Mizouse

i just saw that spyder thing today at compusa, was wondering if that thing is for real.


and damn i wish i had that lens on me during my trip to hawaii, so many shots i couldnt get cause i couldnt get a close enough shot ohh well..

Mizouse

whats a good cheap telephoto lens thats similar in range to the 70-200 lenses w/ decent performance, i cant quite afford the 70-200 f2.8 or f4

Dan Martin

I have the Spyder2Pro and it does a decent job. It's good enough for the average photographer just trying to match their prints to their screen. Systems from xrite do a better job, but they cost twice as much and are not as user friendly.

Dan Martin

The Canon 70-200 f/4 goes for ~$560, below that I'd recommend the following:
1)Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM - $540
...
nothing I can think of between these two
...
2)Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 III - $180
3)Sigma 55-200 f/4-5.6 $150

badboy

The canon lens rebats end in less than a week. GET YOUR LENSES NOW!!!

srika

does a 70-200 f/4 have any advantage over a 70-200 f/2.8? The only thing I can think of is lighter weight?

fdl

Thats about it. And it comes with a tripod collar, whereas its extra $$ on the f/4 (and very much needed IMO).

Dan Martin

I haven't found much need for one on my f/4, but I'd want one on a f/2.8. The only time I could see it being necessary on an f/4 is if you're using it on a tripod and need to quickly switch between portrait and landscape orientations, without repositioning your ball head. It's certainly not heavy enough to do any damage to the lens mount, so you don't have to worry about that. Anything short of a 300 f/2.8 won't crack a lens mount if you picked it up by the body.

Dan Martin

The f/4 version is actually slightly sharper than the f/2.8 IS. Compare the MTF's in this review:

f/4: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...00_4/index.htm
f/2.8: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...28is/index.htm

srika

^^^^ exactly what I wanted to know.. thx

fdl

This is what I was worried about. I was thinking it might be too much strain on the mount. I also think that the money they charge for a collar is highway robbery.

Dan Martin

Oh, it's definitely a rip for sure. If you can find them for <$100US, you're doing good. There are a few clones out there, but they're black which looks weird, and they're not all that much cheaper either.

I need to get a milling center and start making parts like this for reasonable prices.

Stapler

Bah, no need for a milling center, it's time for hose clamps and duct tape.
You go first though.

moeronn

Thanks for the advice, MacGyver.

srika

oh my god... so I shot 2 events last Thursday and this past Saturday. Looking at the pics I couldn't help but notice I had way more blurred shots than previously. I mean it was sooo noticeable.. Still had a good amount of "keepers" but I am taking about the details. The subject was generally sharp but the outlying details were more often than not blurred. It didn't strike me until just now - so I checked - I had mistakenly turned the IS switch off at some point. I had questioned its benefits in the past but I can truly now say - IS FTW!!!!!!! It makes a HUGE difference!! But - the switch should have a lock on it!!

badboy

We need a 5D pics thread!!!

dom

It is waaayyy to easy to turn it off.

Dan Martin

srika

well... everything starting from towards 3/4 in to this thread fits that bill to some extent... only club photography tho

srika

Stapler

Okey dokey, So. I'm not much of a writer or photographer, but I love to brag. Bear with me.

The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 Di II is pretty freaking sweet. I read the DSLR gear review before diving head first into it. I would suggest others did too. I don't really have anything new to say, but that never stopped me from posting before.



The build quality of this lens is quite good. It is all plastic but it is in a different class than my thrifty 50 and old canon 17-55 kit lens. It doesn't feel quite as solid as my one L lens, but I suppose that is the difference between plastic and metal. The Manual focus ring is also in between the super cheap plastic lenses and the L.

One thing I like is that just like my 70-200 the part that filters attach doesn't turn. With the moving focus ring/filter mount on the kit lens and a circular polarizer I was nearly driven insane. An added plus is the 70-200 and this both have 67 mm threads so now I don't need to mess with step down rings.

The auto focus on the lens is a bit loud, certainly not USM or anything fancy, but it is quite quick. This could be partially because of the New camera but I haven't had one problem with the auto focus hunting thus far. I stepped up to the Xti and this lens from the original Rebel and the Kit lens all at once though and I have read the ai guts of the Xti are what make the big difference.

Sharpness is as good as I can hope for. I may still be in my new toy delusional state but this thing seems to make images on par with the 70-200 when set around f 5.6 or so. It isn't quite as good at f2.8, but still better than my kit lens most any time.

I actually think that I won't be adding to much to my kit in the future. This lens has made me quite content. I would definitely recommend it.

Now, on with the traditional non technical sample pictures of pets.



http://farm1.static.flickr.com/132/3...95829a2b_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/158/3...370308cf_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/138/3...5bf5e764_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/161/3...fe400912_b.jpg

Dan Martin

Looks good! I've heard many good things about this lens, so I'll add your review to the plus column.

jupitersolo

This website has some really good picture from this lens.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

Dan Martin

Yes, photozone is a good site. Also SLRGear.com is getting to be a good resource for lens reviews.

