sean_hester

if 42/1.4 was too expensive, (like the 35/1.4 is) i'd settle for a

42/1.8 IS. they could make that for sure for under $500.

 

<p>

 

P.S. just curious. do you want halfway between 35 and 50 because

35-->50 is too big a jump? or so you can get rid of your 35mm and

50mm?

 

<p>

 

P.P.S. my ideal lens right now would be a 28-105 IS. i'd even pay

as much (or more) as the 28-135 IS if they both existed. the 28-105

shares the 58mm filter size with the 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 primes.

(and the xx-300, 70-210 zooms for that matter) it also shares the

hood with the 28 prime. it's also the exact same size as the 85/1.8

which makes finding bag space easy.

 

<p>

 

the 28-135 needs huge 72mm filters, and is also much bigger (closerr

to the size of the 28-70/2.8L then the 28-105) and (for me) would

require lugging around an extra hood (because i need the 28-105

hood for the 28 prime anyway)

 

<p>

 

but i suppose i'm wierd. first of all i have primes. and i use

hoods. and i think 135 f5.6 isn't all that worthwhile. (since i can

get 135 at a bigger aperture from the 70-210 or xx-300)

 

<p>

 

but canon will undoubtedly sell more because it's 28-135 rather than

28-105. most people probably want one lens and the more zoom range

the better. i wonder how long until there's an EF 28-200 IS. (eek!)

note: the old version of the 50 1.8 has distance and dof markings

too. the new one does not.

 

<p>

 

the 50 1.4 is equal or better in every way. it costs 4 times as much,

however. is it 4 times better? it wasn't for me, so i got an (old

verion) 50 1.8.

 

<p>

 

P.S. if i had to choose between the 50 1.4 and the new version 50 1.8

i might have chosen the 1.4. thankfully there's plenty of used 50

1.8s around to buy.

the 20mm prime is better then any zoom in the ultra wide range. but

all three canon lenses are very close. they are all about the same

as far as ergonomics go.

i've never bought more than 1 or 2 photography equipment items at a

time, so i don't have any 1st hand experience.

 

<p>

 

but phillip greenspun didn't seem to have too much luck with mail

order places and package deals (see his static photo.net article on

"places to buy a camera")

 

<p>

 

i'd figure that the mail order places are operating on low fixed

margins and they wouldn't want to make a "package deal". you might

have luck with a retail store this way, but i don't know that you'd

make out any better.

 

<p>

 

the only thing i can say is call around. but be careful about mail

order places that aren't b&h (the only one i use). read the photo.net

neighbor to neighbor section before calling any photo stores.

i'm not put off by used things. 4 of my 6 lenses are used and 1 is

grey (only the original lens i bought when i got the camera (before i

knew about grey and used markets) is a new, US version. so for me,

for the same money, i'd rather have a used canon 80-200 then a tokina

80-200.

 

<p>

 

as long as you test a used lens and get it from somehwere where you

can return it for a month or 2 weeks, used is fine.

you're almost not comparing apples to apples here. the canon 70-200

has a USM motor, while the others don't. nikon recently released an

80-200 with a AFS (same as USM) motor but it costs $1500 like the

canon 70-200. canon also made an 80-200 without the USM motor. that

can be found used for about $700-$800. so... once you're comparing

the same lenses with the same motors the prices are all very similar.

 

<p>

 

$700-$800 canon 80-200, nikon 80-200 (without AFS), tokina 80-200

 

<p>

 

$1400-$1500 canon 70-200, nikon 80-200 (with AFS)

i can't imagine having a tripod without a center column. 90% of the time, i leave it all the way down (for the incremental stability increase) but that other 10% of the time it's really nice to have.

klaus, since you're more concerned with accuracy then speed you'd be

better off with the eos 1. (providing you use fast lenses (see

below))

 

