|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/08/2005 04:20:04 PM · #51 |
I bought my gear early in the year...I had been advised that the Canon 28-135IS was the best lens for money to buy, and it suited my needs.
I sold it last week and bought a Sigma 28-135 for £82 including p&p from ebay. The Canon cost £299 from an offsea site. That saved £144 on local prices. The Sigma performs as well as, if not better than the Canon and has 1:2 Macro.
All my lenses are now Sigma, the 135-400mm is stunning in quality! No more expensive marque lenses for me. I would rather get Sigma, their range and quality is really good, and I don't need a mortgage to buy the next one. I suppose if you want pro quality, then stay with Canon or Nikon...if you want value and a good range of lenses in your bag, try Sigma. The 105mm Macro from Sigma rates equal to the Canon 100mm Macro in lens tests.
Steve |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 05:58:19 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I'll never have the cash in hand to hoard any of it; whatever doesn't get spent, disappears. And this means, basically, buying from a single source, not piece-by-piece on e-bay or elsewhere.
Robt. |
I can't help it. I'm utterly intrigued!
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 06:36:36 PM · #53 |
Haven't read this entire thread, but how important is the low light capabilities of the camera system you want to purchase. If very important, then go with Canon cause they are unequaled in high ISO noiseless images.
If low light capability is not of paramount importance, what kind of photography would be, wide angle or macro? If it is WA, then consider that your choices from Canon or Nikon may not be best, as they will be soft around the edges, especially for extreme WA. Olympus produces telecentric lenses that do not spread the light at an angle on the sensor the way that film lenses do. As a result, they are not soft around the edges. Their glass is very high quality, and the apertures go much wider than the others.
For WA, Oly produces the 11-22 and the 7-14. In 35mm equivalents the 11-22 is 22-44 and the 7-14 is 14-28. You will pay a premium for this high quality glass though, as the 11-22 is about $800 and the 7-14 about $2,000.
You can get an E-1 body for under $1000, and it's a more robust and rugged build than what you will get in the Canon or Nikon. It's splash proof and has the built in dust buster so that you will never need to clean the sensor. Color is excellent as well as DR and the people who own it rave about it.
Consider...just some food for thought. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 07:48:30 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by AJAger:
I think we are going to need proof of life here. Perhaps you should post a picture of Karma holding a recent publication....say, perhaps the new issue of the DPC Enquirer. |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Looks like we may have a 3.5K budget, will know for sure in a couple days, help me spend it wisely. Assume 20D and 105 macro and go from there. May be able to get that 70-200L now...
Robt. |
Robert: The dognapper called. Said he heard about your increased windfall and he is aggravated by your lack of prompt payment...
remember - I am just the messenger - innocent bystander, unwitting patsy, etc.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 09:10:25 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
POOOOR Karma.... Ken you're ourageous!
For those espousing the Digital Rebel, I have considered it but remember I'm a retired pro used to high-end feel, and this is a long-term investment as well. The 20D feels more solid to me, and it looks better sealed, and I've heard it has longer shutter life and better build tolerances, so... Convince me it ain't so...
Robt. |
I haven't held the 20D, but as another ex film pro guy, I can tell you that anything short of a pro body (1DmkII et al) feels cheap when I compare it to my trusty Nikon F3's. My 10D feels like a cheap plastic toy in comparison. Of course, the Drebel felt even cheaper and plastickier.
In any event, I'm happy with my 10D and the lenses I have. I would say the 20D would be a good choice.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 10:22:00 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Haven't read this entire thread, but how important is the low light capabilities of the camera system you want to purchase. If very important, then go with Canon cause they are unequaled in high ISO noiseless images.
If low light capability is not of paramount importance, what kind of photography would be, wide angle or macro? If it is WA, then consider that your choices from Canon or Nikon may not be best, as they will be soft around the edges, especially for extreme WA. Olympus produces telecentric lenses that do not spread the light at an angle on the sensor the way that film lenses do. As a result, they are not soft around the edges. Their glass is very high quality, and the apertures go much wider than the others.
For WA, Oly produces the 11-22 and the 7-14. In 35mm equivalents the 11-22 is 22-44 and the 7-14 is 14-28. You will pay a premium for this high quality glass though, as the 11-22 is about $800 and the 7-14 about $2,000.
You can get an E-1 body for under $1000, and it's a more robust and rugged build than what you will get in the Canon or Nikon. It's splash proof and has the built in dust buster so that you will never need to clean the sensor. Color is excellent as well as DR and the people who own it rave about it.
