DSLR here I come!!!!!!!

[Franko515]

The photo bug has bitten me and I've got it bad. I am now selling my S3 IS and accessories (1GB Sandisk Ultra II and Kenneth Cole bag) and getting a Canon 30D with the following lenses (all Canon)



50 f/1.4

24-70 f/2.8L

70-200 f/2.8L

All these should work when I eventually get a 1D Mark II N right (told you I've got it bad)



I havent picked out a tripod yet but I still have time.



I figure this will cost me about $4500 of which I already have $2500. I will keep the S3 IS for about 3-4mths (time it will take me to save the rest) and get plenty of practice. I guess i will be able to get a decent price on my S3 IS since it will still be fairly new then (may around $450-$500 for everything???)



Thanks for all the great post and reviews on this site. You all have been very helpful, in this thread and the countless others I have read while making my decision

Just think I was just gonna get some accessories for my S3 IS when i started reading :o (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=129818&postcount=1)


Franko

[TenD]

Congratulations on moving up to an SLR. Don't expect the SLR to be the answer to any problems you are having with the S3 though. The S3 is quite a capable camera and learning to use it will provide a good base for the SLR in the future. I would recommend haning on to the S3 for a while though: it will be a great little camera to keep in the car nearby for snaps and it can provide a back up incase of disaster with the SLR.

[Franko515]

Thanks for the reply. Im not having any problems with my S3 IS (other than learning about DOF, aperture, shutter speed, FF vs 1.3 & 1.6 crop, vignetting, exposure etc. photography in general) its just that with a DSLR I will have more options with different glass (i.e. night shots or lowlight, where the S3 doesnt do to well at all) Who knows maybe i will end up keeping the S3 for a backup ;)

[coldrain]

You do realize how heavy the 70-200 f2.8 lenses are, I hope. You do nt write what you will use the camera for... but for walk around lens kit the 24-70 +70-200 f2.8 will be a lot to lug around.

So, if that is not a problem, fine. If it is, then you could consider a 70-200 f4 L. Also, 24mm is not really all that wide on a 30D. If you do want something wide for land/city scapes for instance, the Tokina 12-24 f4 would be a nice complement to that setup.

[Franko515]

Yes, it is 3.24pounds(1470g) on top of the 1.5pounds(700g) that the 30D weighs :eek: I had thought about that already and was gonna use my 50mm (.8 pounds, 12.8oz) as a walkaround lens. I thought about it being too short and thought about getting a 17-40 but i chose the 24-70 (which is still 2.09pounds, 950g) so i guess the 50 will have to do.

As far a what i am shooting
family photos (my wife and daughter)
wildlife
vacations
sports (kids) and maybe if i go to a bears or bulls game :D
night shots
landscapes
sunrise and sunsets
moon pics
and i may do family portraits for friends.

and anything else i can think of :p

[coldrain]

Well... unless you are sure you have a use for such a heavy lens (most things you mention are "take the camera with you" stuff) I would seriously consider a 70-200 f4 L. It is one f-stop less, and less than half the weight. Only indoor sports would benefit from the extra f-stop. The family/vacation stuff would benefit from the lesser weight!

Consider a 1.7x teleconvertor from Soligor to add extra tele range for wildlife.

[Franko515]

Ok, ok Im convinced, its too heavy for me :o (thanks for that ;) , you saved me money :D )

So now i guess I will go with

kit lens
50 f/1.4
24-70 f/2.8
200 f/2.8 (but this doesnt quite replace the 70-200)

I would love the 70-200 f/4 but i dont wanna not be able to get lowlight shots(i.e. indoor sports). At first i thought about it being a good walk around lens (cause of the range and low weight) but i dont know if the iso would be enough to get good night shots (hand held or tripod) any other suggestions are welcome

Again thanks for your help :D

[coldrain]

Night shots without tripod with a 70-200 f2.8 are impossible too. You need to use a mono/tripod/other support so you can use shutter speeds that are long enough.

The 70-200 f4 L will be find for that too, on a tripod or other support that is. One f-stop is not a huge difference. For better low light performance you really have to consider f1.4 lenses or something, but this should not be a consideration with tele lenses since you will need support anyway.

[Franko515]

I looked for night shots with both lenses (70-200 f/4 & 70-200 f/2.8 IS) but couldnt find any. could someone post some please? Also is the 200mm f/2.8 equivalent (sp?) to the 70-200 f/2.8 as far as the coverage? And while 1 stop doesnt make that big of a difference, I read that with the IS you actually gain another stop so wouldnt I gain 2 stop by getting the IS f/2.8 vs the f/4 :confused:

[Franko515]

Thanks for all your input you guys have helped me finalize my decision :D


Camera - Canon 30D
Tripod - Dynatran AT-CF994, H96 ballhead included (ebay) Review (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=164099&highlight=dynatran+CF994+tripod)
Lenses - Kit lens (later I will pick up something better)
24-70 f/2.8L
70-200 f/2.8L IS
50 f/1.4 prime
Accessories - Extra Battery
CF 4GB (Sandisk???)
Battery Grip (BG-E2)
Hand Starp (suggestions)
Case (Suggestions, I need two. Something that will hold everything, and another for just the camera w/lens and an extra lens)

My final list, I think :o

[coldrain]

So... what according to you is the use for an extra stop in aperture? You do realize you will not often use it, do you? And IS on a tripod needs to be turned off, it only is handy for longer shutter times handhold. It will not add an f-stop, just make longer shutter times possible when handhold.

I just think you do not realize that you are going to buy very heavy kit without any experience, and you will get to notice that it will be a bother rather than a pleasure to bring your camera along. For outdoor sports you really do not need that extra f-stop.

[Franko515]

Im just beginning so any clarafication is welcome. I keep reading how the IS will give me an extra stop, and how great it is for low lights and indoor sports (my little girl is starting gymnastics :D ) And its a must have for handheld shots. I also read that IS was great for sunrise and sunsets (i.e. lowlight)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1612502&postcount=21

Cosmetically there is little difference between the lenses. (The new IS model is seen at left in the picture below). Of course the new lens has the usual IS controls. Canon claims that the new lens uses a second generation IS technology that permits the lens to be hand-held at as much as three stops slower shutter speed than without — a stop better than their IS technology in previous lenses. As with their other recent high-end IS lenses, the IS does not need to be disabled when the lens is tripod mounted
-luminous landscape

The decision between the non-IS and the IS version of this lens is a no-brainer. The extra $750 gets you a lens with far greater versatility. It will get you shots that you otherwise will miss. If that's not worth the extra money, I don't know what is.

