citizensmith1664875108

YEs please do. Without any actual evidence the statement has about as much weight as me saying I tested it against the 24-70L and the 18-55 beat the pants off it. :) We need to see why you think its better.

I'm sure I'm not the only person to wonder. What is a sound blimp?

Maybe nobody is talking about it because its the same camera.

The chart recomended by a previous poster is all the info you need on CF cards. I went with a 512Mb Sandisk UltraII and although good, it isn't that much better than the various speeds of lexar cards I have. So while you can get faster cards, you definitely end up paying a lot more money for a little more speed gain.

Simliar story here. Couldn't really split the two, ended up with a 100 f/2 as I found a good price on one. No complaints regarding it. I'd just keep an eye out for good prices on either and go with whichever one you come across first.

There was a british wildlife photogrpaher (Chris Packham) who's work I enjoyed who was leant one by Canon and is pictured with it on the back of his first (and I think only) book. Sadly he seems to have dropped from view, unless I'm just looking in the wrong places.

 

Now which LowePro bag would you guys recommend for this lens mounted on a RebelD. :)

Oh joy, Quartz Date back as standard. Now there's a feature you wish you didn't have to pay for. :) And they are kitting it with the crappy version of the 28-105. Ah well, at least it will quiet a few folks begging for info.

 

Thanks for the heads up.

RebelD, Elan 7E, 1000FNS (no longer used but it was an 18th birthday present). 24 f/2.8, 50 f/1.8, 100 f/2, 18-55, 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, 75-300 USM. 420ex flash. Assorted other crap.

 

The RebelD gets most use, with the Elan just bought out for special needs/backup. The 24 lives on the rebel, although the 50 and 100 get some time too. The 18-55 I haven't used much, and the 75-300 only comes out the rare occasions I use a tele. Not very often, which is why I haven't replaced it with something better. The 28-105 lives on the 7E now.

Thanks for the comparison. There are other things at stake as well though. Aside from the most obvious (zoom vs. fixed) I find the 24 f/2.8 focuses faster, handles better, and is generally better built. It also has better flare resistance, and of course is a hell of a lot faster. The f/2.8 coupled with the ability to change ISO on the fly means that I can get away with not using the flash.

 

I did get the 18-55 and have used it a couple of times with no particular complaints. However the 24 is the lens on my camera pretty much all the time.

they sell for a premium used. A silver one will sell on ebay for about the same prices as a black one new. THey would look nice on a Rebel D after all.

 

One did go for a fair bit cheaper recently but it was becuase the poster couldn't spell Canon (listed under Cannon) so less people were probably finding it.

I've had both the 22-55, and the 20-35. The 20-35 is without a doubt better than the 22-55 in almost every way. As others have said, its a well built lens with good optics and a nice range. I swapped mine for the 24 f/2.8 because I found I often didn't go much past 24, and I already had a 28-105 to cover me in the other direction. While good, the 24 is pretty much better in every way. Now I've gone digital my 24 is my standard lens.

OK, I'll go for that book. But I'd be interested in an answer too. Could anyone provide a brief summary?

I'm another 24 f/2.8 devotee. Great lens.

 

The reason people tend to recommend the 28 f/2.8 instead of the 1.8 is as others have said, its got much better optical performance. Of course its also cheaper. The 1.8 may be faster but as its weak wide open you lose that advantage anywhere.

 

Yes they are better than the consumer zooms, but as they go the 28-135 is the cream of the crop. Optically better than any other in Canon's range (aside from Ls) and with IS to help some.

Even on the generic sets, the +1 and +2 (the weakest 2) are generally OK. Its just that when you try using the the more powerfull ones or stacking them that you realise why they are a 1/5 of the cost of a single decent one. At +3 or more they are as much an affects filter as anything else, heavily blurring the edges of the photo and ghosting everything else.

You can pick up Canon's 22-55 lens second hand for a little over $100. Not the greatest lens by a long shot, optically a little behind your 28-105 for instance, but it's the cheapest EF wide angle in Canon's line up. Aside from it being discontinued that is. :)

 

I had one for a while and was happy with the results. It'll certainly look better on a digital, and at effective 35-90 has a reasonable zoom range.

yeah I think the general opinion of the lens is that it isn't as bad as everyone expected, and for the money represents a great deal.