<p>

 

the eos-1/1n has an extra sensor that works at f2.8 or better. this

is an entirely different sensor and is 'better' than the

corresponding sensor on the other eos cameras, and the other sensors

on the eos-1. besides working as the cross sensor it is supposed to

provide more accurate focusing (not nesessarily faster or in lower

light, but actually more accurate)

 

<p>

 

all eos focusing is passive, meaning that it looks at the image and

focus to minimise the contrast variations. the camera keeps varying

the focusing until the minumum point is reached. this is NOT an

exact science and there is some inherant error in the system. a

sensor designed to work at f5.6 and below has a certain fixed (small)

error anount. a sensor designed to work at f2.8 and below has a

SMALLER error amount. and a sensor designed to work at f8 and below

(while very useful) has a LARGER error amount.

 

<p>

 

so... in theory with f2.8 and faster lenses the eos-1 should focus

'better' then other eos cameras. from f2.8-f5.6 it should be the

same.

 

<p>

 

P.S. as mr. terry noted experimentally... the one caevat is that

the elan-II has a 'regular' f5.6 cross sensor. while the only cross

sensor on the eos-1 is the 'improved' f2.8 one. so... with a f3.5-

f5.6 lens on the camera the elan-II actually has a bit of an

advantage in that is has a cross sensor working while the eos-1 does

not.

 

<p>

 

since i tend to use fast prime lenses, this isn't a concern of mine.

but if all you have is lenses slower then f2.8 you're probably better

off with the eos-5 or elan-II or even the original elan. they all

have cross sensors that work up to f5.6

mike D got the answer right.

stan... we probably could design an "ideal" camera system. but there

are some problems.

 

<p>

 

1. companies produce products that SELL, and sell at prices as far

above their cost as possible. not necissarily ones that are

technically perfect. so even if we did design the perfect system,

noone may want to make it, and noone may even want to buy it.

 

<p>

 

2. ideal would be different in 2-3 months.

 

<p>

 

3. we might not agree on ideal. for instance... i like light

plastic bodies (because i'm lazy and have the money to replace them

every few years) but most people seem to like heavy rugged metal

bodies that will last.

if you're waiting for one company to come up with a system that has

all the pluses and none of the minuses then you will probably wait

forever.

 

<p>

 

and even if you find a point in time when this is true, it will be

untrue in a couple of months.

 

<p>

 

pick one and go with it. it's your only hope...

the thing is some people LIKE the "science" part of photography, and

some people don't, and think it only gets in the way of the "art"

part. let those people buy cameras with gadgets to do the science for

them. (it's when you can buy a camera that claims to help you with

the "art" part that i'll get worried)

 

<p>

 

actually an A2 is a pretty advanced camera. it's doing lots of the

science for you. (unless you turn those features off) i'm

surprised one more feature put you over the edge into thinking that

we've gone too far.

 

<p>

 

i suppose if you had an n90s right before the f5 was announced, you'd

figure that RGB metering was "too far"?

all you "need" and some film and a box with a hole.

 

<p>

 

more AF points would make picture taking faster for me. probably not

"better" but less of a hassle. isn't that what ALL camera gadgets

do? internal metering, AF, etc, etc, etc... they're all to make the

process EASIER, not BETTER.

 

<p>

 

so... "help my photography"? i say YES. it'll make it faster,

which is a help.

i might buy an eos-3 soon, and i'll happily put my 100-300 4.5-5.6 on

it. there's some times and places i don't want to carry huge lenses.

the xx-300 lenses are pretty small and light, they have a place in my

bag because of that.

stanley lists the following as a canon advantage "Teleconvertors work

full featured with all EOS lenses/bodies"

 

<p>

 

that's not quite true. while canon's tcs do provide full function

(AF, IS, metering, etc.) with lenses they work with, the list of EOS

lenses that the TCs work with is pretty small. for the most part the

TCs work with prime lenses >= 135mm. there are a couple of

exceptions (70-200 f2.8) but probably 99% of EOS lenses purchased

(zooms, 35, 50, 85, 100 primes) are NOT compatable with canon's TCs.