Consider...just some food for thought. |
OLympus E-1 is a 5 Mp sensor and the manual focus is "focus by wire", not by hand on the lens. One of the things I am REALLY looking forward to is going back to what's natural for me, focusing by rotating the focus ring on the lens. I expect to be doing very little autofocus, actually. The self-cleaning sensor is awesome, as is the sealing, but...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 10:32:09 PM · #57 |
I don't really have anything to add about cameras, lenses and all the equipment.
I just think its awesome you are getting great new gear. Congrats Man. |
|
|
|
07/08/2005 10:42:47 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
OLympus E-1 is a 5 Mp sensor and the manual focus is "focus by wire", not by hand on the lens. One of the things I am REALLY looking forward to is going back to what's natural for me, focusing by rotating the focus ring on the lens. I expect to be doing very little autofocus, actually. The self-cleaning sensor is awesome, as is the sealing, but...
Robt. |
Bear, manual focus-by-wire is by hand on the lens, and very accurate. The wire is manipulated by rotating the lens ring, and this controls the motor to focus. The image pops into focus on the viewing screen. I use it currently on my E-10.
Also, consider how much more megapixels you have to work with when you don't have to crop out the less sharp areas of an extreme WA image.
Anyway, good luck with your choice(s) and I'm sure whatever you do wind up with, you will be producing equisite images.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2005 11:13:59 PM · #59 |
Robert,
SO glad to hear that you may be able to upgrade! I think some very good thoughts have been posted here, and I'd also like to share my own. Rather than try to refer back to previous posts, I'll just give my thoughts, and if they overlap with what's been previously posted, so be it...
With regard to your lens selection, the only one that IMO you may not be completely satisfied with is the 17-85. I don't own it, and based on reviews and postings elsewhere, I'm not interested in it. Alternatives are too numerous to mention, and some good ones have been brought up earlier in the thread. This is th eone area where I'd consider non-Canon glass, as Canon just doesn't seem to have the top position in UWA. The
Tamron SP 17-35 f/2.8-4 is by most reports a stellar performer, as is the Canon 17-40 f/4L, but either does leave you with that 35-70mm hole, plugged only by the 50mm. I had a similar situation, and thought it was not a big deal, then eventually wound up ponying up for the 24-70L, which has become my most-used lens. BTW, because lens quality is paramount to you, I would not recommend another 24-70 alternative, none match up with the Canon wide open, though it is pricey. Bottom line, your shooting style may be different than mine, and the "hole" may really not be a big deal.
The 100/2.8 Macro USM is a stunning lens, with the flexibility to function very well as a short tele lens as well. The build quality is top notch. They could have made it white and put a red stripe on it. Given the build, the USM and full-time manual focus, the dual-range AF, and the internal focusing, I think that the Canon is definitely the way to go. The Canon will also defintiely carry forward to any future body, the Sigma will quite possibly need rechipping, if an updated chip is even available then.
The 70-200 f/4 L is one heckuva lens, as good or slightly better optically than the much more expensive f/2.8 versions. Unless you really need the extra stop, save the money. Again, since you are in it for the long haul, IMO you cannot go wrong with this lens, it is "best in class," period.
The 50/1.8 is a compromise, it's quite good optically, but falls short of the 50/1.4 in bokeh and sharpness near maximum aperture. The build quality is, well, what you'd expect for $70, but then the build on the 50/1.4 is sort of underwhelming for the price.
As regards the body, I think you're making the right choice. Certainly budget will not allow a bigger sensor, so it's between the 20D and XT. Since durability is a concern, the 20D seems the way to go. Don't forget a remote release, get the timer/remote if budget allows, it gives you so much more flexibility.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2005 12:56:04 AM · #60 |
Oh Crap!! ...er, I mean HOORAY! Looks like Karma has escaped! I guess they don't call her "Karma the Wonder Dog" for nuthin.
Looks like bear will be getting his new equipment after all. I love a happy ending. In looking through the thread I noticed a nearly complete absence of emotion or reaction from you over Karma's predicament. Obviously you've been trained not to negotiate with terrorists or give in to their demands. Well done! :)
Seriously, bear, I am very happy for you about being able to get some new gear and for Karma's escape too, I guess. ;-) Can't wait to see what you produce! A whole Karma portrait series would be nice. :)
|
|
|
|
07/09/2005 01:19:04 AM · #61 |
Kirbic, good food for thought thanx. The "hole" is definitely a problem, but the 24 isn't wide enough for me. I got 500 more dollars, maybe, now, so help me fill that hole. We got the 105 macro, the 70-200 4.0L, the tripod adaptor fairly well locked in stone. That's roughly 2,500 bucks, so we got roughly 1,000 more to fill the low end up.