-Luminous Landscape

Do I need IS?

IS (Image Stabilization) is a technology that can reduce the need for a larger aperture if you are handholding shots in low light. Generally, IS will gain you about 1 full stop (2.8->4, 4->5.6), but this varies depending on how advanced the technology in the lens is. Beware that IS does NOT help when the subject moves. For this, you need a fast lens to obtain a faster shutter speed that will freeze the action.

What apertures do I need?

If you are doing available-light indoor photography, f/2.8 is the bare minimum. I recommend f/2.0 and larger.

-Lens buyers guide on Digital Camera Resource Page

The 2.8 IS and non also come with a tripod attachment and are weather sealed.

But weight still is a issue (not sure how much until I go hold 1) I could also get one of those bookbag type carrying cases to ease my load. If I went with the f/4 i guess i could use the 50 f/1.4 for low light, but i would be missing the zoom, the isnt easy as i thought (pricey decision) and i havent even gotten the camera yet :o

If someone could, I would love to see night and lowlight shots with the 70-200 f/4 & f/2.8 IS and non

[Franko515]

Just when I thought my decision couldnt be any harder........
Now I'm comparing the 24-70 f/2.8L vs 24-105 f/4L IS :mad:

[Vich]

Just when I thought my decision couldnt be any harder........
Now I'm comparing the 24-70 f/2.8L vs 24-105 f/4L IS :mad:
I have 24-105L. I was wishing I had the 24-70 instead, mainly because of Image Quality issues. Fixed now and I'm very happy I went with this.

If you can use a flash, f4.0 is ample. The IS is 2nd generation and can gain up up to 3 stops. I just love those crispy clear eyes on the portriats, and now that the color problem is solved, I'm extatic.

Just my experience.

Congrads on the 70-200 IS choice. Great for what you're planning (indoor gymnastics). The IS will be a dream.

As Coldrain pointed out, it's a big fat monster. Not so heavy a strong person couldn't hold carry it and the camera using the shoulder strap, but that 3 or 4 pounds seems more like 15 after a few hours. Great for an event but not much use for Disneyland, travel, hiking, etc.

I've only used the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS (rented) and found handheld shots at 200mm always had camera shake problems. The IS, IMO, is worth the extra $$ if you can afford it.

I've ordered the 70-200 f4.0 and am hoping that with less weight, and perhaps a monopod, camera shake won't be an issue.

Oh, I don't know if you've used f2.8 at 200mm much, but the Depth of Field is tiny if the subject is anywheres near. I think you did well to get a zoom so you can convert it to a 70mm instantly.

[aparmley]

IF you have your heart set on the 24-70 + 70-200 combo - which is the best you can get in that range, don't let people talk you out of it. If at first the weight is a problem, just keep shooting you'll be able to hand hold it when you need to after a period of use and muscle building. . . Don't compromise what you want because others offer an opinion that its going to be heavy. . .

I say go with your gut and your orginal wish list - other wise you'll always wonder if you should have gone with it. . .

[Franko515]

Thanks for all the comments :D

I think since I am able to, I will get the f/2.8 IS (for the just in case i ever need it factor, and plus I'm able)

I have $200 extra per wk after all my bills and savings are taken care of Which allows me to try lots of different things. I always try to get the best equipment I can, not that it will make me better but I just feel better knowing I have the best

Thanks again everyone for your input , I will continue to lurk around here with my S3 IS.... But watch out cause im getting better everyday and my gear will also improve with time.

Will make sure to post when I get the 30D and lenses

Camera - Canon 30D
Tripod - Dynatran AT-CF994, H96 ballhead included (ebay) Review (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=164099&highlight=dynatran+CF994+tripod)
Lenses - Kit lens (later I will pick up something better maybe 10-22)
24-70 f/2.8L
70-200 f/2.8L IS
50 f/1.4 prime
Accessories - Extra Battery
CF 3x2GB (Sandisk)
Battery Grip (BG-E2)
Remote Shutter (RS-80N3 or do they make better?)
Flash (580EX Speedlite) Whats a bouncer?
Hand Starp (suggestions)
Case (Suggestions, I need two. Something that will hold everything, and another for just the camera w/lens and an extra lens)

[TenD]

If you want the best quality then you have to compromise somewhere, and in this case it's with the weight. In my kit, and I wouldn't have it any other way, I have the 80-200 f/2.8L, 17-40 f/4L, 300 f/4L, 28-135 3.5-5.6IS and 50mm f1.8 MK I (metal mount), all of this stuff is heavy to lug around, but I never found myself saying I wasn't going to go out and take pictures or hike to this or that spot because my gear was too heavy. I just accepted the fact the stuff was heavy, and went anyway. Sure the stuff is heavy, but I personally think it's worth it. Late evening light (magic!) and trying to take a portrait I am glad for the extra stop the f/2.8 offers. I wish at times my 300mm was 2.8 also, boy would that be a piece of glass to haul around, of course that would be somewhat offset by the relative lightness of my wallet.
As for IS offering you an extra stop of light: It will allow you to shoot at much slower shutter speeds handheld, effectively allowing you to stop down a little more, or stay within the parameters of your lens, effectively giving you another stop. More light to the sensor is created by either letting more in, or letting it in for a longer period. I guess a more correct term would be an IS lens will give you a higher exposure value that is equal to what another f stop would give you.

[stevage]

Is there a particular advantage in buying the camera, 3 (or was it 4) lenses, two bags, a tripod, filters etc all in one hit? Like some big discount or something? Otherwise, wouldn't it be more sensible just to get the camera and one lens, see how it goes, and what you're really missing? Seems like an easy way to end up with a $4500 bag of equipment you hardly ever use, otherwise, no?

Steve

[jamison55]

I have the 70-200IS, and it is a peach of a lens...quickly becoming permanently attached to one of my cameras. Having said that, if I had to shoot indoor sports (like gymnastics), I think I'd stick with my 85 f1.8 and 135 f2 instead. The IS on the 70-200 does nothing for subject movement it just helps with your shaky hands. The f1.8/f2 of the two lenses I mentioned give you a real extra stop of light. That'll go a long way to giving you the extra shutter speeds you'll need to freeze your fast moving little gymnast. And I think that combo will save you about $600. Spend another $150 on a Kenko 1.4x extender, and your 135 becomes a 200 f2.8 when you need the extra reach.

[Franko515]

Is there a particular advantage in buying the camera, 3 (or was it 4) lenses, two bags, a tripod, filters etc all in one hit? Like some big discount or something? Otherwise, wouldn't it be more sensible just to get the camera and one lens, see how it goes, and what you're really missing? Seems like an easy way to end up with a $4500 bag of equipment you hardly ever use, otherwise, no?

