bob_hum

By nature, do you mean wildlife? Particularly birds? If so, then the trade of the 70-200 for the 100-400 might work out well for you.

If you just mean flowers, streams, forests, and mountains, I think you already have an excellent kit! With your two zooms (+TC), you've got 24 through 280 with a single filter size - that's pretty convenient. I don't foresee any troubles getting good portrait, travel or snapshot images either.

<p>

Buying a wide-angle prime could be good. I like them because I find that wide-angle zooms don't focus closely enough for my purposes. (Except the 16-35, but it's not really cheap enough for my consideration.)

<p>

Sorry to disappoint you, but you may already have everything you need! :)

Really, the best single lens option I can see is the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. You'd have to find some way to raise an additional US$300 though. Maybe sell your 75-300 and replace your EOS 5 with an Elan II? With 3rd party TCs, I believe this lens will still *attempt* to AF with cameras below the EOS 3 - you'd have to check the archives to be sure.

<p>

Alternatively, can you use two cameras + lenses? If so, you may be able to get an Elan II and a 300 f/4 (non-IS) for ~$800-$900. Then, if you keep the 75-300 on the Elan II, and the 300 + 2xTC on the EOS 5, you should be ready for anything: You would still have zooming capability from 75-300, and you'd have a fair 600. Mind you, it probably would have been better if you had Canon's own TC for this task....

"<i>- but I haven't read any real comparision between the new & old when it comes to optical performance. Any one care to comment on that specifically?</i>"

<p>

Bob, the original comparison test (between the 28-70 and 24-70) that prompted this post is located at Luminous Landscape. You can follow the link (in the first reply) to see Michael Reichmann's quick-and-dirty comparison test and conclusions.

Nicolas, you won't get any arguments from me. I am well aware of the many improvements of the EOS 3 over the Elan 7. I wish I could afford one. However, in my post I did not presume that Andrew needed/wanted all the bells and whistles that the EOS 3 has to offer. The only thing I know for sure is that he wants MLU - and I just wanted to make him aware that the Elan 7 has this feature.

<p>

Andrew, certainly if you have the money, the EOS 3 (or maybe 1V) is the way to go. Just make sure that you have some money left over for a good set of lenses!

"<i>The camera is almost 5 years old and I wonder if it's still worth investing in one or wait for its successor.</i>"

<p>

You have to decide this for yourself - given a choice between an EOS 3, or no camera at all, I'd choose the former. :) In a bid to "convince you more": If you want to take pictures NOW, and if the F100 doesn't have what you need/want, then it is the inappropriate tool for you - get the EOS 3.

<p>

Additionally, by mentioning the PB-E2, I've assumed that you need ~7fps. If this assumption is wrong, and you really only need ~3fps, an Elan 7 is half the price of the EOS 3 and has the mirror lock-up capability too.

You can use the RC-1. Don't know about the RC-5.

"<i>what brand should the step-up ring be? or does it really matter? this is the tripod...</i>"

<p>

No, the brand of step-up ring isn't important - It's only a piece of metal. Regarding the tripod: I don't like tripods with legs constrained in the middle - I find them too inflexible to use. As mentioned above, I have the Manfrotto 190 (Bogen 3001), which I think is a great starter tripod. You can probably get it and a tripod head as a packaged deal. If you *do* end up getting the Canon, don't sweat it - you'll be far, far ahead of the guy that only ever handholds his shots.

If you don't mind carrying around two lenses at a time, I would recommend the 50 f/1.4. It's relatively cheap, light, and fast. If you often want to carry around a single do-everything lens, the 24-70 f/2.8L may be the best choice. To alleviate the cost, you might consider selling your 17-35 f/2.8L to raise some of the funds, and perhaps replace it with a 17mm or 20mm prime.

"<i>At the same price, which would you suggest?</i>"

<p>

I don't think the lack of USM is a big deal with wide-angle lenses. I think the main question you have to answer is: Do you want to go wider than 20mm? Personally, I find 20mm to be wide enough (if not too wide) for most of my photography. So I'd choose the Canon for myself. Another advantage is that it uses 77mm filters; I believe the Sigma uses gelatin filters. Also, with the Sigma, there are the possible (future) incompatibility issues to deal with.

