bob_hum

It's hard to give a good recommendation, not knowing how much you intend to load it or how tall you need it to be. I use a Manfrotto 190QC and 141RC 3-way head, and I like it well enough. It cost me about CDN$180.

"<i>On March 5, my expected ship date was April 4. On March 6, my expected ship date was April 5...</i>"

<p>

Melissa, is it possible that orders placed on March 5th can expect to be picked up on April 4th, and that orders placed on March 6th can expect to be picked up on April 5th, etc.? Or is your particular order expected on (X + 1 month), where X is any given day of inquiry? :)

Uncoated (or insufficiently coated) glass may cause flare when exposed to bright light sources, robbing an image of contrast. The effect may be subtle or non-existent in other cases. Is your filter multi-coated?

I use a Canon S40. It has much of the capability of a G2/G3, although it lacks the hotshoe, the swivel screen, and the large aperture (particular at longer focal lengths). However, it *is* substantially smaller.

<p>

Although you can control shutter speeds, apertures, and focusing on any of these cameras, they are not nearly as convenient as on an SLR. I find manual focusing to be particularly frustrating.

<p>

You may want to visit this site: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp"> dpreview<a>, to help you narrow down your selection.

About 50% of my photography is nature photography (landscapes, flora, etc.). For a couple of years, I used a 20-35/2.8L and 100/2. However, neither lens had the close focusing capability that I wanted, so I eventually swapped them for a 20/2.8 and 100/2.8 Macro.

<p>

Now, to answer your question: It is true that a few steps forwards or backwards will compensate for the prominence of your main subject. However, the effect of a different focal length will be to change the amount of background that you get in the shot. For example, geometry may dictate that a particular composition requires a field of view provided by a 35mm lens. With your proposed setup, you'd have to make a compromise of some sort, and only you can say if this will bother you. Given your situation, I'd be inclined to carry the 28-70/2.8L instead of the 50/1.4, unless I needed an aperture of 1.4~2.8.

<p>

Regarding the perspective control lens: How much do you like manually focusing? Does your camera have a good viewfinder?

<p>

Regarding your maximum focal length: You mentioned that you didn't often use your 70-200 at 200mm. Did you ever use it above 100mm? I often find that 100mm isn't long enough, particularly when I'm on top of a cliff and want to take pictures of a stand of trees in the distance. Consequently, I got a 70-200/4L: It is about half the price and weight of the 2.8L.

I've used the Vivitar 100/3.5 Macro with a Pentax mount. The lens by itself focuses up to 1:2, but they include a close-up lens that brings you up to 1:1. The construction isn't great, and I don't know if there'll be any (electronic) incompatibilities with your camera, but the optics are very good. You can buy one new for about US$150.

If you need WIDE, this might be worth reading: <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/14-vs-16.shtml">Sigma 14/2.8 vs. Canon 16-35/2.8L</a>. (1.6x)14mm = 22.4mm. This is probably wide enough for your purposes.

Linda, can you name *specific* advantages of the EOS 3 over the EOS 30 that would be of benefit to you and your style of photography? If not, then I agree with the other posters that you should buy the EOS 30, and use the extra money on (better or more) lenses.

<p>

I have used the 28-105 and the 70-200/4L. I found the 28-105 was sharp at the wide end, but suffered from noticeable barrel distortion. Its long end was (relatively) poor. The 70-200/4L does well throughout its range.

<p>

If you can afford an EOS 3 and 28-135, would you consider using the money to buy an EOS 30, 24/2.8 (or 28/2.8) and 70-200/4L instead? The second option would be optically superior and give you more reach (in both directions). I also think it would be a better kit for your shooting requirements: "<i>landscapes, animals and people</i>".

You could always saw half an inch off the end of the hood.... :)

"<i>...I believe a 70-200 is just to big an heavy for a TRAVEL kit...</i>"

<p>

I'd agree that a 70-200/2.8 would probably be too cumbersome for general photos when traveling. However, the 70-200/4 is about half the weight (~700g), and should be fine.

I've used all three lenses that you are considering. They are all first-rate, optically.

<p>

The 100/2 is the lightest, smallest, and fastest of the three lenses. However, I find its macro-capability to be woeful. I would recommend an extension tube or close-up lens for the occasional macro shot.

<p>

If you intend to do a lot of macro shots, the 100/2.8 Macro is the most convenient (obviously). I found this lens to be the sharpest of the three at large apertures.

<p>

The 70-200/4L is the most convenient to use when the light levels are good. Its macro-capability is reasonable. Of the three lenses, this is the only one that can take Canon teleconverters, and this might be a consideration for you. It is also the most unwieldy of the three, and I recommend the use of the tripod collar (sold separately). It is also the only one that doesn't use the 58mm filters that your current lenses use.

<p>

For your specific interests, I think the 70-200/4L is the best compromise, as long as you can live with the (relatively) small aperture, and its (relatively) large size. If you can't, I'd recommend a 100/2 + extension tube/close-up lens.

"<i>It seems as though the announcement of this lens has been totally overshadowed by that of the 10D body.</i>"

<p>

That may be, but personally, I find this lens more interesting than the body.

<p>

"<i>I notice that the filter size of the 17-40 f/4L is 77mm, the same as for the 16-35 f/2.8L. Do you think this was really necessary?</i>"

<p>

Hm... I don't know if it was <i>necessary</i>, but consider that the 20-35/3.5-4.5 also uses 77mm filters, and it isn't even as wide. Maybe they made the thread diameter 77mm so that a filter of standard thickness would not cause vignetting?

