citizensmith1664875108

Nothing like the correct mix of Sadism, Necrophilia and Beastiality. Or as others put it, flogging a dead horse. :)

I think Jim's point may have been that the RebelD (for instance) actually has a higher pixel density than a 1Ds. So if we take two photos using a given lens, and then crop the 1Ds image down to make it look the same as the RebelD's 'cropped' image, its actually the RebelD that has more raw data.

 

Of course number of pixels is just one piece of a bigger puzzle, but the point is definitely there.

Hyper zooms are normally complete crap. Canon and their 28-300 (and 35-300) are out to prive that if you spend enough on a hyper zoom it can be pretty good. Still not anywhere near as good as the 70-200s though.

 

Another suggestion, wait a while and see what how the new 75-300 DO IS turns out. It'll give you better range than the 70-200s, as well as also being small, light, and therefore easier to handle on a boat. As others have suggested adding a 28-135 IS for your wider stuff would be a great choice too.

Are they worth the price? Depends on how large your disposible income is and how far up a diminishing returns curve you are willing to go. There are plenty of good alternatives if you don't mind making sacrifices.

Here's an idea, retire it when its broken, not when its done a set number of photos based on Canon's reliability estimates. Some cameras are never going to make it that far anyway,and some will still be running at twice the number. And unless you take over 100,000 photos on each camera per year replacing them yearly is pointless.

 

Then again, maybe you have a case of equipment envy and always have to have the newest, fastest, best, and are looking for justification.

You've kind of answered some of it yourself. The 18-55 is a lot better than everyone expected, and the 17-35 not as good. But, look at the prices, everyones expectations were much different. If you pay $100 for a lens and its pretty good, cool. If you pay $1000+ and its in anyway disappointing.....

 

So, the 17-35 will still undoubtable be better than the 18-55 (how much is up for debate). What it will definitely offer is a much faster, constant apperture, and a much more solid build. The extra 1mm is too small a difference to really matter. The question is how much of a dent is the lens and its larger, more expensive filters going to make in your bank account?

 

Personally, I'd say your comment about using longer folcal lengths means that this lens may not be worth your time.

It's pretty much all been covered but...

 

Mk1 - Distance scale and (not exactly important in such a small lens) metal mount, around $100 used.

 

Mk2 - More advanced lens coatings but same glass (better flare resistance if I remember right), plastic mount, no distance scale. around $65 new.

 

So you are pretty much paying $35 (plus the 'used' status of the lens) for getting a distance scale.

So now go over to ebay and search for Cannon Cameras and see what you find. You can actually get good deals as most people spell it correctly so only the bad at splileng (or those who know) bid on the stuff.

Yeah, go ahead. Although I'd normally shy away from getting rid of primes, as you have reasons not to use it it makes no sense to keep it. The 20-35 is a much better lens than the 22-55, and as you said, on par with the 28-105. I've used both the 22-55 and 20-35 and also upgraded myself, although I did later ditch the 20-35 in favor of a 24 f/2.8.

Are Macs still stuck with 1 button mice or are they beyond that?

 

Me, I'd never bother with a Mac becuase I like to completely home grow my computers to my requirements, and be able to upgrade any component at any time. What we need is a way to run OSX or similar on AMD/Intel processors.

 

I use an Athlon XP2K, with 512Mb RAM, Photoshop CS, and a RebelD (and some powershots). I've had to create several posters (in excess of 200Mb size) and had no troubles.

Optically the 28-135 is supposed to have a slight edge over the 28-105.

It has IS which will be useful for handheld shots of static objects in low light. It has a bit longer range. It uses larger (more expensive) filters.

 

The 28-105 is marginally faster, smaller, lighter, cheaper, and uses the more standard 58mm filters.

 

I think the differences are not worth the extra price. I'd recommend spending the difference (if you can) on a nice prime. Something like the 50 f/1.8 or 35 f/2 leave either of these lenses behind in every factor aside from zoom range. You may even want to get a prime first. If you find using fixed focal length lenses works for you then you can save money on a new zoom and get some other primes instead.

>>unless you want everyone in the frame

 

I'm not disagreeing with the recomendation, but that's an odd justification. I'm sure the happy couple won't mind a few missing family members as you couldn't fit them all in. Better to recommend it because it has less edge distortion being a less wide angle lens.

nice work, but for me they step over the thin line between 'artistic haze' and looking like someone slapped a cheap +4 closeup on a Canon 75-300. :) Just not my thing.

yeah nobosy said the 18-55 was great. What they said was it was great value for money. You get a very average lens for a very cheap price. It's better than lenses twice its price!

 

Still, the 50 f/1.8 that you picked up. Now that's a cool lens.

From what I've heard it's a pretty decent consumer zoom. Better than the 28-90 for one. It the predecessor of the current 28-105. New in box for under $100 sounds like a winner to me.

Why not just make your own in photoshop? Never occured to me such a thing even existed really.

define minimal?

For instance a 17-40 f/4, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/4 and a 1.4xTC would be nice. Me, I get by with a 24 f/2.8, 50 f/1.8, and 100 f/2. A lot of great photos have been taken with a 28-90 kit lens.

 

The minimal could really be any 1 lens and a decent photographer behind it. :)

Where do you live? It can get pretty damn hot in those storage places and I've some dead computer hardware that is testimony to the damage it can do.

 

Hopefully though, its new batteries like the others have said.

The real people to ask will be the printing press. You just need to be honest with them and let them know you've never done this before. Talk to them in detail about all their specific requirements and they'll probably appreciate it as it will all be correct the first time.

You're right, I didn't. Apologies. Need to not read forums when I'm stressed.

$ per mm as a way of judging if the lens is worth buying? what kind of crap is that? I'll sell all my decent lenses and go buy a $100 sigma 70-300. That way I get way more mm for my money than those nasty wide angle lenses.

 

I'm with Yakim on focal lengths. I've own a 28-105 which I really like, but I wanted something wider so (having very little money) I settled on the 22-55. It was OK, but I later got the 20-35. I played with that for a while before realizing I rarely used or liked anything beyond 24 so I switched to the 24 f/2.8 and haven't looked back. Now I own a RebelD the 24 has become a 38 and is my standard walk around lens. I own the 18-55 but it doesn't see much use. Basically I think the 24 is a great choice and way worth the extra cash.

Primes are just easier to build, and have less compromises. Whether any given prime is better or equal to zooms with a similar power is a huge debate, but in general a prime will trump a zoom. Certain focal lengths are easier to build than others too, Hence the cheapo 50 f/1.8.

I had one, and it was fine. Not the greatest lens, but cheap too. Pretty much the same quality as the 18-55, just designed for normal cameras. It's biggest problems are a bit of distortion and the ends of its range, and some noticable vignetting when used wide open. I traded up first to the 20-35 and then to the 24 f/2.8 which I'm very happy with.

Nope, neither hood nor filter on that lens. I use at least a hood and commonly a filter on all my other lenses. It just doesn't seem worth spending $20 on a hood, and $20 on a filter for the possibility of avoiding damage to a $65 lens.

Yeah but the silver color of my RebelD has SUCH a negative impact on my photography. :)