<p>

Big BUT... if *you* need to use 15-20 mm fairly regularly, the Sigma is probably the best deal out there.

I don't know what is meant by "zoom/focus control: not applicable", but the focusing ring is at the very front of the lens instead of in the middle. As for the kit you described, it sounds pretty good to me. A few notes though: 1) I've never seen the Canon deluxe tripod 200, so I can't comment on this. 2) There aren't too many Canon lenses that use 52mm filters like the 50/1.8 uses. Consequently, you may want to consider getting a 58mm circular polarizer and step-up ring, so that the filter can be used with future lens purchases. 58mm is a fairly common filter size for Canon.

<p>

Good luck, and happy shooting!

Canon EF lenses come with a switch that changes the lens mode from autofocus to manual focus. In some of Canon's lenses, you can still manually focus while in autofocus mode. These include most, but not all, the 'USM' lenses. The 50 f/1.8 is NOT one of these lenses, so if you try to manually focus while in autofocus mode, you can actually damage the lens. I agree with Nello that the best thing for you to do is to go to the store and check it out.

<p>

Also, I should add that I've never found it easy to manually focus on a Rebel-series camera - because of the small viewfinder and the lack of any focusing aids. So if you intend to do a lot of manual focusing, an old manual focus camera might be best. For example, I was able to buy a Canon FTb-n body, 28 f/2.8, 50 f/1.7, and 135 f/2.5 lenses, for under US$300.

I agree with Isaac that from a focal length standpoint, the 24-85 is the better lens for you. An alternate viewpoint: I have used the 28-105 and have found the lens to be pretty good. Advantages of it over the 24-85 are the lower price, and the use of 58mm filters (common with your 75-300, whereas the 24-85 uses 67mm filters).

<p>

As for buying equipment, have you considered mail order or buying used?

Here's a website that compares the various speedlite flashes: <a href="http://www.kjsl.com/~dave/speedlites.html">http://www.kjsl.com/~dave/speedlites.html</a>

<p>

In your place, I would get the 420. In the future, if you decide to do really interesting things with flash, you can ADD the 550 to your bag of equipment and use the 420 as a wireless slave unit. Something of note: The 420 can provide flash cover down to a 24mm focal length. The 550 will cover down to 17mm.

<p>

Alternatively, the discontinued 380 is still a good flash and can be purchased cheaply (used) but it lacks the swivel head, modeling light, and slave capabilities of the 420. (And of course, it's a little weaker.) If all you need is something better than the built-in flash, and you'd like to save more money for lens upgrades, this is a fine choice. It's the one I made....

Bill, certainly for general photography the 24-70 should be much more useful than the 24 f/1.4L. However, if the prime was on your list of future purchases, you'd have to consider whether losing the two stops is worth the improvement in distortion control.

<p>

A S, it's true that I was only relying on conventional wisdom when I made the "easily beaten" comment. And it may be true that the 24-70 is one of the best zooms in current production. I'd still find it hard to believe that it's better than each of the following primes: 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, and 50/1.4, when compared at the appropriate focal lengths, but I'm trying to keep an open mind about that.

<p>

Jack, when you say "as-is", do you mean pre-digital manipulation? Because right now, I'm still living in the stone, uh, I mean film era.... :) Also, after you've done your tests on the 1Ds, why not post a quick note with your results - I'm sure we'd all appreciate it.

Beau, I have no idea where you can find them. Maybe there was only enough stock for those that preordered them.

<p>

Jack, the distortion that you witnessed at the 24mm setting - would you say that it's okay for nature but not great for architecture? What about vignetting at 24mm? Obviously, I'm trying to answer the age-old question of: "One zoom for convenience? Or a trio of primes for less money but more(?) quality?".