Steve

I like to be prepared for any situation. The setup I have picked should prepare me well. Believe me it will be put to use. I guess it all boils down to personal preference.

[cwphoto]

I like to be prepared for any situation. The setup I have picked should prepare me well. Believe me it will be put to use. I guess it all boils down to personal preference.

Nonetheless that's a serious kit for a hobbyist. If I wasn't getting paid for this gig I'd probably have a 350D, 17-85 IS, and a 70-300 IS.:rolleyes:
I still can't believe how much coin some of you guys are prepared to drop on your hobbies.:eek:

[ReF]

once the f2.8 aperture saves you a set of pictures that would've been ruined by shake or excessive noise you'll never want to use anything less. i had the 70-200 f4 before upgrading to the the f2.8 and to me the one stop gain really does justify the 2x price tag and 2x weight. there have been several occasions where i wish the 70-200 f2.8 i have had IS so if you can afford it i hardly think you'd ever regret it. the weight, you'll probably get used to. my bag is 17lbs, that's like having a 17lbs bird or whatever sitting on your shoulder all day but everytime you go out with it, it seems to get lighter. the results make up for everything anyways.

as others have said, IS does nothing for subject movement so a short-ish tele prime or two would be more suitable for indoor action (f2.8 won't cut it without flash).

this is just my opinion and you can totally ignore it but i'm with stevage on getting what you can now so you can go out and have some fun with it already! (with the s3 to cover the missing range of course)

[jamison55]

A 17 pound bird on your shoulder...!

[ReF]

A 17 pound bird on your shoulder...!

oh yeah, you and birds :D

[Franko515]

once the f2.8 aperture saves you a set of pictures that would've been ruined by shake or excessive noise you'll never want to use anything less. i had the 70-200 f4 before upgrading to the the f2.8 and to me the one stop gain really does justify the 2x price tag and 2x weight. there have been several occasions where i wish the 70-200 f2.8 i have had IS so if you can afford it i hardly think you'd ever regret it. the weight, you'll probably get used to. my bag is 17lbs, that's like having a 17lbs bird or whatever sitting on your shoulder all day but everytime you go out with it, it seems to get lighter. the results make up for everything anyways.

as others have said, IS does nothing for subject movement so a short-ish tele prime or two would be more suitable for indoor action (f2.8 won't cut it without flash).

this is just my opinion and you can totally ignore it but i'm with stevage on getting what you can now so you can go out and have some fun with it already! (with the s3 to cover the missing range of course)

Whats is a tele prime? I didnt know they exsisted. I thought all primes were fixed :confused: (Model #s please)

Well I go to Disney World The first week of july and I would love to take a 30D with me, but I need to make sure I have plenty of spending money for my wife and daughter ;) When I return I may just purchase what I can, but I really like the idea of having all those boxes arrive at once :eek: :D It would be like christmas without the snow :cool:

P.S.
Any comments on the speedlite, remote shutter release i have selected? Also what is a bouncer?

[Franko515]

Nonetheless that's a serious kit for a hobbyist. If I wasn't getting paid for this gig I'd probably have a 350D, 17-85 IS, and a 70-300 IS.:rolleyes:
I still can't believe how much coin some of you guys are prepared to drop on your hobbies.:eek:

What type of car do you drive? Probably not the cheapest one you could have purchased. But they all do the same thing (point a--->point B) its all a matter of personal preference ;) . My wife and I make a good living and we try to enjoy ourselves, while at the same time preparing for my lil ones future as well as our own. I'm not asking you to agree, just tryin to get you to understand :)

[JTL]

Whats is a tele prime? I didnt know they exsisted. I thought all primes were fixed :confused: (Model #s please)You are confusing the term "tele" with the term "zoom". A tele prime is any prime lens over 50mm...

All primes are fixed.
Not all primes are tele.
Not all tele's are zooms.

[Vich]

You are confusing the term "tele" with the term "zoom". A tele prime is any prime lens over 50mm...

All primes are fixed.
Not all primes are tele.
Not all tele's are zooms.
Often, "Tele" is over 70mm or so - not sure the exact cutoff.

For example: Here (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home;jsessionid=GSxpJ5jlpF!-1382851900?A=search&Q=&b=8&a=696_6146&a=700_6180&mnp=0.0&mxp=0.0&shs=&ci=8429&ac=&Submit.x=8&Submit.y=4)is the search page from B & H for tele lenses (their shortest is 85). If you repeat the search for Standard (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&b=8&a=696_6146&a=700_6179&mnp=0.0&mxp=0.0&shs=&ci=8429&ac=&Submit.x=16&Submit.y=6), it has the 45mm through 65mm.

They're not the authority, but for sure 60mm is considered Standard. Seems to be a pretty loose cutoff.

[cwphoto]

What type of car do you drive? Probably not the cheapest one you could have purchased. But they all do the same thing (point a--->point B) its all a matter of personal preference.

I drive a 1995 Mazda & my wife drives a 2005 Nissan. Not the cheapest but nowhere near the most expensive. The lenses you have chosen would be the equivalent of me buying a Ferrari F430 and my wife buying a Porsche Cayenne instead.:eek: Nice to have but not really designed for a family of seven and certainly way above what my modest income would support.

I don't have a problem with you buying what you can afford, but asking me to understand it? - I just can't, sorry.:confused:

[DonSchap]

of your upper body, after of couple months of luggin' this stuff around. You're going to be really buff. LOL :p

Frankly, I prefer the lighter weight camera system, myself. After buying the EF 70~200 f/2.8L IS USM (52 oz.), today... it really is a "handful" to operate, compared to any of the TAmROns... even the SP AF200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD, at 43.6 oz. (And I thought the SP AF28-105mm f/2.8 LD was a horse at 32 oz. :rolleyes: ) The nice part about the Canon is that it does not lengthen as you zoom. So whacking the guy sitting in front of you is certainly reduced.

I plan on doing some "street shooting", tomorrow... but, I know I'm going to have to pack a lunch, too. LOL. :rolleyes:

BTW: What type of bag are you looking to put all this hardware into, anyway? It better have a very wide shoulder strap on it or some kind of wide pad.

