citizensmith1664875108

The D60 is more full featured but has some weaknesses compared to the 300D. The 300D is more polished but missing a bunch of stuff. So I'll go with the sell both and get a 10D suggestion as it has the best of both.

 

Me, I'm trying to decide whether (having gone digital) to sell my much loved 7E, or my 1000FNS which was my 21st birthday present. It'll probably be the 7E as I wouldn't get enough money to make it worth selling the 1000.

Of the various lenses I've owned and used I'd say the best value for money are the 24 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4. Not sure I'd ever count the 70-200 as a bargain as bargain to me means low priced. With those two you certainly get a lot of bang for your buck though.

Like a previous poster said, no matter who makes them the expensive lenses are good and the cheap lenses crappy. Also, Canon tend to be more expensive.

 

So, if you've got a bunch of change to burn most people do the brand elitist thing and get a Canon lens. If you're short on cash you'll get a sigma because they are cheaper, but in that circumstance you'll be buying a cheapy lens and it'll be crap no matter who made it. So, Sigma get a bad stick not because they are inherently weak, but because they sell proportionaly more crap lenses than good.

I got about 25,000 photos out of a pair of A20s on an excavation site. Admittedly one died when it got rained on, and the other died when it got smacked against a wall, but neither of those failures were anything to do with frame limits. And both were being used in a dusty and rough environment.

Why are you so concerened about missing a few milimeters of range. Personally I shoot with just a 24 f/2.8, 100 f/2 and a 70-200 f/4 so I'm missing huge swathes of range. Sure I could swap lenses around to make sure I have a complete range covered, but why bother when these three do everything I need. Other lenses (such as the kit lens that came with my rebel) just gather dust most of the time.

I'm another who has used the non-IS 75-300 USM and now switched to a 70-200 f/4 on a 300D.

 

The 75-300s are all optically similar, with the IS version potentially being weakest due to the extra lens element. Mine was OK in the 100-200 range but not too hot at either end, and generally needed to be stopped down a lot (around f/8) to get good results. Try anything like adding a close-up filter and the lens was unusable. Try using it in low light and you find not only is it too slow (the IS is no doubt different) but you have to use it wide open where it is soft throughout its range. Oh, and this lens doesn't include a lens hood wheras the 70-200 does. I think thats around $30 for the proper canon hood.

 

The 70-200 is sharp wide open and throughout its range. Its supposedly one of the sharpest zooms canon makes. However, it is more expensive and a fair bit bigger. I'm absolutely happy with the switch, I've got photos from it I never would have achieved with the 75-300. If you can afford it, and don't mind the extra space it will take up it certainly is a wonderful choice.

Yeah, to zoom to 100% just double click the zoom tool. to crop just hit the C key to bring up the crop tool, select the area you want, right-click and select either cancel or accept. Couldn't be easier.

 

You do end up with a smaller image of course. You could enlarge it back to its previous size but depending on how much you cropped you'll lose more and more quality as the program estimates everything for you.

In general it's supposed to be in the high quality consumer grade of lenses. Similat quality to the 28-105 f/3.4-4.5 and similar glass. It shows minimal distortion, good overall sharpness, and is well put together. I only traded mine in because I wanted a 24 f/2.8 instead.

Don't format it, put it in a card reader and see what files are taking up this 340Mb, they could be worth something or at least entertaining. I hope it was dirt cheap, as a 512Mb CF card isn't exactly expensive and is faster and less fragile.

I've just finished a 2-day nature photography course where the lead instructor (I was the second instructor) was using Nikon D100 with a Tokina 24-200 f/3.5-5.6. This was compared to my RebelD and 24 f/2.8, 50 f/1.8, 100 f/2, and 70-200 f/4 lenses. He did use his tripod a whole hell of a lot more than me, partially due to the slower lens and partially due to different shooting styles. However, at the end of the day review using a decent quality digital projector there wasn't really a lot of difference in image quality. You could probably find it if you looked but you'd need a side by side comparison.

 

As a lot of people have said, the hyperzooms aren't nearly as bad as they used to be.

Sure you can spend a lot of money on filters. A haze filter could be $15 from Tiffen or $80 from B+W. B+W (and other premium manufacturers) can rattle on all they like about how their filters are hand ground by highly trained monks, but in the field you are rarely going to see any difference. Dust in the lens won't show up, scatches on your lens probably won't show up, so fractional differences in filter quality will only be visible under the most exacting tests.

The body - Sounds like you know exactly what you are getting into. You don't expect it to have every pet feature. Basically, great choice for a basic body. Get a better one later when you've figured out what you really need.

 

28 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.8 are both stellar lenses. Cheap build, but thats not too much of a biggy on such small lenses. Although less wide the 35 f/2 is also another great choice to consider. I can spend entire days with just a 35mm prime.

 

The 90-300. Hmm. Really not a great lens, but none of the tele zooms in the cheap price range are. Sigma make a 70-300 that is supposed to have an edge over the cheap Canons. Do a search of the forums and you'll get the model number. Or a used Canon 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 could be a good choice. Have fun...

