| Author | Message | ||
     Brineusaf |
 No cellulite here... | ||
| Brineusaf |
 I let some lady stand in front of me for a moment, and this is what I get... | ||
| Brineusaf |
  | ||
| Brineusaf |
The only editing I have done was resizing to post. How do you think I did for my first time using the new camera (with kit lens)? | ||
| Jackbequick |
Brine, Extenders or doublers (especially off brand generic ones) take quite a bit of quality out of a lens. You'll usually lose sharpness in particular and, of course, holding it steady becomes a bigger issue. The 300mm EF lens you are looking at is equivalent to a 480mm lens when used on the digital bodies. That used to be about the maximum practical focal length for handheld shooting The Canon lenses with "IS" in their model names have Image Stabilization and that lets you shoot handheld and quickly at higher focal lengths. But the IS lenses are quite a bit more expensive. The "Cadillacs" of the EF lenses are the "L" series, the ones that have an "L" after the aperture designation. Size for size, they cost two to four times as much the good USM IS lenses. Here is a brochure with all the EF and EF-S lenses and specs (but no prices) for them: http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart. pdf I've been agonizing over spending about $400 for the EF-S 17-85mm USM IS lens as a very good every day/all around lens or spending a similar amount for two good EF zoom lenses (without IS) to get a much increased zoom telephoto range capability. All things considered, I think the 17-85 USM IS lens would satisfy all my needs most of the time and also produce very good results. That lens would be equivalent to a 27-135mm lens in terms of 35mm camera lenses. The standard 18-55mm lens I have now would be a 29-88mm lens in comparison. Jack (Message edited by jackbequick on November 22, 2006) | ||
| Brineusaf |
Thanks for the info on the extenders. I don't have the cash for L series, likewise for Canon IS lens. | ||
| 99buellx1 |
I would like to sell it to you and purchase something for myself, but financially it is not in the cards for me right now. (I need a Playstation 3) But I'll think about it. | ||
| 99buellx1 |
Oh and I have not order from the 'net, but a friend of mine has bought a few things from B&H Photo with great results. www.bhphotovideo.com | ||
| Jackbequick |
Okay, this thread put me over the edge. I bought my EF-S 17-85mm USM IS lens on eBay today. $470 (shipped) with a UV filter and lens hood, lightly used but mint. Merry Xmas to me. The guy swears it was only used on Sundays and to photograph slow moving objects and at mid zoom ranges. Never used hard or put away wet. I'm thinking if I want to get some more telephoto out of it a doubler will be worth a try since I am starting with a fairly good lens. I want to get some better shots of the critters out back and this lens should do it.   Jack | ||
| Newfie_buell |
18-55mm Digital Rebel.  75-300  Get both as they are good for all situations. | ||
| Bads1 |
Craig you aren't ragging on me at all. You are correct as far as I'm concerned. Brine like Craig said its a great lens for the money but to get better you'll spend triple. All depends on you and what and your pocket book wants to fork out. | ||
| Woody1911a1 |
figures you buellers would own rebels ;-P guess i'll hafta trade my nikons NOT lol | ||
| Hdbobwithabuell |
Brine - I'm no expert, but I've taken quite a few shots and currently shoot a D200 with several medium qual. lenses. Your night shot with the American flag in the back is impressive. | ||
| Brineusaf |
Bob- Thanks a lot! The comments mean a lot. | ||
| Brineusaf |
Well, this is the lens I got. Seems to be alright so far, haven't had a chance to do any real shooting yet, but I will on 1 Dec. Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO  | ||
| Bads1 |
What did you wind up paying for the Sigma and what made the decision?? | ||
| Brineusaf |
@ the store I went to they had the Sigma and a Cannon lens. Both were 70-300 IIRC. The Canon was 160 Euro, the Sigma was 260 Euro, with the difference being the APO DG title on the Sigma. After comparing the two lens, which they allowed me to do in store, using their female co-workers as targets- The canon lens appeared to be "darker" than the Sigma - which obviously appeared "brighter". The Canon's rotation when zooming was also a bit too tight, which would skip around making it difficult for me to dial in the zoom I wanted (wouldn't move just a lil')- as Compared to the Sigma's who's rotation was smooth and allowed me to move it as little as I wanted. What it came down to was buying a lens that I would possibly outgrow, or get a good one I wouldn't have to worry about replacing, and getting more for the money. Note: after VAT Form I paid 220 Euro. | ||