Some Definitions:
Ultra Wide-Angle = 10~24mm
Wide-Angle = 24~40mm
Standard = 40~60mm
Telephoto = 60~300mm
SuperTelephoto = 300+mm

Prime Lens = A 'fixed' focal length optic
Zoom Lens = A 'variable' focal length optic that moves in a smooth transition between minimum and maximum settings.
Extension tubes = stepped focal length extension
Teleconverter = Allows fixed and variable focal lengths to be multiplied by some factor of magnification (i.e., 1.4x, 1.7x, 2x, 3x)

MACRO = allows minimum focusing distances usually closer than 12 inches.
Close-up filters = allows closer than normal focusing distances, with a minimum loss of light.


That about cover it? Are we all on the same page, now?

[cwphoto]

Crikey, Don bought a Canon lens!:eek:

[ReF]

Crikey, Don bought a Canon lens!:eek:
oh sh!t!!



eh, don, careful on the streets with that $1700 big white lens...

once you push the lens to some difficult shooting and see how fast and accurate the AF is you might not find those tamies as appealing

congrats on the top end purchase

[Vich]

Wow Don! I'm with Ref on that one.

I just took the little brother (Canon 70-200 f4.0) from it's box and took a few trial shots. You know, the flowers over the sink, tree across the greenbelt, neighbors flower pot. Real Earth shattering stuff.

That USM was silently zooming as I thought "ahhhhhhh". Seeing that AF work is like smacking a hole-in-one every time. You might indeed gain new perspective on the Tamron collection after some quality time with that puppy.

Congradulations!!! Shocking, but very well done (and I retract all the things I said about you being a Tamron plant).

[Franko515]

I drive a 1995 Mazda & my wife drives a 2005 Nissan. Not the cheapest but nowhere near the most expensive. The lenses you have chosen would be the equivalent of me buying a Ferrari F430 and my wife buying a Porsche Cayenne instead.:eek: Nice to have but not really designed for a family of seven and certainly way above what my modest income would support.

I don't have a problem with you buying what you can afford, but asking me to understand it? - I just can't, sorry.:confused:

Not quite the same, a Ferrari is $175,000 while a Nissian is about $22,000 that about 8 times the cost :eek: We probably wont see eye to eye on this one so I forgive you in advance ;)

[ReF]

Tamron plant

:p that's a good one. no offense don, just appreciating the creative comment

Seeing that AF work is like smacking a hole-in-one every time.
hey that's a good way of putting it. AF is really realiable with these puppies - IMO that's much more important than ultimate image quality (as in better than so and so lens, NOT that the image quality is the ultimate)

[DonSchap]

in my decision to go for the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM was that my 18-200mm might have a serious mechanical problem. I did purchase it "second-hand", so I am beginning to understand kind of why it might have been sold. I take excellent care of my gear... and rather doubt that I may have damaged it. It will be fixed, of course... and I kind of knew some was a little screwy with its top end (135-200mm). It all turns and seems to be working, but in reality... it tops out, internally, at about 150mm. Once I was able to compare it against another lens of the higher range (the Canon)... that really made it obvious. I simply couldn't get the same frame at 200mm! And admittedly, the Canon was on my "wish list". It isn't any more. :rolleyes: Unfortunately, the 18-200mm probably going to be gone for a while. :(

I now have it on good authority that TAmROn is going to introduce their new SP AF70~210mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) at Fotokina, in August, but there is no telling when they plan on releasing the lens, itself, to the public. After the lengthy wait for the SP AF17~50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF), announced in September 2005 and released in May 2006, it may be as many as 9 months away! Sommer is here... and I need the 70-200mm range covered NOW! I figure if I have to pony up for something... then why not the class leader? It is rather heavy, though (52 oz)... and the new TAmROn will only be around 24 oz.

Thank you for the support :o and I would like to remind you all of what I have said in the past: I will pay for quality... regardless of the price... but, if I can find what I need of sufficient quality and a fair price, made by someone else, they will get my business. I am not an "OEM-junkie". As of right now... the fact is that no one has a lens out better than this one. That is about to change... but, not... just... yet. ;)

[DonSchap]

between what the Canon determines is 200mm and what the TAmROn presents. Personally, it has me a little freaked :eek: and the guys selling these babies a little corn-fused. :confused:

Side by side, two TAmROn AF 18~200 f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LDs perform identically, so with much relief... my lens appears to be okay. :rolleyes: Whew!

But now... explaining why I am getting like 10% more magnification with the Canon over the TAmROn, with both set to 200mm. I mean, logic would make you tend to think the frame would be identical... but it is not.

Has anyone else noticed a difference between other manufacturer's focal lengths and what their Canon lenses indicate?

This is quite curious and rather unexpected. I may just get out and dust off my Canon EF 75-300 f/3.5-5.6 III and compare it to the EF 70~200mm f/2.8 IS USM and see if it too shares this difference.

One line of thought considers the difference between EF and EF-S lensing. For Canon... that'd be TAmROn's Di and Di-II lensing. I would have thought there would be no difference (focal length-wise), other than the specialization of the lens for the smaller APS-C sensor and its inabilitity to use of film or large sensor digitals. Perhaps there is some type of subtle focal length shift between these two types of lenses.

Well, whatever! :rolleyes: Talk amongst yourselves... and shed a few ideas, eh?

[George Riehm]

between what the Canon determines is 200mm and what the TAmROn presents. Personally, it has me a little freaked :eek: and the guys selling these babies a little corn-fused. :confused:

Side by side, two TAmROn AF 18~200 f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LDs perform identically, so with much relief... my lens appears to be okay. :rolleyes: Whew!

But now... explaining why I am getting like 10% more magnification with the Canon over the TAmROn, with both set to 200mm. I mean, logic would make you tend to think the frame would be identical... but it is not.

Has anyone else noticed a difference between other manufacturer's focal lengths and what their Canon lenses indicate?

This is quite curious and rather unexpected. I may just get out and dust off my Canon EF 75-300 f/3.5-5.6 III and compare it to the EF 70~200mm f/2.8 IS USM and see if it too shares this difference.

One line of thought considers the difference between EF and EF-S lensing. For Canon... that'd be TAmROn's Di and Di-II lensing. I would have thought there would be no difference (focal length-wise), other than the specialization of the lens for the smaller APS-C sensor and its inabilitity to use of film or large sensor digitals. Perhaps there is some type of subtle focal length shift between these two types of lenses.

Well, whatever! :rolleyes: Talk amongst yourselves... and shed a few ideas, eh?

Yup. It's not that uncommon. Personally, I don't care. YMMV.

[JTL]

I thought it was widely known, common knowledge that both the Tamron and Sigma 18-200 didn't really go to 200mm. I know my Sigma is really about 170mm...