 

You can't do better without spending a lot more money, and you can spend more money and actually end up not even doing as well.

Yeah I've had it on every canon I've owned and I've used it, umm let me think. Oh yeah, never. :)

 

Hyperfocal focusing, sure, Depth of field preview, definitely, but DEP mode? Nah.

Yeah if you want to even consider handholding a heavy, long tele and expect even half decent results you have to have the IS. What you describe is exactly what it is most useful for.

 

As for the two lenses, unless (as the other poster suggested) you can tell us the sort of wildlife the suggestion has to be go for the 100-400. The 400 will be little use when you come across a deer just 30 foot away, unless you want a close-up of its nose or something.

don't know about the f/1.8 but the f/2.8 is great even with AFD for focusing. As good as the L zooms optically and nice and small. Is the large increase in cost worth it for the extra speed?

It's a damn good thing there are so many good pubs in the UK. After a few beers this all seems a lot less important. Oh and I've yet to find decent bread for sale anywhere in the US. :) Or a curry for that matter. So excessive camera prices are just a small price to pay. At least computer prices are about even now. I no longer get emails from my folks asking me to mail them stuff because its so much cheaper in the US.

>>Your credit card company is likely to charge you a commission fee on the money you spend there.

 

Yup, but that'll be 1%, maybe 1.5% so around £35-50.

 

>>Secondly you may run into warranty issues in the UK with a US supplied camera.

 

I think the way it works is you can still use Canon for warrantee issues, but not canon authorized dealers. So it does still work, its just less convenient.

 

>>Thirdly you will need a voltage adapter to run the camera battery charger on 240 volts.

 

Or just buy a new charger. The Canon one is around £50 I think, and you can bet there are third party versions.

 

>>On your return there is a fair chance that you will just walk through customs with it.

 

Yup there is a small risk here. Pretty damn small as it would depend on if you get stopped, and if you did then what kind of mood the person is in. Although small you should be willing and able to pay all the excess they'll slap on should they stop you and be having a bad day.

 

>>Incidentally if you buy one mail order from the US,

 

Good advice as you avoid any risk, and the (depending on how you look at it) inconvenience of having to pop off to another country just to do some shopping. You'd pay as much though as you will almost certainly pay duties on it. Still cheaper than UK street price though.

You may want to try and borrow one of these lenses before you buy any of them. Unless you have prior experience with lenses that wide you may be in for a shock as to how wide they are and what it does to your photos. I had both a 20-35 and 22-55 for a while and ditched them in favor of a 24 as I found that 20ish was just wider than I ever wanted.

Yeah, VAT sucks, Over here in California I pay 7.75% (around there) tax. That's almost 10% less than VAT.

 

So look at it the other way. As someone else said, fly to New York (or even better Portland Oregon - no tax, nicer town, camerworld), pick up a $4500 1D2 (which at todays rates means it's only around 2500 quid) and tha savings will have easily paid for your £300 flight and £200 for hotel, beer and food. Plus, once you chuck away the book, mail the manual home, and throw it in a beaten up old camera bag you are unlikely to be asked to pay duty on it when you return to the UK. (In a hypothetical not actually suggesting you do anything illegal way)

 

So, the UK price means you get a free weekend away and save yourself £500! That's nothing to complain about, maybe you shoud write a letter of thanks to Canon UK. :)

There are adapters but the lenses would be a real pain in the neck to use, and many bodies (not sure about the 300D) have exposure problems when used with manual lenses. So yes you could, but it'd be a lot of work. Just pop out and get a EF 50 f/1.8 instead. :)

>>For crying out loud. It's not an L because Canon has for whatever reason decided that DO's are a separate line from L's

 

You mean like the 400mm DO lens which is white, weather sealed, and has flourite elements which kinda makes it look a lot like an L lens. I don't remember Canon ever issuing a decree that DO and L shall never meet. I think the point is more that people are not willing to fork out a wad of cash thick enough to stun a bear for a consumer lens. Even if it does have some funky glass in it. Then again, I guess that like the 400 DO they are kind of used to the DO lens = unpopular white elephant idea.