This is a Canon "L" lens, is see you have two in your camera bag. The same could be said for them as to cost and other makes. But I won't because you will not find anything other than Canon in my bag.

Though this lens is sold as a macro because of the 1:1, it is used for other reasons.

How would f/3.5 be considered slow for any sane use of this lens? No one in their right mind would buy this lens with aspirations of routinely using it as a hand hold-able telephoto.

Exactly my point, paying $1200 for an f/3.5 180mm tele alone would be a bit extreme.

...you clearly missed the tong and cheek wallet comment.

I wouldn't likely drag this lens around for anything more then macro given I have other lenses to use for non-macro use.

You get a prime or two and you'll find that though your zooms are good. The primes are better. Plus they make you think of your shot.

Well, I still haven't had the chance to really go out and shoot with the 17-55, but I have toyed around with it a tad in the house. It seems that the zoom squeeks a little. It's also a little tight when zooming out in the 17-24 range, which I have heard is fairly typical. Any thoughts on these issues?

I work fairly close to the Canon Repair Center in Irvine, so I might swing by with my gear one day. Though all of my other gear is out of the 1 year warranty.

i might bring mine in as well, i dont see my pictures being as sharp as people say the lens is

Anyone have any experience/thoughts on this?

Quantaray 18-200mm
http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/251666087.htm

I think that "Q" is a propriety lens for Ritz and Wolf Camera. You might want to look at this


http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-200mm...4570410&sr=8-1

hmm nice. I had no idea a 18-200 was even available for Canon until a few days ago. :< I'm anxious to see what 18mm looks like on a FF..

just look at the 10-22 pictures, im sure its pretty close to that

btw, that sigma lens

That is a DC lens, I can never keep track of third party initials.

no, I'm curious about the experience, not the shots. I mean, how it looks in the viewfinder.

I wonder if the Quantaray would be ok....

This is all going from memory, but I had read a few years ago that you really shouldn't consider any zoom beyond a 4x (ish) range unless you're willing to accept some sort of inherent flaw in your image quality. The laws of optics basically dictate that you simply can't design an optical system with a long zoom range that doesn't exhibit some form of distortion or aberration.

man o man, if things work out 70-200 2.8 after April 1st, and if i really stretch things out 40D as well, but most likely that wont come until the end of April



i love being the only sports photographer for my schools newspaper

^^ yeah I wouldn't doubt that. Maybe I should instead be thinking about a wide prime..

15mm fisheye

or maybe i could forget the 70-200 2.8 and 40D, sell my 17-55 2.8 and then pick up a 5D and 24-70.. dammit

Are you getting paid for your school paper shots?

yes, and ALOT

not a fan of fisheye..

14mm then?

That's great. As long as the gear is subsidised, so to speak, then keep it coming. Then get a studio setup and start handing business cards out to girls at the different events.

im actually going to eventually pick up an AB800 and a shoot thru umbrella just not sure when.

Let me know if you need help testing out that 70-200 2.8

I am more than happy to help out your school paper by trying out all your lenses and confirming your thoughts, just for an objective opinion of course.

You might want a portable strobe solution if you shoot for your newspaper. It's not easy finding electrical outlets to plug a studio strobe into when you're shooting on location...

i was just thinking of getting those big batteries that i see attached to flash units.

I have a friend who shoots professionally for a local newspaper and he shoots with simple hotshoe flashes on lightweight stands, which is a large reason why I went that route when I recently bought my portable flash setup.

The only problem with the Alien Bees is you'll need a Vagabond II to power an AB800. Although it will make for a great setup, it's going to be really heavy! Once you add the flash, stand and modifiers, you're going to be carrying around close to 30 pounds for one light. You can power a couple lights from one Vagabond, so your second light will only add 10 pounds or so to your kit, but you're still going to be close to 40 pounds just for two lights. You're going to want at least two lights for portraits, possibly more for groups.

My setup is less than 6 pounds per light with stands and all accessories, and two of them can pack into a backpack with room for camera gear. If there's something special coming up that I need to shoot, I can just grab the backpack and be on my way.

I don't want to talk you out of getting an Alien Bee setup, but just be sure you've thought through the portability issues before placing your order.

hm... didnt think of that. well i wont be getting it anytime soon, just was considering it. id most likely purchase them if i get a job w/ a real newspaper.

Lens "planning" question:

I am planning on ultimately having in my gear bag the following three lenses and wondered if anyone had any thought on the combo or alternate lenses that may be better. I don't have a set style or subject matter yet, so I thought these three would pretty much cover me as I figure out how and what I like to photograph.

EF-S 10-22 3.5-4.5
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8 (maybe IS)

sounds good to me, thats kinda what im aiming for.

EF-S 10-22
EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS (already have it)
EF 70-200 2.8 (next on the list)

somewhere way down the line im going to get a macro and then a 28mm 1.8 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8

I guess I am throwing around the differences in the 17-55 and the 24-70. I didn't want my upper limit to be 55 (*1.6) when my next lens started at 70(*1.6). That's 32mm (88-112) missing, and I know all the good shots will be right there in that range....

I was just talking to drigo a couple days ago about this...

I had the 10-22, 24-70, and 70-200 before I sold the 24-70 for the 17-55. The problem for me wasn't on the long end, it was on the short end. I use the 17-24 range quite a bit, so when I went for a walk and wanted to bring only one lens with me, it was tough to choose if I wanted to shoot wide and bring the 10-22 or long and bring the 24-70. When I ended up bringing the 18-55 kit lens with me instead of either the 10-22 or the 24-70, I knew I had to change the lineup. The 17-55 was a great move and I definitely don't feel crippled on the long end. Generally, if the 55mm won't cut it, I'm going to want the 70-200, not just an extra 15mm in the same lens.

Hmmm.... Interesting.

I really need to rent these lenses and try them out.

28(*1.6) is the widest I have right now, so I think EITHER would be an improvement for me on the wide end, just a matter of HOW wide I would want to go for the primary lens on the 40D, and how much I want to give up on the long end...

for me right now, i need to pay attention to what im shooting with more on my 17-55, ive been noticing there are times where i just need a little bit more than 55mm

On the other side of the scale is the 24-105, but its f4, not 2.8, plus then there is more overlap with the 70-200.

from what i hear, some over lap is good, dont always want to have to change lenses just because you want to go a little bit past 70mm.

Yeah, true, just not sure I want to give up f2.8 for the overlap.

I wish Google would make the perfect lens. f1.0 5mm-600mm IS 3.2lbs... $499.00