A&P Attn: DSLR People (namely you canon folk)

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by DMClark, Oct 27, 2004.

  1. DMClark

    DMClark Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    37,589
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. aloe

    aloe OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2002
    Messages:
    140,102
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Dallas, Tejas
    $1,200 :eek:
     
  3. We_Todd

    We_Todd I'm a naughty squirrel.

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2001
    Messages:
    23,851
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Houston, Texas, US of A
    sheeyt.... too much :o
     
  4. *Charlie Wax*

    *Charlie Wax* New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    16,471
    Likes Received:
    0
    Minolta 7000 MAXXUM all the way
     
  5. Zepher

    Zepher Hi, I am Kimmy

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,543
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Next to Ft. Meade
    That is a decent lens. I believe that is what my friend has for his 10D and 20D.
    I can't remember if the effecive range becomes 28-70+ though since it is a digiSLR.
     
  6. Zepher

    Zepher Hi, I am Kimmy

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,543
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Next to Ft. Meade
    If I can remember, I'll check out thier lens. going over there ina bit to hook up a DVD player for them. They are Pro photographers, but not too good at home electronics.
     
  7. DMClark

    DMClark Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    37,589
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's about 44.8 to 112. You multiply by 1.6 for the 300D, all canon DSLRs too I believe.
     
  8. bioyuki

    bioyuki Ich habe Angst

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    54,454
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Very good but I don't think its as good as the 28-70L
     
  9. gandhibrokemyskates

    gandhibrokemyskates slangin beer

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2001
    Messages:
    28,157
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston
    i want the 28-135mm lens. :hs:
     
  10. DMClark

    DMClark Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    37,589
    Likes Received:
    0
    The reviews say it's sharper. And a bit longer when extended.
     
  11. DMClark

    DMClark Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    37,589
    Likes Received:
    0
    The IS one?
     
  12. DMClark

    DMClark Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    37,589
    Likes Received:
    0
  13. beetle

    beetle blah blah blah OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2001
    Messages:
    3,466
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Bay Area & Lake Tahoe
    with the multiplier I find it a bit long for casual use. I use the 16-35L much more (about 60-70% of the time).
     
  14. DMClark

    DMClark Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    37,589
    Likes Received:
    0
    yeah that's the one I'm kinda... eh.. maybe.. maybe now.
     
  15. DMClark

    DMClark Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    37,589
    Likes Received:
    0
    Or the 17-40. It's only F/4 though. It's just like.. eh.. which do I really want.
     
  16. DMClark

    DMClark Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    37,589
    Likes Received:
    0
  17. ittech

    ittech "If You're Not Part of the Solution, There's Good OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Messages:
    18,998
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sonoma, California
    PM me if you want more info, but I own

    17-40 4L
    24-70 2.8L
    70-200 2.8L

    on a 20D...

    I love all 3 lenses but maybe I can help out with what kind of shooting you are looking to do...
     
  18. TypeSDragoon

    TypeSDragoon Guest

    that is the lens i have :o

    28-135mm IS 3.5-5.6
     
  19. DMClark

    DMClark Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    37,589
    Likes Received:
    0

    :cool:

    I have the 70-200 f/4L

    Use it for stuff like (the 70-200):
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Basically it's going to replace my kit lens. Biggest thing, other than better glass, that I'm going to like is the internal focusing. Circular polarizer isn't too fun on the kit lens since it rotates. I mostly use that lens for car shows and other times when I get up close. Moving cars I use the 70-200. I do do some fun photography but not that often.
     
  20. Yardsale

    Yardsale OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2002
    Messages:
    88,007
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    San Francisco
    That lens is sex. I can swear by the 28-70 f2.8 and that one is slightly better :coold:
     
  21. smell my finger

    smell my finger strive nonetheless towards beauty and truth,

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2001
    Messages:
    74,519
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    nyc
    i can never figure out what the xxxmm designations mean for the lenses :o

    i know if there is a range, it is a zoom, and if there is a single number it's a prime lens... but for the love of me i cant make sense of what the numbers translate to.
     
  22. DMClark

    DMClark Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    37,589
    Likes Received:
    0
    The differences are the price and the 2.8 of 4. That and looking at the filters on the f/4 one, doesn't look like bh has a generic polarizer. Also it's got a gell filter thing :dunno:
     
  23. gandhibrokemyskates

    gandhibrokemyskates slangin beer

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2001
    Messages:
    28,157
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston
    yup yup
     
  24. DMClark

    DMClark Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2001
    Messages:
    37,589
    Likes Received:
    0
    :eek3:
     
  25. ittech

    ittech "If You're Not Part of the Solution, There's Good OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Messages:
    18,998
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sonoma, California
    Here's the deal... You already have the awesome tele zoom..

    First off get a 1.4x EF II teleconverter for the tele zoom when you can to get extra range and not give up much light...

    The 17-40:
    Get the 17-40 if you want a very sharp wa zoom for landscapes, group people shots, close range indoor shots... It is not a great walkaround lens as it cannot zoom in to a subject much unless you are close.... It is also usually a better lens than the 16-35. It is also cheaper... You could get teh 1.4x and this lens. The F4 isn't that bad with the good ISO of the 20D just bump it up one ISO stop...

    The 24-70:
    This is a very good lens just a tad under the 70-200... The problem is on 1.6x bodies is it simply isn't WIDE enough... Before I bought the 17-40 I kept backing into walls to frame my shots and a LOT of shots were shot at 24mm or at 70mm. It just doesn't match up that well with the 1.6x bodies... I'll be getting a 1D series sometime so no worries there... It is great to have the reach though... I used it as a walkaround lens and you could get some nice zoomed shots or some standard shots (not really WA)

    Suggestion: Get the 17-40L, a 1.4x, a 50mm 1.8mkii, a good Hoya/B+W UV SMC filter and maybe a CircPL if you have shitty tiffen brand or something, and you should also get a monopod/ball head and use that when shooting under 1/250sec.

    I think that puts you in a LOT better place than a 24-70... BTW the 24-70 is almost as heavy and long (at 24mm) as the 70-200... The 17-40 much easier as a replacement to kit, and the 50mkii is an awesome light carryaround lens for $99.
     

Share This Page