dSLR thread

[Tannin]

And so it begins ......

....... the start of another Storage Forum fortune for Canon.

As if they haven't got enough money from Lunar, Handy, and me already.

Damn it, I wish I'd bought Canon shares when I wa younger.

 

[P5-133XL]

Tannin, you can add me to that list: I've already spent far too much in Canon equipment to be considered rational. The problem is like a large rubber ball traveling down hill, once it starts, there's no stopping and it speed just keeps increasing.

 

[ddrueding]

You can certainly count me in. I just ordered the 50mm/1.8 and the 35mm/2. I also today purchased a tripod, Lowepro backpack, 4GB Extreme IV CF cards, Firewire CF reader (desktop), USB CF reader (laptop), and the shutter remote control.

Another $1k down the drain...

 

[Handruin]

The ball is still rolling down hill for me. I have several items I'd like to get, one of them being the mark III and I'd been debating the 135mm F/2.0L or 24-70 F/2.8L to go with it.

 

[Handruin]

I didn't bother paying the extra for the Extreme IV cards...I recently bought two of the Extreme II 4GB cards and they work perfect in the 20D. Are you getting those just to transfer the files quicker onto the PC? Which Lowepro did you get?

 

[ddrueding]

On Amazon the price difference between the various extreme cards wasn't significant, and the IV was available as a package with the Firewire CF reader (the fastest in the benchmarks listed earlier).

I got the Lowepro CompuDaypack. Camera and room for 4 more lenses in the bottom, all the accessories in the top, and a back compartment for the laptop and all it's accessories. I was going to get a tabletop tripod, but instead found one made by Targus that will work well for tabletop work, fits in the backpack (~12" long), and extends to 40"...good enough for me.

 

[ddrueding]

Next up...EF 50mm/2.5 Macro

I miss my cat (staying with my parents)

 

[e_dawg]

Hmm... I might suggest looking at the EF-S 60/2.8 Macro or the Sigma 70/2.8 Macro instead. Both of them are better optically than the EF 50/2.5 CM and are true macros (1:1), as opposed to the 1:2 pseudo-macro of the EF 50/2.5 CM. The 60/2.8 also has USM (not that it would be useful for macro work, but it's preferable otherwise) going for it, and the Sigma 70/2.8 won both the TIPA and EISA awards for best lens 2007.

Not to mention, 50 mm is kinda short for macro work. You probably want something in the 70-105 range to start with and add a 50 macro or 150 macro when you figure out what and how you like to shoot. If you want something a bit longer than the Sigma 70/2.8, there is always the excellent Tamron SP 90/2.8 Macro.

 

[ddrueding]

Thanks for the tips, e_dawg. I'm trying to avoid the EF-S lenses, my next body might be something that won't support it (full frame sensor).

What are the catches to using non-canon lenses?

 

[e_dawg]

Non-Canon? You rarely get built-in lens AF motors like Canon's excellent USM except for Sigma's HSM, resale value is lower, and optical quality is not as high on average as Canon's better lens designs. Certainly, there are world class third party lenses, like Sigma's 70 and 150 macros, Tamron SP 90, etc. but not as common as say Canon's L-series where almost every lens is optically excellent.

 

[Tannin]

Canon's L-series where almost every lens is optically excellent.

You wouldn't think so to read some of the rants on DPR .... but that really just goes to show that for any given subject, there is always an internet site where people will mouth off at great length and from a great height.

Then again, lots of Canon people wind up with an ugly "L Fetish", and spend their days walking around fantasising that there is a secret substance called "L Glass" which, kind of like the special sauce on a big mac, does magical things when you poke a camera through it. Complete twats, the whole lot of them.

Anyway, the moral of my little story is to say don't get to hung up on the name or model number on the lens, let alone on whether it has a red ring or not. I've got a fair collection of lenses, about half of them with the red ring, the other half without. Yes, my best lens is an L, and my worst lens isn't, but if we follow good standard statistical practice and discard the outliers, the picture is much less clear. In order of quality (reinstating the outliers), they go:

1: L
2: non-L
3: non-L
4: L
5: L
6: L
7: non-L
8: non-L (now sold)

Those two non-L lenses near the top, by the way Dave, are both EF-S units. Yes, there is some point to staying away from EF-S lenses if you are thinking you will go full-frame before too long, but if you do you will miss out on some absolutely brilliant glass. Converesly, an "L" badge isn't by any means a guarantee of perfection. My 24-105 distorts horribly at the wide end: it's as bad at 24mm as the 18-55 is at 18mm, and the 18-55 costs maybe US$100, where the 24-105 is something like US$1400. Go figure.

 

[ddrueding]

If you wouldn't mind sharing, what are those EF-S lenses near the top?

 

[Handruin]

If you wouldn't mind sharing, what are those EF-S lenses near the top?

I'm willing to bet one of them is the 10-22mm EF-S. I'd love to get that lens, but it won't work on the 1d Mark III, which is what I'd want it for (when I can find one).

 

[ddrueding]

Do any of you have/use wide-format photo printers? Or do you recommend a service?

 

[Handruin]

The only service I've used is winkflash. They claim to not alter the colors of the photos and they allow me to send them basically any file format. So I sent them my images as 16-bit tiff files for the best quality. I've only made a few prints and they came out fine (one was a 24"x36" poster).