"<i> Suddenly, we're freer to experiment, to do "what ifs", to go after "impossible" shots, and to know after viewing a frame and histogram what to change to improve the image (ISO, white balance, and the usual creative/technical elements), or whether it's time to give up on it.</i>"

<p>

In my opinion, this is the biggest reason to go digital. Particularly if you are travelling, and you have only one opportunity to get the shot that you want. As a non-pro, it's hard for me to put a financial value on this convenience. But it *is* worth something.

"<i>...I think I've made a lot of enemies :-) by even suggesting that the camera may not be worth the money....</i>"

<p>

Hey Steve, don't worry about it. For what it's worth, I can honestly say that the D10 is NOT worth it (to me)! ...but that's only because I actually enjoy living with my wife. :)

<i>why 2 70-200s and 2 300s? You can turn off the IS u know and aren't the f/2.8 the better ones anyway? You can stop them down to 4 to imitate the other two, you know!? hehehe, I know you know that! =p</i>

<p>

Even with the million bucks, I'd still have to carry my gear around! (I guess I could always hire porters... but I wouldn't.) The f/4 lenses are there when I don't want to carry a lot of weight. If I had to compromise, I'd only get one 70-200 and one 300.

<p>

But being rich means not having to compromise.... :)

My list:

<p>

<i><b>Bodies:</b></i><br>

2x Canon EOS 1V HS<br>

2x Canon EOS 1Ds<br>

2x Canon Elan 7 (for quiet photography)

<p>

<i><b>Lenses:</b></i><br>

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L<br>

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L<br>

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (when I want to hurt myself)<br>

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L (when I don't)<br>

Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L (just to try out tilting and shifting)<br>

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4<br>

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L (for when it's really dark)<br>

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro<br>

Canon EF 135mm f/2<br>

Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro<br>

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS<br>

Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS<br>

Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS<br>

Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L (for a couple of moon shots)<br>

Canon EF 1.4x II<br>

Canon EF 2x II<br>

<p>

I'd have to buy support for the above, i.e. tripods, heads, bags, batteries, memory cards, film etc.

 

I'd spend the rest of the money going to places so that I could use the stuff.

I'd say that you can't just look at it from a financial point of view - otherwise, as Bob A. says, you could just buy an inexpensive manual focus camera to take your pictures. I think a lot of whether or not the 10D is "worth it", will depend on whether you enjoy dealing with the digital medium.

As with almost any lens selection question, the answer is dependent on your shooting style. *My* traveling takes me into forests, where many of my subjects are close-up, as opposed to far away. I end up using the macro end of my 100/2.8 fairly often to take pictures of interesting fungus, wood/stone textures, or bugs. This may or may not appeal to you.

<p>

I don't find that the 2.8 aperture is too slow for portraits. Even when I had the 100/2, I typically stopped it down a little. However, 2.8 *is* a little slow for available light photography, although I have used it for concerts (with 1600 speed film), with some success.

<p>

I think that it would be useful to have >100mm for travel photography. Even for me, I will occasionally burst out of a forest onto a rocky outcrop with a fine view of hills, trees, etc. on the other side of a valley. I can recommend the 70-200/4L as a light, but well-built alternative. With a 25mm extension tube, you can get about 0.3x magnification - which is often "macro enough", depending on the subject. I suppose the 135/2L would also work, although its cost and the fact that I didn't really need the speed pushed me towards the zoom.

F X, definitely get the 17-40 - Then you can tell us how the lens compares to the 24-70 in the 24-40mm range. :)

<p>

<i>Hopefully you're right and the price difference is significantly more than just a few hundred dollars.</i>

<p>

Well, there may *not* be significantly more than a few hundred dollars of difference upon the 17-40's introduction. I really can't say how long it would take for the price to settle. How long did it take for the 70-200/4L? A year, maybe two?

"<i>If the price on this lens is right, it's certainly not far off from the 16-35 F2.8L.</i>"

<p>

Neither was the 70-200/4L very far off from the 70-200/2.8L, when it was introduced. My guess is that the 17-40 will eventually settle down to the US$600~$700 price point.

<p>

"<i> I'm just happy that Canon is bringing out new stuff, especially wide angle lenses. The more the merrier.</i>"

<p>

I'm definitely with you there.

"<i>...I believe, that this lens is directed primarily at the D30/D60/10D user market</i>"

<p>

Interesting speculation. You're probably right: Taking a second look, the curves do indeed take a nosedive after 13~16mm (near the corner of a D30/D60/10D sensor). I wonder if this means that the 1.6x factor for Canon's "consumer" DSLRs is here to stay?

"<i>Great photos are not based on great Lens MTFs!!!!</i>"

<p>

Certainly true, although MTFs *can* give you an idea of how best to use a particular lens (in theory anyway). Offering a different perspective on Isaac's comment on the MTFs: It looks to me like the stopped down performance of the 17-40 is comparable (or maybe even better) than the 16-35 at the wide end. Maybe this lens is more geared towards landscape photographers?

I hope Canon continues the trend of making junior-L lenses. I could use a 24-70/4L....

<i>"Henry's was only offering me CN$75 for it!!!! It's worth at least CN$275!!!"</i>

<p>

Well FJ, unfortunately, it is only <i>worth</i> what people are willing to pay for it. Considering that Henry's sells the 28-90 for about $150 used, and that most people don't <i>trade up</i> to a 28-90, $75 doesn't seem so bad. Though certainly, selling to a camera store is not the most lucrative method of unloading equipment.

<p>

When/if you do buy a new lens, this is something that you might want to consider - buy lenses that don't depreciate too quickly.

Hey FJ, nice variety of pictures.

<p>

"<i>They're differ from each other but... when I look at them, I feel good! =)</i>

<p>

I guess I'm the same way - I wouldn't be able to narrow down my choice of "BEST" picture because I like different shots for different reasons. As for equipment selection or numbers, they range all over the place. However, the one thing that most of the shots have in common is "good timing". Or maybe "lucky timing". :)