I want to be able to more-or-less cover everything from good WA (at least 18, 17 wide) right up to that 70mm. Anyone make a good 17-70? LOL. The 1.8 50mm is there for low light in a pinch and as a konockaroujnd lens; if someone else wants to shoot with this cam, that's the lens that will be on it.
I don't know much about the Cokin filter system. How much for a polarizer and a system so it fits the 70-200 on down? Lens hoods? How much are they? I'm getting lost here...
I suppose I could get the 17-40L from canon and the 60mm macro instead of the 100... That would leave 300 and change for filters and hoods. I have plenty of cards and a good tripod and an ok bag.
More later.
Ken, I have been stoic in my grief. But she showed up half an hour ago. Tired, bedraggled, hungry, but home.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2005 02:17:38 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Don't forget a remote release, get the timer/remote if budget allows, it gives you so much more flexibility. |
I second the vote for the Timer Controler over the plain jane remote release. Worth every penny.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2005 03:45:45 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
and a TC to go with it of course. |
Don't think you can afford a TC! :-P
TC |
|
|
|
07/09/2005 04:05:28 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Don't sell yourself short. If you don't need the 5 fps on the 20d, don't waste your money on an inferior product...3 fps is faster than you think! |
Ha...hahahaha...hahahahahahaha!
Best one i've heard in a while that, think i'll write it down for the next party i go to.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2005 04:41:05 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Kirbic, good food for thought thanx. The "hole" is definitely a problem, but the 24 isn't wide enough for me. I got 500 more dollars, maybe, now, so help me fill that hole. We got the 105 macro, the 70-200 4.0L, the tripod adaptor fairly well locked in stone. That's roughly 2,500 bucks, so we got roughly 1,000 more to fill the low end up.
Robt. |
The 70-200 f4 isn't that heavy as far as lenses go. In fact, for macro shots in the past, I've mounted my camera directly onto my tripod with the 70-200 with TC on it and also a 50mm 1.8 taped in reverse in front of that. Perhaps you could leave the tripod collar out of your package and have more funds available for lenses? Just a thought, you might think differently about it.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2005 04:52:11 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by AJAger:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Kirbic, good food for thought thanx. The "hole" is definitely a problem, but the 24 isn't wide enough for me. I got 500 more dollars, maybe, now, so help me fill that hole. We got the 105 macro, the 70-200 4.0L, the tripod adaptor fairly well locked in stone. That's roughly 2,500 bucks, so we got roughly 1,000 more to fill the low end up.
Robt. |
The 70-200 f4 isn't that heavy as far as lenses go. In fact, for macro shots in the past, I've mounted my camera directly onto my tripod with the 70-200 with TC on it and also a 50mm 1.8 taped in reverse in front of that. Perhaps you could leave the tripod collar out of your package and have more funds available for lenses? Just a thought, you might think differently about it. |
The tripod collar is VERY useful for rotating to a vertical orientation. Longer lenses have a tendency to "droop" when you rotate the head 90 degrees. My tripod has a locking plate that's screwed to the camera body (and yes, I like that system) and you have to set it up REALLY tight to not droop with a lens that long. The whole thing balances better when using the collar, too, so it minimizes vibrations and such. Definitely something I want.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2005 04:52:52 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by AJAger:
The 70-200 f4 isn't that heavy as far as lenses go. In fact, for macro shots in the past, I've mounted my camera directly onto my tripod with the 70-200 with TC on it and also a 50mm 1.8 taped in reverse in front of that. Perhaps you could leave the tripod collar out of your package and have more funds available for lenses? Just a thought, you might think differently about it. |
Interesting - I didn't know this was possible. I guess the fact that I don't own one shows how much I know about it, though. I was always under the impression that it was a necessary evil, which is a large reason why I got the 75-300 over the 70-200.. I just couldn't afford a tripod collar. Wish I had known this at the time - glad you let us know that it's not necessarily a requirement.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2005 06:41:49 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by AJAger:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Kirbic, good food for thought thanx. The "hole" is definitely a problem, but the 24 isn't wide enough for me. I got 500 more dollars, maybe, now, so help me fill that hole. We got the 105 macro, the 70-200 4.0L, the tripod adaptor fairly well locked in stone. That's roughly 2,500 bucks, so we got roughly 1,000 more to fill the low end up.
Robt. |
The 70-200 f4 isn't that heavy as far as lenses go. In fact, for macro shots in the past, I've mounted my camera directly onto my tripod with the 70-200 with TC on it and also a 50mm 1.8 taped in reverse in front of that. Perhaps you could leave the tripod collar out of your package and have more funds available for lenses? Just a thought, you might think differently about it. |
The tripod collar is VERY useful for rotating to a vertical orientation. Longer lenses have a tendency to "droop" when you rotate the head 90 degrees. My tripod has a locking plate that's screwed to the camera body (and yes, I like that system) and you have to set it up REALLY tight to not droop with a lens that long. The whole thing balances better when using the collar, too, so it minimizes vibrations and such. Definitely something I want.