 

[ddrueding]

Some friends and family aren't computer savvy, so I was thinking of getting a photo printer. If I were to get one, it would need to be able to print at least 18x24". Is ink jet still the way to go?

 

[Handruin]

Sorry man, that's out of my realm. I haven't bought a printer since 1997.

 

[Tannin]

That was a safe bet, Doug: they are:

1: 500/4
2: 60 macro
3: 10-22
4: TS-E 24
5: 100-400
6: 24-105
7: 50/1.8
8: 18-55

Numbers 4, 5, and 6 are a bit vague so far as order goes, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. All three are very fine lenses, I hasten to add - but the first three listed (only one of them an "L") are superb in every way. No question that the 500/4 is the absolute cream of the crop though. It still floors me the way it performs regardless of the conditions.

Just for fun, let's list them by price ...

1: 500/4
5: 100-400
6: 24-105
4: TS-E 24
3: 10-22
2: 60 macro
8: 18-55
7: 50/1.8

Makes the 60 macro look like fantastic value, doesn't it!

 

[ddrueding]

Makes the 60 macro look like fantastic value, doesn't it!

Yup, and a Macro is next on my list. 60mm seems a bit short, though.

 

[Handruin]

You could take a look at the Canon EF 180mm macro F/3.5 L.

 

[P5-133XL]

I've only owned the Original Canon EF 100mm Macro f2.8 (pre USM version circa '94 for about $500). It was my first foray into quality optics and I really loved it. It was light, relatively inexpensive, very easy to use, reliable, and produced very sharp pictures. I Loved Macro photography, and it would work well as a prime lens too

Unfortunately, it is starting to have difficulties (It often times has problems locking its focus and makes bad sounds when it hits the end of its range) and is in need of repair or replacement.

 

[e_dawg]

Yup, and a Macro is next on my list. 60mm seems a bit short, though.

Another good reason to take a look at the Tamron SP 90/2.8 Macro: Tamron is offering a $90 rebate on it until the end of the year. It normally sells for around $450-500. That's a great deal for a macro lens that has arguably achieved legendary status.

Speaking of Tamron rebates, they are offering a $25 rebate on their SP 17-50/2.8. Possibly the best mid-priced fast f/2.8 medium zoom on the market. People have compared it to the much more expensive EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM and the EF 17-40/4L USM.

This is a great choice when you want a relatively fast lens (obviously not as fast as a 50/1.8, but you still need a bit of DOF) and the flexibility of a zoom (and the most common and typically useful zoom range, to boot). These fast, high quality standard zooms are actually sharp enough and fast enough to replace prime lenses throughout their focal length range for most situations.

 

[ddrueding]

That is a hell of a sales pitch e_dawg...you have any full disclosure goodies to reveal?

 

[ddrueding]

Sandisk Extreme IV 4GB CF in Sandisk Extreme Firewire Reader, File Copy in Vista:

22MB/s Write
28MB/s Read

Not bad.

Now time to play with the lenses

 

[ddrueding]

I wonder how many people saw how cheaply they could get a wireless remote, only to discover that the RC-1 (free with some other stuff I bought) doesn't work with the 20D. And that the LC-5 (that does work) is $450. FTS.

 

[ddrueding]

Based on my brief playing with the 50mm 1.8, the DOF is plenty at f1.8. It also seems that I can hand-shoot decently as low as 1/6s if I haven't had caffeine all day.

 

[e_dawg]

That is a hell of a sales pitch e_dawg...you have any full disclosure goodies to reveal?

Nah, Tamron makes several excellent lenses at a significantly lower price than Canon and Nikon, but as a whole, they're still a 2nd tier / 3rd party lens maker. Lots of plastic and not that sturdy, no advanced AF motor system on any of their lenses, and QC and sample variation is not the greatest (although that goes for all third party manufacturers).

Between Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina, you can assemble a pretty nice lens collection that is almost as good as the Canon versions for much less $. But, as with anything in life, occasionally, you do get what you pay for.

 

[Tannin]

I must say that I have never ever had trouble wit ha Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina lens. Never, ever.

 

[Tea]

Bahh, Tannin, you are a fool. I have never, ever taken a decent picture with a Tamron, Sigma or Tokina lens. Not once. Ever.

 

[Tannin]

So how many Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma lenses have you used, Tea?

 

[Tea]

Err .... let me think for a minute ......

(counts on fingers)

Hang on .....

Do you need to know exactly, or just approximately?

 

[Tannin]

Exactly, please Tea. Simple enough question. How many have you used?

 

[Tea]

Well, approximately, about, roughly ... zero, or if you want me to be exact, none.

 

[Tannin]

Ha! I thought as much. Just like every other fool on the internet, you are mouthing off about stuff you have never even tried.

 

[Tea]

sorry

I juzt wanted to be part of the converzation.

sorry

 

[Tannin]

Don't try to pull that pitiful-little-me-only-a-cute-baby-ape spelling-everything-with-Zs trick on me, Monkey Brains, I stopped paying attention to that years ago.

 

[Tea]

sorry

 

[Tea]

How many Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses have you used, Tannin?

 

[Tannin]

none

 

[Tea]

Ha! Gotcha!