>>>I was very surprised that in "P" mode the camera's intuition more

often than not matches mine.

 

<p>

 

why are you surprised? i'm not. the program modes in cameras were

designed by photographers (that are probably better than (or at least

as good as) i am) given the same set of inputs, (and with canon those

inputs include, focal length, max/min aperture of the lens, some input

about the quality of the lens (the P mode stops down more on cheaper

lenses where sharpness wide open is suspect) and meter readings from

several points around the frame. i'd assume the camera would pick

close to the same settings i would. unless i'm going for a "special

effect" (or unless i'm dumb and calculate wrong) the settings should

be pretty much automatic and the camera knows them as well as i do.

 

<p>

 

i use P mode 99% of the time. for about 95% of the shots P mode picks

what i would. for those last 5% i can switch the settings (either

with the P shift knob, or the compensation knob)

 

<p>

 

i am at peace with the fact that my camera is almost as smart as me

(or maybe smarter) maybe i need higher self esteem?

i must be wierd. "hollow and plasticy" sounds like something i want

over "solid and metally". the lighter the better. i sure wish my

eos-5 was lighter (and hollow, maybe it would float :-) and with all

the hooplah about mirror shake, the lighter the mirror/shutter is the

better.

 

<p>

 

but, you have to realize, i pretty much accept cameras as "consumer

equipment". so just like computers, televisions, VCRs, etc i expect

to have to replace it in 5 years or less. partly because it's falling

apart, but mostly becasue in 5 years there will be BETTER cameras,

computers, tvs, etc. to buy. so even if my camera was in mint

condition after 5 years, i'd be getting a new one anyway.

 

<p>

 

so if having it lighter means it only lasts for 5 years I'LL TAKE IT.

i'm very used to the EOS system and i like the ergonomics alot. but

it's definetly EOS that's "different". most other cameras are

more similar to nikon. (change aperture on the lens itself, etc...)

 

<p>

 

as for the features, that's a different story. canon puts more

features on it's lower end cameras. nikon seems to think (probably

correctly in most cases) that people who'd buy the N60 wouldn't miss

those features. i suppose the perception is "better photographer =

has more money to spend on camera" and "newer photographer = has less

money to spend on cameras" i know some people that don't fit that

mold. and i'll bet alot of photo.net readers don't fit that mold.

but 95% of cameras are sold to people who can barely pronounce

aperture, much less spell it, or find the aperture control on their

camera. so leaving advanced features (mirror lockup, spot

metering, easy to get to manual controls, etc.) off of cheaper bodies

is probably a GOOD marketing descision, even though i don't agree with

it.

>>>There is absolutely no reason for them to be doing this (since even

the F-601 could expose AI lenses perfectly with cw or spot metering),

except that they don't want people actually to use old lenses, but

rather buy new ones.

 

<p>

 

i REALLY doubt they're doing this on purpose. actually going out of

their way to make the exposure wrong. it's more likely that for cost

saving reasons on the cheaper bodies they are stuck with this

"problem". it would make the camera more expensive to fix it and they

figure low price is more important to people that will but the cheaper

cameras. and they're probably right!

i think ANY of the current systems could work on a digital body

without too much fiddling. in fact, doesn't kodak make both a nikon

and canon digital body? (for about $20k)

 

<p>

 

but it does seem to me that canon is more "gadget" oriented then any

of the others. with minolta being second.

 

<p>

 

not that it's a bad thing, but nikon, contax, leica, etc seem to be

more oriented toward maximizing the optics and other "glass" oriented

things; rather then AF, IS, and other "electronic" things.

 

<p>

 

P.S. by the time a <$1000 digital body as good as you want comes out

it will be time to re-buy everything you own anyway. new lenses for

each system come out at the rate of 3-4 a year and we all know we need

to have the latest one(s). ;-)

a couple of points, i'll bet noone cares about, but who knows...