| Brineusaf |
Optical Quality This is where this APO lens differs from its sister, utilising two extra SLD (special low dispersion) glass elements in the front group, making three in total. SLD glass is denser, accounting for the slight increase in weight over the lesser lens. As is normal with this type of zoom lens, performance is better at the shorter focal length, tailing off a bit as the zoom is extended. However, unlike some, the drop off is not too marked and in its class, this lens performed well throughout the range. The extended focus, providing the 1:2 macro facility, is especially useful and performed well giving good definition at close quarters. The new multi-coating, which gives the lens it’s DG (optimised for digital) classification, helps a design that is good to start with, that extra bit of help in controlling artefacts. CA is well controlled and distortion reasonably well managed, although there is a slight pincushion effect at the 300mm end. (Easily cured in software on digital images) The extra SLD elements do indeed help to improve the resolution. taken from - http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdeta il.cfm?test_id=369 | ||
| Bads1 |
So you paid more for the Sigma??? I'm seeing that lens here for $129.00 $150.00. I've checked that lens out. Are you sure you are happy with it?? Its kinda hard to check out a 300mm lens in a store. | ||
| Brineusaf |
They let me walk around with it, and switch back and forth from the Canon to the Sigma. Yes, I paid more for the Sigma, but all of the reviews I have read place the optics above the Canon. Note: I checked it out online, shipping would have been around $40... plus I don't have much time to wait around for it.  | ||
| Brineusaf |
Did I mention that the smoothness on the Canon didn't exist? | ||
| Bads1 |
Hmmmm weird mine is 75-300 and its fine. Smoothness was ok for the money and didn't see a difference. The next lens I get will likely be the same but a L lens. Thats when the money comes in. | ||
| Brineusaf |
On the Canons they had everytime I tried to rotate to zoom, it felt too tight, making the zooming choppy. Additionally, The Sigma produced a more clear image, unlike the Canon which was cloudy/darker (hard to explain). Not saying your lens is like this, but the ones they had at the store were this way. I'm very satisfied so far. | ||
| Bads1 |
Trying to compare these two lenses inside a store is to difficult ans can't be done. Both lenses need lots of light. The Sigma lens you bought is about $100.00 cheaper in price here in the states. At the camera store I bought my lens at I actually got to take some pictures with your Sigma lens and the Tamron lens and the Canon. After down loading the pics I took at the store it was a coin toss really between the Sigma and Canon. I could tell some what of a difference at full zoom where the Canon was slightly better. Could of been me I don't know but none the less close. The next thing I get is a backpack that will hold my lap top and all my camera stuff. Looking at a couple now but haven't made my mind up yet. Also a new lens would like a nice wide angle. Gotta get one these right away though. I know Craig loves his.  | ||
| Brineusaf |
Yeah, I hinted to the wife that I wanted one. Right now I'm torn between what type of bag I want. I already have a 2gig card, but will be buying a 4gig, since I just sold my laptop and won't be able to "dump" photo's whenever I want. | ||
| Bads1 |
Bummer!!! The wife and I are going to Laguna so time pending I'll be posting pics while I'm there. Quite a few Back packs on Ebay but I really need to see them first before purchasing. | ||
| 99buellx1 |
The battery grip is something I cannot go without. It gives my pinky finger somewhere to rest, and the extra shutter button is extremely helpful. | ||
| 99buellx1 |
Aaarrrgggh. All this camera talk really has me thinking. What do I need? This:  Or this:  Man, this is going to be a hard decision. | ||
| Jackbequick |
Is that the 70-200mm "L" series? How much is that guy? But we could compromise, you could get the PS3 for yourself and the lens for me. I should get my 17-85mm EF-S, USM, IS lens tomorrow. I'm looking forward to that. Jack | ||
| 99buellx1 |
Yup, it's the 70-200mm f/4.0 L, the current price at B&H Photo is $579.95 with a $35.00 rebate. A friend of mine has the 17-85 IS that you just got, it's a nice lens, you will enjoy it. |
