lionel_rafferty

<p>I've been a big fan of B+W and Heliopan filters for a long time because of their quality. But they're so darned expensive. How does the Hoya Pro 1 series stack up against these?</p>

<p>Mr Spirer, you and others have been vehemently defending the opinion that equipment does not matter. Then you add the caveat "This doesn't apply to commercial work where very specific types of results can be required." That's the whole point of the debate! The statement "Equipment doesn't matter" is too broad and needs to be qualified. If your <em>purpose</em> is as general as "Go out and get some great photographs", then you're right, a skilled photographer can do that with just about anything. But I recently did a wedding and I can assure you my client would not have been very happy if I'd done it with crappy lenses, grainy film and poor lighting. And as for looking at other people's photos, I did not join PN to post photos. I joined to learn something from other photographers through these forums.</p>

<p>Despite the over-generalization implied in the title of Ken Rockwell's article, there are some valid points in it. But while it may be true that a skilled photographer can take great pictures with an iPhone camera, she may not be able to get a <em>specific</em> shot with it. I don't think you could get a shot like <a href="http://www.burnmagazine.org/dialogue/2009/01/profile-steve-mccurry/">this</a> using Mathew Brady's equipment. So in that sense, equipment <em>does</em> matter.</p>

<p>Just my two cents. If you take a car for a test drive, it is still considered new, not used or demo. Shouldn't the same apply here? As long as it stays in the store, shouldn't it still be considered new, even if it's been opened?</p>

<p>17-55/2.8, 100/2.8 macro</p>

<p>I have the Canon 10-22 and I absolutely love it. I'm sure the Tokinas and Sigmas are fine lenses, but in my opinion, I don't see how they could possibly be any better than the Canon.</p>

<p>Mark, I'll have to do some more research on that statement about non-IS lenses. I may want to go for the II afterall. Thanks for the info.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies. James, I have an EOS 3, hardly used any more, and an EOS 60D. It sounds like the version III is not worth the extra cash in my case since I don't have, and don't foresee ever getting, the new 400mm or longer lenses. So it looks like my best bet is to go for a used version I since it is optically identical to the version II. I think the only reason Canon recommends the version II is probably because the version I is no longer in production. Thanks.</p>

<p>I'm looking to get a 1.4X teleconvertor. Canon has three different versions. I can get a used version I or a new or used II or III. What are the differences between the three? I have only two lenses which will accept Canon teleconvertors: a 200mm f/2.8L and a 300mm f/4L IS. I probably won't use it on the 200 because a 280 f/4 is pretty much the same as a 300 f/4. So that leaves the 300mm f/4L IS. The Canon website recommends the version II teleconvertor for this lens. Would I see much diffference if I used a version I, and would I gain any benefits if I used a version III?</p>