight filter to protect the front element? If so, have you noticed any vignetting, particular at 16mm?

Definitely, you should look at prints made with these cameras, before buying. Personally, I would go for a DSLR for the reasons that Morten describes, plus the flexibility of interchangeable lenses.

<p>

If you still believe a non-DSLR digicam is what you want, you should check out this site: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp"> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp</a>, to help you narrow your search down.

Certainly, if you don't mind carrying around two camera bodies, buying a 2nd body + lens might be financially preferable to buying an L zoom. If you like the layout of the Elan 7e, you could get another one, or perhaps an Elan II(e). As for prime lenses, I'm sure they're all optically excellent, although some (most notably the 50/1.8 II) may feel a little fragile.

"<i> I do a lot of landscape/wide scenic shots as well as shots of details within those landscapes. And some macro work. </i>".

<p>

None of these things really cry out for a large aperture, so you might as well save some weight and money. Consequently, I would recommend the 70-200/4L over the 2.8L version. If you can wait, the new 17-40/4L would cover your wide-angle requirements nicely.

"<i>...it [using the 200/2.8L] wouldnt be much of a problem in the way of composing but I have this feeling that a zoom would add an extra dimension on to what I could trip out on and shoot.</i>"

<p>

Definitely true. That's why when I had to make the decision, I opted for the 70-200/4L. But others would choose the 200/2.8L, and yet others have chosen the 135/2L. It really depends on shooting style.

<p>

"<i> Is it safe to assume that most people who posted a reply think that the 75-300 IS is truly a compromised lense or is it that the lense just is not on par with the better, but more costly, L lenses?</i>

<p>

All lenses have one compromise or another. In the case of the 75-300 IS, the compromises are in build quality, lack of FTM, lack of Canon TC compatibility, lack of L glass, and the rotating front element. However, it *is* relatively cheap, light, inconspicuous, has IS, is reputed to be good at lower focal lengths, has the capability of 300mm without TCs, and it uses common 58mm filters. You'll have to decide if this set of pros and cons is preferable to you compared to the set of pros and cons of the 70-200, or 200 prime, or whatever.