Mizouse

i just picked up a 70-300mm IS USM lens and a 50mm 1.8, gonna practice with them pretty soon

wndrlst

Not exactly a lens question, but close enough:
Is there a significant difference in filter quality from one brand to the next? I'm ready to order a circular polarizer, and was wondering why the big price differences. Is it the glass? Coatings? Also, is it better to go with the slim?

MrChad

both, the better filters contain glass more like your lens element glass, and yes they optically coat the glass to reduce flare and ghosting, just as important for a DSLR as a 35mm SLR.

B+W makes some price filters but they do the job. Hoya too. I paid extra for this on my UV filters that live on my daily lenses. But I have a much cheaper Tiffen CP-L as I don't use that so often so I figure I'll deal with the occasional flare for the huge cost savings.

I had some Canon cheap OEM filters at one point, really not worth the money. Stick with the better filter brands.

waTSX

I say spring for good filters, as it makes no sense to put inferior glass in front of your expensive lenses. Both Hoya and B&W make great, albeit pricey, filters. The nice thing is if all your lenses have the same sized front element, you can use one filter for all of them. Your 70-200 and 10-22, for instance, are 77mm up front and can take the same filter. Most of the Canon "L" lenses and two of the EF-S's are at 77mm, I believe.

As for slim filters, it's a good idea to use them for ultra-wides (10-22) so as to avoid vignetting when shooting at the wide end. You can also use the slim filters on your other lenses.

wndrlst

Thanks!

MrChad

I actually went the other way, I was so completely un-impressed with the build quality of the Canon 10-22mm lens (especially at $700!!). It's the only Canon lens I have ever sold besides a kit zoom. I sold mine to purchase the 17-40L which I shoot on a film body with chromes when I want a wide shot. The 10-22mm in theory has the same type of UD elements as the halo L's but I just never had any snap from this lens. Even my old long gone Sigma 18-125mm DC appeared to have more sharpness then this lens at equivilant focal lengths. I found I had to shoot my 10-22mm almost exclusively in RAW and post the pics for any kind of resolution I was excited about.

The straw that broke the camels back for me however was that my lens developed a looseness in the middle near the silver markings band. I was paranoid that a good bump in my bag woud crack the lens in half as this is the common point of failure for dropped 10-22mm lenses.

I know that DxO tests and reviews state the Canon 10-22mm is one of the best ultra-wide APS zooms but I just never loved the thing. My hope would be that Canon might introduce a 10mm/2.8 EFS maybe that would be a lens I could learn to love?

I was really tempted to sell my 24-70L to purchase the 17-55mm but I was afraid I'd still end up using the 17-40L more as my second body is a D30.

badboy

Added two more lens to my kit.



can't wait to go out and shoot with these beauties.

Dan Martin

Nice score badboy!

So what other lenses do you have in your kit?

badboy

yeah, I am excited. Two L class lenses for 1K is not bad at all.

I've got the kit lens, 50 1.8, and 28-105 which I took the pic with.

Can't wait to go and shoot stuff. With the cold weather upon us, it makes it a tad bit difficult.

badboy

I would have liked to get my hands on the 70-200 f4L IS, but I just cannot see spending 500 bucks on IS.

guia x

Nice score badboy. I kinda wish I would have gotten the 70-200 f4. I got the 70-300 IS instead for Christmas. I guess I was so caught up in thinking that I should go for the f2.8 instead that I had not given the f4 a second thought and told my wife to get me the 70-300 instead if she didn't want to get me the f2.8. I guess I had a brain fart. I didn't think she would get me a lens for Christmas anyway but she surprised me. Anyway, I'm still pretty happy with it. It does give me more range. As far as sharpness goes, I do not know how much I gave up. It still my sharpess lens next to my 100mm macro. Well, someday I will probably get the 70-200 f2.8 IS. I'll stick with the 70-300 for a while.

Now a quick lens question. Is the EF-S 17-55 that much better than the 18-55 kit lens? I feel that my kit lens is the weakest lens in my bag and would like to replace it. Is that something I should really consider or it's not worth it? I take much better looking pictures with my 70-300mm, 100mm macro and my 50mm. It's probably an obvious question but is the picture quality of the 17-55 that much better than the kit lens? Is it worth replacing it? Also, all my lenses are EF and I'm kinda hesistant to get an EF-S if I should get a full frame camera later. Should I even consider that or not even worry about it? If I should stick with EF lenses, what EF lens has excellent sharpness in the same focal range? The 17-40? Another thing to consider is that I will need a super wide angle as well to cover the entire range. So I guess the bottomline is, what's the two best lens I should get to cover below 70mm?