 

<p>

 

>>>When it comes to low mm lenses such as a consumer 28-105 or a 35mm

f/2.8 I am not sure that a lens motor that doesn't let one constantly

switch from manual to auto focusing offers much over a lens that needs

a motor in the body.

 

<p>

 

the 28-105 (consumer lens that it is) has one of the "good" motors

that let's you do the manual/auto focus trick. as do the

consumer 20-35, 24-85, 28-135, 35-135, 70-210, 100-300.

 

<p>

 

>>>The 500mm f/4.5 won't autofocus with the 1.4x TC on most Canon EOS

bodies.

 

<p>

 

this isn't really a glitch. no aperture smaller then 5.6 will AF.

(escept on the eos where the cutoff is f8) 500 4.5 becomes 700 6.7.

so no AF. you don't get AF with the 400 5.6 and 1.4 TC either. or

ANY lens slower then f4.

 

<p>

 

at least canon only makes 1 TC of each magnification. ;-)

i'll openly condemn them for you. not that i think they do them

wrong, or try to mislead, but that i think their usefullness is

marginal. it's only one sample (though you said not to mention that)

they are at one focus distance, they aren't at all apertures, etc.

it's one data point in 30 that needs to be considered.

 

<p>

 

you're on the right track when you make forays into deciding based on

usage, cost, etc. MUCH more important then sharpness since ALL these

lenses are VERY GOOD OR BETTER. now if you had a 28-200 on your list,

that wouldn't be the case. but every single lens on your list is a

great one.

 

<p>

 

get the zoom. you can put a good closeup lens on it for your first

attempts at macro. if you really get into macro, then get a dedicated

lens for it.

this is a harder to answer question then you think.

 

<p>

 

MTF isn't the best judge (though it's probably as good as any

other) take the 105 macro for instance. it works best as close focus

distances. 99% of MTF charts are made at infinity focus. i'm not

surprised that the 105 macro was "only" as good as the 70-200 at

infinity. if they did an MTF at closest focusing distance the 105

macro would blow them all away.

 

<p>

 

actually, i use price as my "pre-buy/test myself" guide. it's as good

as MTF for judging.

 

<p>

 

all these lenses you mention are very good. trying to differentiate

among them based on MTF is futile. buy the zoom if you like the

convience, buy the primes of you want the teeeeny bit of

better performance they'll give.

no. when i first found photo.net i wasn't qualified to ask any

intelligent questions. that's why i read 98% of the static content

and 85% of the archived questions before i asked my first question.

 

<p>

 

and even my first question was met with disdain. (it was a "should i

upgrade my lenses?" question) but at least it was properly categorized

and contained a photographic goal and the like. so i got answers that

led me in the right direction. many of the answers were a little

condescneding, but that didn't bother me, at least i got answers that

led me in the right direction.

 

<p>

 

my subsequent questions have been much better.

 

<p>

 

the key here is that 99% of the "dumb" questions have already been

asked/answered on photo.net. (one by me ;-) so, if people would read

before they typed, they'd find their answer anyway.

noone's really answering my question(s) (maybe noone knows but nikon

and canon)

 

<p>

 

yes, i believe the price on the 80-200 AFS will drop soon to $1300

just like the canon 70-200 L. but that's still MUCH more then the

non-AS version. nikon users have always said "there's no way i'd pay

$1300 for an 80-200". but that seems to be where the AFS version will

settle down. and i'm sure even we hobbysts will buy it once the

prices comes down from $2000 to $1300.

 

<p>

 

my two questions still are

 

<p>

 

1. does that fancy motor cost $500 to intall on a lens?

 

<p>

 

and

 

<p>

 

2. is that fancy motor worth $500 to photographers?

 

<p>

 

for #2 the canon users don't have a chioce. (unless you want to

buy a used 80-200) but nikon users will. do you think people will

dump their non AFS lenses to pay $500 for that fancy motor? do you

think new buyers of 80-200s will pay the $500 premium for that fancy

motor?