[Vich]

Has anyone else noticed a difference between other manufacturer's focal lengths and what their Canon lenses indicate?
I guess Canon 71-193mm just doesn't market as well. The Tamron 18-200 isn't listed. I think it's pretty rare that the actual (exact) lengths are used on tele lenses. Maybe the shorter ones are more accurate, since there's a huge difference between 16 and 17mm.

Here's (http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/35lensesmtf.shtml#Canon) a site with loads of lens tests. They also give actual mm focal lengths.

[DonSchap]

I thought it was widely known, common knowledge that both the Tamron and Sigma 18-200 didn't really go to 200mm. I know my Sigma is really about 170mm...

Perhaps it was a little naive' of me to think that when a manufacturer stamps "18~200mm" on their lens, you are really buying a 20-170mm! :confused: I'm sorry, but I am bristling a bit. This kind of nonsense really tweaks my beak and they are going to hear about this.

No... it is not "common knowledge". If it were... I'd have known it. Yes, I knew there was some slop in these lenses... but this is to the point of almost unreal... and really stretches credibility to the limit. Giving 30mm (15%) back is some serious focal length. 10mm, either way, at the high end... maybe... but 30mm? Yes, at the low end, it would be insulting.

Even the experienced camera shop guys (11-20 years) were a little taken back by this demonstrated problem and hard-pressed to explain it. It really should not be tolerated, otherwise it corrupts the entire measurement standards we use to evaluate our very lives.

"Oh... that's nearly a gallon (8/10s full)... We'll call it a gallon and charge you for a gallon." Hey, I don't think so. Fill to the line, pal... yeah the very line where the NBS (National Bureau of Standards) says it should be. It's not expecting too much. It's expecting what's to be expected. Expecting too much is expecting to get more for your money that the price allows or is clearly marked.

Those bright boxes on the store shelves say "18-200mm"... well, how about it? :mad: Anyone interested in a class-action law suit about truth in advertising? :cool: It may seem small, but ever since 2x4s stopped being that size, I've been a little concerned. It changes everything we do... even taking pictures.

"Hey, what measurement system are we using, today?" :confused:

"Oh, whatever the manufacturer felt like!" :eek:

[Vich]

Perhaps it was a little naive' of me to think that when a manufacturer stamps "18~200mm" on their lens, you are really buying a 20-170mm! :confused: I'm sorry, but I am bristling a bit. This kind of nonsense really tweaks my beak and they are going to hear about this.

No... it is not "common knowledge". If it were... I'd have known it. Yes, I knew there was some slop in these lenses... but this is to the point of almost unreal... and really stretches credibility to the limit. Giving 30mm (15%) back is some serious focal length. 10mm, either way, at the high end... maybe... but 30mm? Yes, at the low end, it would be insulting.

Even the experienced camera shop guys (11-20 years) were a little taken back by this demonstrated problem and hard-pressed to explain it. It really should not be tolerated, otherwise it corrupts the entire measurement standards we use to evaluate our very lives.

"Oh... that's nearly a gallon (8/10s full)... We'll call it a gallon and charge you for a gallon." Hey, I don't think so. Fill to the line, pal... yeah the very line where the NBS (National Bureau of Standards) says it should be. It's not expecting too much. It's expecting what's to be expected. Expecting too much is expecting to get more for your money that the price allows or is clearly marked.

Those bright boxes on the store shelves say "18-200mm"... well, how about it? :mad: Anyone interested in a class-action law suit about truth in advertising? :cool: It may seem small, but ever since 2x4s stopped being that size, I've been a little concerned. It changes everything we do... even taking pictures.

"Hey, what measurement system are we using, today?" :confused:

"Oh, whatever the manufacturer felt like!" :eek:
We'll just call it the potato chip standard. :rolleyes:

PS: Got a morning chuckle. I don't know, for some strange reason, I just don't feel that violated. Maybe I'd feel different if my 24mm turned out to actually be 27mm. You have a point though, even on the long end 15% seems excessive. Where do you get your number?

On the up side, less range usually leads to better IQ. .... sorry, just looking for a silver lining.

[ReF]

I thought it was widely known, common knowledge that both the Tamron and Sigma 18-200 didn't really go to 200mm. I know my Sigma is really about 170mm...

i heard about this very early on as well. wonder how accurate of the range of the nikkor 18-200 is...

[JTL]

O.K....got the scoop. According to Amateur Photographer, the actual focal lengths are as follows:

Sigma 18-200: 18.4 - 182
Tamron 18-200: 18.1 - 193

So, Tamron is more truthful in their advertising. But (there's always a big but) it's even more complicated....because of internal focusing which can rob you of even more focal length! Here's an example of the effect someone posted. The only mistake the person made was to assume that they were starting at 200mm when they were really starting at 182mm...

http://www.pixagogo.com/9247155371

[DonSchap]

Thank JTL... although the diffence betweeen the Canon 200 and the Tamron's 200 seem to be much more than 8mm, I'm sure. Guess it's time to take some stills...

Narrator:: "Don pauses momentarily, in thought, as he determines his method for proving the degree to which this discrepancy between lenses exists. He decides to use an old grid... to more adequately detail the diffence in scale he is seeing... stay tuned, folks." :D

[KurtB]

It may seem small, but ever since 2x4s stopped being that size

Hey Don, when did a 2x4 stop being a 2x4? A 2x4 has always been 2 inches x 4 inches (rough cut from the log - not the finished product).

Now after you take into effect the current processing that a modern piece of lumber goes through (drying, planing, etc.), it becomes a 1 1/2 x 3 1/2. But a finished 2x4 has never actually been 2 inches by 4 inches. Even back in the days when 2x4's were hand cut on site, they were still smaller than 2x4 due to the saw kerf. It is important to remember what the measurement is actually referencing, which is not always what it appears.

Now, in the case of those 3rd party lenses not measuring up, how do you think they kept the cost so much lower? :rolleyes: :)

Just having fun Don.

Did that big white lens get sunburn on Saturday before the rain hit? :mad: Let's see the pictures...

Kurt

[DonSchap]

this part of the DRCP.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20902

No people on the local lake, Saturday... wind was quite high. They'd spent half the day dashed on the eastern side of it.

I shall post teleshots as they present issues.

Thanks for askin' :D

[KurtB]

Thanks Don, I have been following both threads. The wind got real bad on Saturday, lots of downed tree lims around my house. Thankfully, nobody hurt.

[Franko515]

Im thinking coming from a S3 IS which is 36-432mm that a 17-40 would complete my glass (and give me that trinity I hear so much about) or I could get the 10-22 (which I couldnt use if i went FF)

Setup
24-70 f/2.8L
70-200 f/2.8L IS
50 f/1.4 prime
and 17-40 f/4L or EF-S 10-22 :confused:

I dont think I will be getting the kit lens by the way ;)

Anybody with both the 17-40 and 10-22 for a comparision (with pics)?