<< I can't help but chuckle a bit when every week my windows-user friends get a new virus and have to reinstall their system.>>

 

I think that may be as much a problem with your friends lack of knowledge. I've been using networked DOS/windows PCs for over 10 years and never had to reinstall becuase of a virus. Additionally, Macs are not more virus proof, its just that virus writers don't bother as Macs are not popular enough.

 

OK, I'm off to write a virus to give that Nikon with the wireless connection a focus problem. :)

You mentioned the low light thing. I know with mine it'll sometimes miss its focus because it will hunt, and rather than just give up it seems to say 'what the hell, this'll do' and let me take a picture that the turns out to be woefully out of focus. Maybe your photography conditions are causing this to happen to you more than normal.

 

Or, did all three come from the same place? Maybe they had a batch that were stored incorrectly and high heat (or something anyway) got to them. I've had some computer hardware cooked during a california summer in a storage shed.

yeah even simpler, get a ruler and place it at a 45degree angle, save printing out the focus chart. The vast majority of RebelD users, myself included, have had no problems, and I did focus check mine. To get three that are off implies you are either very unlucky or doing something wrong. If you could post some of the images we may be able to help you.

With the current viruses and cameras, no none. Now if at some point we got a talented hacker who hated Canon, or cameras running on some new version of Windows CE it could be another story. Now though, your safe.

Great article. Wish I had deer in my back yard. I'm more limited to squirrels.

 

Sometime I'd love to see a comparison of the 75-300 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS. My theory has always been to stick to fast primes because a prime that is two stops faster out weighs the two stop IS advantage due to the greater shutter speed. It'd be interesting to see to what degree that is (or isn't) true. Your article certainly shows that under challenging conditions a 1-stop speed advantage isn't nearly as good as IS.

Maybe tax refund season should actually get declared a holiday. My tax refund got me a 70-200 f/4 and I'm thinking about trading out my 50 f/1.8 for a f/1.4. It's like Christmas without the overeating, and with better weather.

I use a RebelD (so same crop factor) with a 24 f/2.8, 50 f/1.8, 100 f/2 and 70-200 f/4. Oh yeah, and the RebelD kit zoom, but I'm not sure I've used it yet. I'm really happy with this selection, it give me a good range, and speed and versatility where I need it. I got the 70-200 f/4 as I didn't want the size of a f/2.8 and I already had a 100 f/2.

 

I like to travel light and only ever bring everything when I'm hiking/camping. For the most part the 70-200 and 24 does it for me. As you already have the 17-35 I'd recommend either the 70-200 f/2.8 or if you decide that lens is a little too big for every day use I'd go for the f/4 version and something like the 85 f/1.8.

I've used the kenko 2x (non pro) and it sucked. Yakim's comments is spot on, the more you try and add the more it degrades the image. A 1.4 won't do much and is often perfectly acceptable. I didn't know much about TCs when I bought my 2x or I would have stuck with a 1.4. With the 2x the darker view finder and potential loss of autofocus on some lenses slow you down a fair bit. Something that may or may not be a problem. It also caused some loss of contrast, and a definite loss of sharpness.

 

As Bill said, you get what you pay for. If you could stick a 3x TC on a 200 lens and get even a half decent 600 then Canon would never have sold a 600 lens. There is a reason people pay a small fortune for the big primes.

You've pretty much got it covered yourself.

 

The f1.8 is exactly what you described, fast and sharp. It's negatives are no distance scale, a little bit of distortion, and a poor build quality.

 

The f2.5 is sharper, and shows no distortion. It's slower, but by no means slow (I use an f/2.8 as my every day lens and I'm fine with it). It's better built and has Macro capabilities.

 

If you really want the Macro and can live with losing a stop of speed then go ahead, it's a good lens.

Everyone who's used IS has loved it. One thing to remember though, the IS may help with handholding at slower shutter speeds, but it does nothing for subject movement. If you tend to shoot fast moving subject the IS is worth less than if you normally shoot static stuff.

Haven't ever held one but the f3.5-4.5 version is supposed to be much better than the f/4 version. In fact, from what I've read it's better than pretty much any of the Canon consumer zooms available at the moment. Pretty much the poor mans 70-200 f/4. Not as good, but if you can't afford the 70-200 f/4 its the best you'll get. This also explains why the f/3.5-4.5 is so hard to find used while the f/4 version is a dime a dozen. The f/4 version is supposedly equivalent to the canon 75-300s in quality (in other words very average).

Portraits and Fashion the 85 is better as it beats the pants of the 70-200 in a situation where you don't need a zoom, and 85 is a good focal length.

 

For weddings and nature the 70-200 is better as it gives you the zoom useful in weddings and the range useful for nature. If you suddenly need to be shooting at 200mm the 85 pretty much sucks. :)

 

So how about an 85 and a 70-200 f/4. Best of both worlds and less money.

Kind of like people persuading their Xboxes to boot under Linux and then using them as a dirt cheap computers, or busting open a Tivo and sticking a decent size hard drive in there.

 

I look forward to the review, Bob.