<p>

Fanatic, I imagine that the decision you had to make regarding the 16-35 vs. 24-70 is/will be a common one. How does one decide between the zoom that is capable of the ultra-wide and the close focusing, vs. the standard (more generally useful) zoom that can be easily beaten optically (I'd guess) by primes. By all means, after your trip tell us your optical and ergonomic impressions of the 24-70 compared to the two lenses that it replaced.

I can't directly answer your questions about the 135mm lenses, although I can say that the 100 f/2 is a nice, (relatively) inexpensive lens if you don't really need the extra 35mm. One advantage of the f/2L over the f/2.8SF is that you can use Canon teleconverters on it.

Sorry, I screwed up the links. Let me try again: <p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-system">http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-system</a>

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/tripods/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/tripods/</a>

<p>

<a href="http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/bogtri.html">http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/bogtri.html</a>.

Oops, bad linking job. Let me try it again: <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml</a>

This model is only 2 years old so I wouldn't expect it to be replaced so soon. However, there is some speculation that the replacement for the D60 is about to be released. The D60 is somewhat of a digital version of the Elan 7. Perhaps this is what you are thinking of?

This question might be a bit early in the asking, but as Michael

Reichmann has a quick and dirty review here: <a

href>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml</a

href>, I thought I'd try.

<p>

Does anybody else have any experience with this lens? Specifically,

I'm wondering about its optical performance at the wide end, compared

(at the appropriate focal lengths) to the 24 f/2.8 and 28 f/2.8 lenses.

Really, the best place to start is with the following article: <a href>http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-system</a href>. With $200, I would recommend that you start with the 50 f/1.8. With the left over money, you should buy a sturdy tripod, and use it most of the time. You will probably want to get one with a quick release plate. I use a Manfrotto 190 (Bogen 3001) which suits me well - It's cheap, not too heavy and I'm not tall. You can also get a remote switch if you have shaky hands. Here's a good general article on tripods: <a href>http://www.photo.net/equipment/tripods/</a href>, and here's one on the Bogen tripods: <a href>http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/bogtri.html</a href>.

<p>

Ultimately, you will have to decide where you should buy your equipment, and what you can risk. Usually, I'm satisfied buying used.

<p>

Good Luck!

"<i>the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 is 199$ so i am trying to find an used one right now...but is there any other lens that has aproximately the same features? if i won't find any i guess i'll go for the 50mm 1.8 ...</i>"

<p>

Canon offers 3 midrange standard zooms: 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM, 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 USM, and 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. They all have similar "features", although the 28-135 also has image stabilization technology built in. The 28-105 is the cheapest of the three.

<p>

I started my hobby with both the 28-105 and the 50 f/1.8. I found the 28-105 to be a good general purpose lens, but I liked my pictures from the 50 f/1.8 more.

Are you planning to REPLACE the Sigma 400 with the Canon 100-400? Or will you keep both?

<p>

I've used the 100-400. I've found it to be sharp enough for my purposes, and I've been very impressed with the IS. Like Richard, I would have guessed that the Sigma 400 f/5.6 APO HSM Macro would be sharper than the Canon 100-400 @ 400, but I haven't used the Sigma.

<p>

If sharpness and contrast are more important to you than convenience, I would agree with Isaac's idea of the Canon 300 f/4L IS and teleconverter.

I recall that you were trying to decide between the 70-200/4 and this lens. I would think the zoom would have been more "generalist". In the end, what finally made you go for the prime?

<p>

Regarding the lens hood - you get one free with the lens, right? Why would you not want to use it?

"<i>i am thinking the Canon 28-105mm F/4-5.6 USM would be a wise choice...what do u say? The 75-300 is kinna big and for landscape it has the viewangle low unlike the 28-105mm with the 65 degrees...i think it is good for all kinds of pictures and lightweight...</i>

<p>

You were considering the 55-200 and the 80-200 lenses, so I assumed that was the range you needed, and that is why I suggested the 75-300 (supposedly reasonable in the 75-200 range). If you are looking for a more general lens, I can recommend the Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM. I would NOT recommend the f/4-5.6 version that you mentioned above.