MrChad

The 17-55mm is optically Canon's best performing wide angle lens, even superior to the 16-35mm and the 17-40mmL, that said it's not built like an L or weather sealed. If you don't think you'll ever spring for the FF sensor then I wouldn't let the L thing worry you.

If you plan to go FF one day or would like to have a lens for film, the 16-35mm or 17-40mm L will deliver performance superior to the kit lens by far.

The 17-55mm is said to have optical performance on par with the 24-70/2.8L on FF, I use a 24-70L quite a bit and still don't think twice about using my 17-40/4.0L. All of these lenses are simply mechanical/optical gems.

As for an ultrawide APS-C, almost every one currently available for APS-C is a superior performing optic. It's hard to find a dud, or a cheap one in most cases. 3rd party glass will be cheaper then Canon's 10-22mm but many reviews state the Canon is the best performing. Is it worth the cost? Many users appear quite happy with the Sigma 10-20mm/4-5.6 DC EX or the Tokina 12-24mm/4 DX.

If you are looking for good bargain upgrade -- if you can call it that, look into the Tamron 17-50mm XR Di; Sigma 17-70mm DC; or the Sigma 18-50mm DC EX Macro zoom. All 3 can be had for under $500 easy.

Also don't hesitate to look at the Canon 17-85mm IS USM, this lens should be right on par with your 70-300 IS, also under $500 street.

MrChad

Shot with 17-40/4L 1/50 f/5 ISO500.

guia x

Thanks MrChad. Quite an informative response. You mentioned the 24-70 f2.8L. I had not considered this lens but now that you brought it up, you definitely got my interest. I lose alittle bit down low, but the range gets it right up to my 70-300. I would need something to cover the lower range anyway and I don't use my 18-55 on the lower range too much. So this lens is very attractive indeed.

It's a tough decision. I will be losing IS but then I would be getting an L lens and more range. I've read reviews that the 17-55 has some problems with dust. Is that a problem that I should keep in mind or I shouldn't even worry about it. It seems like IS would be so important and would come in handy for low light but maybe I need to consider the build quality as well. So since you have experience with both, which one would you suggest I get?

MrChad

What camera do you have now? The 24-70L will be a huge beast to hold on body like the Rebel XT or XTi, it's a beast on the 30D. I find I rather like using this lens on a film body like an Elan7e over my heavy 30D with grip.

If you own an Rebel XT or XTi you will not go wrong with the 17-55mm IS EFS, that said you are looking at a lens as long and twice as heavy as your 70-300mm IS, is this acceptable for you?

I shoot film as well as digital, I want my gear to do both duties, I have no intention of buying the latest and greatest of glass -- I'll have my lenses for some time well beyond the fad of IS. I compromise my focal lengths IMO so as to have very versatile lenses for me. If you don't own a 35mm or FF digital body I wouldn't be too concerned with big heavy L glass. Buy the lightest smallest gear you can get away with.

I still use the 75-300 IS USM for one of my travel tele's, you aren't missing anything with the 70-300 IS USM, you have the added sharpness of the aspherical element and the best IS system for that size lens.

If you really want a cheap, light, long reaching lens able to match your 70-300 IS USM; look at the Sigma 17-70mm DC f/2.8-4.5. If you can tolerate a rotating front AF ring like the 70-300's and a bit of a noisy but quick AF motor you will enjoy this lens. Especially at under $400 -- it will outperform your kit lens in spades.

The 24-70mmL is a huge lens for it's focal length. It also is a must to be used with its hood IMO, which is 4.25" wide and some 3.5" long, this lens will be longer and wider by a huge factor then your 70-300 IS USM. I only have one lens bigger, my 70-200/2.8L.

Honestly my most used lens on my 30D is my 17-40L; smaller, lighter and easier to bring along then my 24-70L. I don't miss the f/2.8 a bit, but I can say that I have a 24-70L. Tough call if I didn't...

The Sigma 17-70mm DC is a great lens from the stand point that you will have a lens able to fill the gap all the way up to your 70-300. And it's small and relatively cheap. In comparison to other Canon glass. Canon's 17-85mm IS USM, would be the next best choice for a lens to match the 70-300 IS USM.

But if you want the best lens for a body like a Rebel digital, the 17-55mm IS EFS hands down, optically you won't tell it apart from an L. It will be as sharp as your 100mm, or darn close enough.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

cl_jay

Previously, i had wanted the 24-70, but having researched more, I read very positive reviews for the 17-55. Like MrChad and others say, the 17-55 image quality is on par or exceeds L image quality. In fact, in that site MrChad linked to, he says "At all overlapping focal lengths and apertures, the 17-55 is sharper than my Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens. "

Owning an XT, I have changed to know wanting the 17-55 because of the crop factor, image quality of the 17-55, the IS of the 17-55 (aside from having the 2.8 aperture), and costing a little less than the 24-70.

I really wanted to be introduced into the L line of lenses, but image quality wise, it appears that the 17-55 will be.