[cwphoto]

Get the 10-22 - too much overlap with the 17-40.

Besides, buying three L-series lenses along with your first ever DSLR is against the rules.;)

[George Riehm]

Thank JTL... although the diffence betweeen the Canon 200 and the Tamron's 200 seem to be much more than 8mm, I'm sure. Guess it's time to take some stills...

Narrator:: "Don pauses momentarily, in thought, as he determines his method for proving the degree to which this discrepancy between lenses exists. He decides to use an old grid... to more adequately detail the diffence in scale he is seeing... stay tuned, folks." :D

Maybe it's because the difference is magnified by the FOV of an APS-C sensor.

Your actual 200mm fixed focus lens, on a 1.6X crop, is equivalent to 320mm. If the Tamron is at 193mm that equals about 308mm, so the difference is actually the equivalent of 12mm.;)

[ReF]

Hey Don, when did a 2x4 stop being a 2x4? A 2x4 has always been 2 inches x 4 inches (rough cut from the log - not the finished product).

Now after you take into effect the current processing that a modern piece of lumber goes through (drying, planing, etc.), it becomes a 1 1/2 x 3 1/2. But a finished 2x4 has never actually been 2 inches by 4 inches. Even back in the days when 2x4's were hand cut on site, they were still smaller than 2x4 due to the saw kerf. It is important to remember what the measurement is actually referencing, which is not always what it appears.

Now, in the case of those 3rd party lenses not measuring up, how do you think they kept the cost so much lower? :rolleyes: :)

Just having fun Don.

Did that big white lens get sunburn on Saturday before the rain hit? :mad: Let's see the pictures...

Kurt

ah, someone else that knows some things about wood...

[Franko515]

ah, someone else that knows some things about wood...

I know about morning wood, does that count?

[KurtB]

Dad was a high school wood shop teacher for his entire career (and he still has all of his fingers :) ). In the summers I helped him remodel homes, build custom cabinetry, etc.

If I was not in the technology field, I would probably be working in the trades. Technology give me more money to spend on hobbies :) , but not the time to enjoy the hobbies :( .

[TenD]

Im thinking coming from a S3 IS which is 36-432mm that a 17-40 would complete my glass (and give me that trinity I hear so much about) or I could get the 10-22 (which I couldnt use if i went FF)

Setup
24-70 f/2.8L
70-200 f/2.8L IS
50 f/1.4 prime
and 17-40 f/4L or EF-S 10-22 :confused:

I dont think I will be getting the kit lens by the way ;)

Anybody with both the 17-40 and 10-22 for a comparision (with pics)?
I have softened my feelings on the EF-S lenses, and if I had a camera that would take them (I have a 10D) I would go for the ultra wide with the combination you have decided on. The ultra wide lenses certainly make for some very nice landscapes. Some other lenses you may want to look at are the Sigma 12-24 and the Tokina 12-24 f/4.

[ReF]

I know about morning wood, does that count?

LOL i knew someone was going to bring that up

[ReF]

Dad was a high school wood shop teacher for his entire career (and he still has all of his fingers :) ). In the summers I helped him remodel homes, build custom cabinetry, etc.

If I was not in the technology field, I would probably be working in the trades. Technology give me more money to spend on hobbies :) , but not the time to enjoy the hobbies :( .

ah remodeling... tough work sometimes but not having a boss is nice ;)

[George Riehm]

ah remodeling... tough work sometimes but not having a boss is nice ;)

I was a cabinet maker for many years then went back to college and finished my EE. Take my word for it you always have a boss... in this case they were my clients.;)

[ReF]

I was a cabinet maker for many years then went back to college and finished my EE. Take my word for it you always have a boss... in this case they were my clients.;)

i occasionally do remodeling for hire. the client being your boss just isn't the same as having a supervisor to report to IMO. to me, the client is a customer.

anyways, "fine cabinet making" is hobby that i put on hold a year ago due to funding issues (it all went to photography :D ). i find it very interesting that you were a cabinet maker. with the word being a bit vague by nature, were you a "commercial" cabinet maker that dealt with large volumes or more of an artsy, individual piece type?

[JMWallace]

Perhaps it was a little naive' of me to think that when a manufacturer stamps "18~200mm" on their lens, you are really buying a 20-170mm! :confused: I'm sorry, but I am bristling a bit. This kind of nonsense really tweaks my beak and they are going to hear about this.

No... it is not "common knowledge". If it were... I'd have known it. Yes, I knew there was some slop in these lenses... but this is to the point of almost unreal... and really stretches credibility to the limit. Giving 30mm (15%) back is some serious focal length. 10mm, either way, at the high end... maybe... but 30mm? Yes, at the low end, it would be insulting.

Even the experienced camera shop guys (11-20 years) were a little taken back by this demonstrated problem and hard-pressed to explain it. It really should not be tolerated, otherwise it corrupts the entire measurement standards we use to evaluate our very lives.

"Oh... that's nearly a gallon (8/10s full)... We'll call it a gallon and charge you for a gallon." Hey, I don't think so. Fill to the line, pal... yeah the very line where the NBS (National Bureau of Standards) says it should be. It's not expecting too much. It's expecting what's to be expected. Expecting too much is expecting to get more for your money that the price allows or is clearly marked.

"Hey, what measurement system are we using, today?" :confused:

"Oh, whatever the manufacturer felt like!" :eek:

Well, I believe it must definately be guys doing the measureing....

After all, to guys, this |________________________| is 6 inches :eek:
hahahahaaaa

[George Riehm]

i occasionally do remodeling for hire. the client being your boss just isn't the same as having a supervisor to report to IMO. to me, the client is a customer.

anyways, "fine cabinet making" is hobby that i put on hold a year ago due to funding issues (it all went to photography :D ). i find it very interesting that you were a cabinet maker. with the word being a bit vague by nature, were you a "commercial" cabinet maker that dealt with large volumes or more of an artsy, individual piece type?

A little of both. I did kitchens, and bathrooms, for a real estate investor firm, and also did private libraries, and law/physicians, offices. The library/office jobs were pretty interesting as they generally wanted pretty high end woods, like Kokobolo (the main material cost was saw blades) and Zebrawood, as well as traditional solid cherry, Honduran mahogony, and English walnut. I even built a couple of desks. It was shortly after a table saw kickback that dragged my right hand through a 10" carbide blade, that going back to college for my degree took on greater appeal. Thanks to a great doctor who knew how to put the pieces back together, I still have a normal, and usable right hand.