R. |
Then maybe you need to add an extra tripod quick release plate to your list, one on the camera for use with shorter lenses and one on the tripod collar?
I'm going to keep on making suggestions until I hit upon one that is useful to you:)
|
|
|
|
07/09/2005 07:22:23 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by AJAger:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by AJAger:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Kirbic, good food for thought thanx. The "hole" is definitely a problem, but the 24 isn't wide enough for me. I got 500 more dollars, maybe, now, so help me fill that hole. We got the 105 macro, the 70-200 4.0L, the tripod adaptor fairly well locked in stone. That's roughly 2,500 bucks, so we got roughly 1,000 more to fill the low end up.
Robt. |
The 70-200 f4 isn't that heavy as far as lenses go. In fact, for macro shots in the past, I've mounted my camera directly onto my tripod with the 70-200 with TC on it and also a 50mm 1.8 taped in reverse in front of that. Perhaps you could leave the tripod collar out of your package and have more funds available for lenses? Just a thought, you might think differently about it. |
The tripod collar is VERY useful for rotating to a vertical orientation. Longer lenses have a tendency to "droop" when you rotate the head 90 degrees. My tripod has a locking plate that's screwed to the camera body (and yes, I like that system) and you have to set it up REALLY tight to not droop with a lens that long. The whole thing balances better when using the collar, too, so it minimizes vibrations and such. Definitely something I want.
R. |
Then maybe you need to add an extra tripod quick release plate to your list, one on the camera for use with shorter lenses and one on the tripod collar?
I'm going to keep on making suggestions until I hit upon one that is useful to you:) |
Hah, good point :-) I'll need another release plate.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 07:48:17 PM · #70 |
$3,500 approved!
Now i got to spend it wisely, for the best quality I can get, bearing in mind there won't be any more coming for a long time.
Probably the 20D, dewfinitely not the Rebel XT. Another brand of camera is conceivable, but I'm not seeing anything to focus on right now. If Canon, 105mm macro set in stone.
Now it's crunch time, sigh... Gonna be really hard to choose.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 09:13:12 PM · #71 |
I don't know whether you've decided on a macro lens yet but in a money pinch you might want to go for the Sigma 105. They performed well in Macro V. If this is a redundant post of mine sorry.
I haven't kept up to date with your choices yet but speaking on the burst rate, I rarely use that function but when I do, 5fps would be handy and do you far more justice. 3's ok but the whole point is the rapidity so, the faster the better. Master of the obvious???
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 09:24:44 PM · #72 |
Bear,
I was just thinking about you today, wondering when you would be able to make your purchase!!!! I'm so excited for you! Can't wait to see what you do with an SLR :)
~Colette~
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 09:46:38 PM · #73 |
| Congratulation Robt! Just can not wait to see what you can,(will) do with a DSLR. |
|
|
|
07/13/2005 11:02:59 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I'm unlikely to go Nikon just because of the 2 Mp difference, but I might be able to be convinced.
|
Bear,
As far as the 2mp difference remember that to double the resolution of a 6mp camera you need to go to 24mb not 12mp so the 2mb is insignificant.
If extreme macro is going to be used canon could be a good choice with its MP-E lens, but given the available macro glass out there I would go Nikon.
Remember that AF is a non-issue in macro, and some of the best macro glass ever made can be found cheap in Nikon̢۪s F mount. Examples of fine macro glass 55mm f3.5 & f2.8 AISs, 200 f4 (old & new), 105mm f4 (which can be chipped for matrix metering), etc, etc. Nikon also has the only zoom macro the 70-180, which is an awesome piece of glass (you can still get it new a B&H). If tripod collars are really as important as suggested remember Nikon makes the only extension tube with a built-in tripod collar, the PN-11 (can also be chipped).
Personally Canon would be my third choice, because if I were starting from scratch I would give Olympus a serious look. With recent introductions of macro lenses and accessories, and past commitment and expertise to macro with the legendary OM system I bet Olympus will be the system to beat for macro in the not to distant future.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2005 11:11:00 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
As far as the 2mp difference remember that to double the resolution of a 6mp camera you need to go to 24mb not 12mp so the 2mb is insignificant. |
The 20D still has roughly 30% more output pixels than the D70.
That said, it's not all about pixel count. I think CMOS technology is fundamentally better than CCD, hence the D2X now uses a CMOS sensor. The 20D is simply newer technology, producing a cleaner shot as well as more resolution.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 04:29:21 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 04:29:21 PM EDT.
|