I still have that Credo blade as a reminder of what happens when you bend the rules using power tools.:o And I still do some rare cabinet building as a hobby, when I'm not wearing out the D70 in the desert, or target shooting.

[ReF]

this whole time i had no idea you did woodworking. i guess then you would fully understand why woodworking would be quite limiting as a hobby when trying to make even medium sized pieces and the the funds aren't free flowing, especially when working most of the time with solid wood throughout. yeah, them harder woods like cocobolo certainly chew through sawblades quite quickly. that accident sounds crazy. the closest to an accident i've ever had was when i was new to using a bandsaw and didn't really know the signs of a blade about to snap. when it broke it shot down and forward narrowly missing my left hand. it was one of them "bigger" 3 or 3 1/2 horsepower motors too. had my share of awful slices from extremely sharp chisels in the beginning but thankfully i heal very quickly :) . getting your right hand dragged through a table saw is still unbelievably crazy in my mind. if you wouldn't mind eleborating i'd be interested in hearing more. of course you always just opt not to talk about it or PM.

[Franko515]

Not to hijack my thread ;) but I had a couple questions that went unanswered :D

Post 49 (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=133272&postcount=49)

post 16 (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=132306&postcount=16)

In post 16 there are question next to some of my list

Thanks in advance

[DonSchap]

The LowePro Nature Trekker AW II came with a "day bag" back pack, that will easily carry a lens, flash, camera and a few other ditties. It can fold up into the large pack.

The Trekker pack, itself, can carry four lenses, two flashes, the camera body, 2 teleconverters, manuals, release cables, interface cables, several filters, a tripod, and has outer straps for even large glass.

There is a company, Nova Photography, that makes a remote release cable in various lengths (1m, 5m, 10m, 20m). I personally make due with the 5 meter length... but that 10 meter would be nice for large studio work and the 20 meter for outdoor work.

Here's a link:

http://cgi.ebay.com/3-2ft-Nova-Remote-Switch-for-Canon-RS-80N3-Compatible_W0QQitemZ7631265083QQihZ017QQcategoryZ6 4345QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Hope this answers a few ???

[Franko515]

Thanks Don :D

[noyjimi]

Not to hijack my thread ;) but I had a couple questions that went unanswered :D

Post 49 (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=133272&postcount=49)


Just echoing what cwphoto already said - get the 10-22.


post 16 (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=132306&postcount=16)

In post 16 there are question next to some of my list

Thanks in advance

See www.cambags.com for reviews.

[Franko515]

Thanks for the replies and links

Is there a favorite brand of the masses when it comes to CF (i.e. Sandisk)
As far a flashes i will go with the 580EX Speedlite (i see lots of people have it :o ) but what is a bouncer?

[JTL]

but what is a bouncer?He's that big guy standing in front of the bar door...if he doesn't like you, he takes your flash and bounces it off your head! :D

[George Riehm]

this whole time i had no idea you did woodworking. i guess then you would fully understand why woodworking would be quite limiting as a hobby when trying to make even medium sized pieces and the the funds aren't free flowing, especially when working most of the time with solid wood throughout. yeah, them harder woods like cocobolo certainly chew through sawblades quite quickly. that accident sounds crazy. the closest to an accident i've ever had was when i was new to using a bandsaw and didn't really know the signs of a blade about to snap. when it broke it shot down and forward narrowly missing my left hand. it was one of them "bigger" 3 or 3 1/2 horsepower motors too. had my share of awful slices from extremely sharp chisels in the beginning but thankfully i heal very quickly :) . getting your right hand dragged through a table saw is still unbelievably crazy in my mind. if you wouldn't mind eleborating i'd be interested in hearing more. of course you always just opt not to talk about it or PM.

In a hurry, re-grooving 3/8" baseboard molding. No guards, very stupid. End of story.

[Vich]

Thanks for the replies and links

Is there a favorite brand of the masses when it comes to CF (i.e. Sandisk)
As far a flashes i will go with the 580EX Speedlite (i see lots of people have it :o ) but what is a bouncer?
Here (http://www.adorama.com/TR514BK.html)is the bag system I use. I can carry a flash, 1 set of extra batteries, extra flash cards, 1 polarizer filter + 1 Expodisc, 1 extra lens (tele or short), 1 camera w/ mid-tele lens attached, and whatever else I can cram into the small front pouch. The accessory bags velcro onto the sides via heavy duty 2 1/2 inch straps.

They also have a larger version here (http://www.tamrac.com/welcome.htm).

If no flash, then I can carry 2 extra lenses, but I usually carry the flash.

I like it because it's a system - and a convience bag. I can velcro-off the lens / flash carriers from the 2 sides when I don't want them. Also, for about $50 I'm all set with main bag + lens bag + flash bag.

I like having the camera at my side (rather than in a backpack) because I can actually get to it on a moment's notice, and because if I sit somewhere I don't have to remove it. As a dad, I often have another sort of backpack (food, cloths, etc).

If I get into bringing several lenses, filter kit, extra flash equipment, 2nd camera, etc then obviously some sort of pack will be needed.

I've seen some wedding photographers with a wheel-in suitcase style metal box with thick protective foam and a lock. But then, their needs aren't quite the same as a hiker with a camera and an extra lens.

[Vich]

In a hurry, re-grooving 3/8" baseboard molding. No guards, very stupid. End of story.
Bummer George. Glad you recovered.

One of my best friends of 30 years is a fine carpenter. Does all of Harrison Ford's home remodels. Great cabinets, etc. He put a nail-gun to his kneecap once. That earned him a year off. Yeah, saftey first on power tools. Luckely, the biggest danger with photography is looking at the Sun thru a tele lens - or maybe Carpal-Tunnel during PP.

[JTL]

Luckely, the biggest danger with photography is looking at the Sun thru a tele lens - or maybe Carpal-Tunnel during PP.Not true! The biggest danger is walking backwards will looking through the viewfinder and stepping off a cliff!!!

I lived to tell the tale, but my poor Rolleiflex's light meter hasn't worked since...:mad:

[Vich]

Not true! The biggest danger is walking backwards will looking through the viewfinder and stepping off a cliff!!!

I lived to tell the tale, but my poor Rolleiflex's light meter hasn't worked since...:mad:
Never say never hua? I suppose you could have tripped onto a tablesaw. Wouldn't that just be ironic!

Umm, OK, likely danger then. I suppose the list is actually pretty long, including getting clubbed for taking the wrong person's photo without permission.

[JMWallace]

Is there a favorite brand of the masses when it comes to CF (i.e. Sandisk)

I stick with the Sandisk UltraII. Advice from a pro friend of mine. For what your shooting, it will be more than sufficient speed wise. My friend uses them to shoot weddings, but for safety sake he won't go bigger than 512. I just got a 2GB at Circuit City for like $74 after rebate. There is an UltraIII, but for the price difference, you don't need the speed and haven't heard about reliability yet.

[cwphoto]

I stick with the Sandisk UltraII. Advice from a pro friend of mine. For what your shooting, it will be more than sufficient speed wise. My friend uses them to shoot wedding, but for safety sake he won't go bigger than 512. I just got a 2GB at Circuit City for like $74 after rebate. There is an UltraIII, but for the price difference, you don't need the speed and haven't heard about reliability yet.

Franko I think Extreme IIIs will be more to your taste.:cool:

[JMWallace]

Franko I think Extreme IIIs will be more to your taste.:cool:

Christian...I forgot about that. Thanks for the net!

[DonSchap]

Here's a snap of the pack... lensed and ready to rock.

13145

Watch the door frames... but everything listed below (except bag 2 stuff)... highly mobile. :p

Can you imagine the weight with ALL Canon "L"-glass? :( :mad: :eek: (Oh my! I think I hurt myself...) :p

[Franko515]

Thanks everyone for the replies :D
This is a great site ;)

He's that big guy standing in front of the bar door...if he doesn't like you, he takes your flash and bounces it off your head!

One time they bounced my head off of..........well i dont know what they bounced my head off of but it damn sure hurt, and i dont know if it sounded as loud to everyone else as it did to me but...........................:o

[Franko515]

I just got a deal too good to pass up. A guy I work with got two Mark II Ns for the price of one and is willing to sell me one for $2000 :D :cool: (too good to pass up right?) . So my new setup will be

Camera - Canon Mark II N
Tripod - Dynatran AT-CF994, H96 ballhead included (ebay)
Lenses
24-70 f/2.8L
70-200 f/2.8L IS
50 f/1.4 prime
Accessories - Extra Battery
CF 3x2GB (Sandisk???)
Remote Shutter (RS-80N3 or do they make better?)
Flash (580EX Speedlite) Whats a bouncer?
Hand Starp (suggestions)
Case (Suggestions, I need two. Something that will hold everything, and another for just the camera w/lens and an extra lens)

Now I am trying to decide between the kit lens (18-55) and the 17-40L

[cwphoto]

I just got a deal too good to pass up. A guy I work with got two Mark II Ns for the price of one and is willing to sell me one for $2000 :D :cool: (too good to pass up right?) . So my new setup will be

Camera - Canon Mark II N
Tripod - Dynatran AT-CF994, H96 ballhead included (ebay)
Lenses
24-70 f/2.8L
70-200 f/2.8L IS
50 f/1.4 prime
Accessories - Extra Battery
CF 3x2GB (Sandisk???)
Remote Shutter (RS-80N3 or do they make better?)
Flash (580EX Speedlite) Whats a bouncer?
Hand Starp (suggestions)
Case (Suggestions, I need two. Something that will hold everything, and another for just the camera w/lens and an extra lens)

Now I am trying to decide between the kit lens (18-55) and the 17-40L

What luck! I'd go for the 17-40L as you may find the 18-55 a bit limiting on the 1D Mark II N...;)

That remote release is fine. Go with Sandisk Ultra II or better. I don't use the handstrap but I've heard good things. You can't go wrong with the 580EX. Extra battery would be handy. Suggest mini Trekker or equivalent to carry it all.

Hope to see some pics soon.:)

[DonSchap]

Frank... the Mark II N will not mount the EF-S style lenses... like the 18-55 kit. I suspect you are pulling our respective legs, to be sure. With a camera like this... you should be mounting no less than the 17-40L... mainly because it is the only decent lens that will mount at this focal range. LOL :D

Right off the website specs...

Compatible Lenses: (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=12012) Canon EF lenses (except EF-S lenses)


There you go... they made the decision a breeze!

[Franko515]

Frank... the Mark II N will not mount the EF-S style lenses... like the 18-55 kit. I suspect you are pulling our respective legs, to be sure. With a camera like this... you should be mounting no less than the 17-40L... mainly because it is the only decent lens that will mount at this focal range. LOL :D

Right off the website specs...

Compatible Lenses: (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=12012) Canon EF lenses (except EF-S lenses)


There you go... they made the decision a breeze!

:o I was so excited about the deal I cut and paste the list and forgot to change that. Its between the 17-40 and 16-35 (probably the 17-40, since the 16-35 isnt as sharp)

[cwphoto]

:o (probably the 17-40, since the 16-35 isnt as sharp)

:confused:

According to who?

[jamison55]

C'mon man - don't you read dpreview!

[cwphoto]

C'mon man - don't you read dpreview!

I stand corrected.:rolleyes:

Side note: was actually wishing for a little extra reach from my 16-35 at yesterday's wedding. During the traditional Macedonian-style dancing the clients like a wide shot of the family leading plus a tighter shot of the leader.

Was thinking the 17-40 would be ideal. But having a 16-35 and a 17-40 would be just silly.:D

[jamison55]

Too bad you're in 1D land...with a 17-55 like I have, you'd be able to get close enough to count the hairs growing out of his nose...

[cwphoto]

Too bad you're in 1D land...with a 17-55 like I have, you'd be able to get close enough to count the hairs growing out of his nose...

You're a tease Jamie.:D

But it would need to be a 14-55 to give me the width Mr Smartipants.;) :p

[Franko515]

who knows, I may buy the 1D Mark II N and sell it for $3300 then get a 30D (for free ;) ) The Mark II N is brand new in the box

[cwphoto]

who knows, I may buy the 1D Mark II N and sell it for $3300 then get a 30D (for free ;) ) The Mark II N is brand new in the box

Now that makes a lot of sense. Just don't tell your mate.:p

[Franko515]

Just to update, I bought and sold the camera. I didnt get the 30D yet because I have been laid-off for the past six weeks and want to at least wait until I went back to work. Then we (my wife and I) found out we are expecting (so I gotta have it before the baby). Anyway just thought I would share and say thanks again for all the input.

By the way this is my new set up

30D
18-55 (kit lens)
50 f/1.4
135 f/2 L
24-70 f/2.8 L
70-200 f/2.8 IS L (this one will have to wait, until later though)
Tripod - Dynatran AT-CF994, H96 ballhead included (ebay)
Remote Shutter (RS-80N3)
Flash (580EX Speedlite)
3 2GB sandisk extreme III
Extra battery