Author | Thread |
|
07/19/2004 09:34:13 PM · #1 |
Any thoughts or example photo's from DPC'ers? |
|
|
07/19/2004 09:40:42 PM · #2 |
I wish I had example photos! It's one of Canon's most-often-praised zooms. It is a big honkin' lens for a 24-70mm though.
I narrowly missed getting a great deal on a barely used copy of this lens late last year, and would have had it were it not for my procrastination. D'oh!
|
|
|
07/19/2004 09:44:38 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by kirbic: and would have had it were it not for my procrastination. D'oh! |
you eejit. it's a spiffy lookin' piece of hardware! and looks extra cool with the lens hood on. |
|
|
07/19/2004 09:47:54 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by wimbello: Originally posted by kirbic: and would have had it were it not for my procrastination. D'oh! |
you eejit. it's a spiffy lookin' piece of hardware! and looks extra cool with the lens hood on. |
That's right, rub it in, LOL... yeh, I felt stooooopid.
|
|
|
07/19/2004 09:54:48 PM · #5 |
It is my second most favorite lens (the first is the 70-200/2.8L IS) and highly recommended. Don't let the size/weight scare you. Just get the battery grip for your 10D and you'll be all set. It's a terrific lens. (And I always use the included lens hood, even indoors. Extra protection from whatever may come near the front of these expen$ive lenses.) |
|
|
07/19/2004 10:05:14 PM · #6 |
I totally agree with Eddy (also about the 70-200/2.8L IS) the 24-70L is expensive but worth it.
It has brought me many a shot that I don't think any other lens could.
Message edited by author 2004-07-19 22:05:53. |
|
|
07/19/2004 10:05:36 PM · #7 |
what's the cheapest anyone can find? (yes, that's a challenge.) |
|
|
07/19/2004 10:08:53 PM · #8 |
|
|
07/19/2004 10:09:55 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by wimbello: what's the cheapest anyone can find? (yes, that's a challenge.) |
The cheapest we can find it is almost definitely not a place you want to buy it! IMHO, of course.
|
|
|
07/19/2004 10:11:43 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kirbic: Originally posted by wimbello: what's the cheapest anyone can find? (yes, that's a challenge.) |
The cheapest we can find it is almost definitely not a place you want to buy it! IMHO, of course. |
If you're referring to the USA (i live in AUS), then that's no problem. aunt/uncle in USA can handle any warranty issues (although i do not expect any). and stuff can be shipped for $50 (aus dollars) |
|
|
07/19/2004 10:22:01 PM · #11 |
I was referring to the USA, but more specifically to some of the very cheap but absolutely horrible shops that seem to spring up like mushrooms in and around New York City.
Not all NYC shops are bad, a few of the best are there...
edit:
Of my top 3 shops, 17th Street photo (yes, in NYC, LOL) has it for USD $ 1138, minus a $50 rebate from Canon if purchased by the end of July. Some words of caution, I don't know what Canon's policy is on the rebates regarding purchases from outside the US, and also Canon's rebate processor is dreadfully slow in paying the rebates.
Message edited by author 2004-07-19 22:32:25.
|
|
|
07/19/2004 10:30:48 PM · #12 |
I recently got this lens as well, it is sharp and has a great range. I had the wider 17-40mm prior and much prefer this one. |
|
|
07/20/2004 01:01:03 AM · #13 |
It's an amazing lens to say the least. It's sharp, fast, and even smells of quality. I've been using it for a few months now and it's certainly been seeing some extended time in use... especially since I took up a small PJ job at my school's paper. One of my favorite things is how the hood remains stationary even as you zoom in/out. The lens is actually at its physical longest (if that makes sense) when at 24mm. Great system.
Here are some shots I've taken with the lens:
//www.shootnaked.com/p_gallery/view.php?g=archi&id=0010&o=0
//www.shootnaked.com/p_gallery/view.php?g=archi&id=0009&o=0
|
|
|
07/20/2004 01:59:09 AM · #14 |
99% of the recent non F717 shots in my portfolio and my online galleries were taken with that lens. If you do not have anything in that focal range (and can afford that lens), GET IT! :) All my fireworks pictures were taken with that lens HAND HELD. Of course, ISO was at 800 and shutter was at 1/60 but still. I was pretty impressed with the results. It is worth every penny and then some. I just wish it had a longer focal length (around 24-150 or so) but it is otherwise perfect.
PS: If you want, I can email you an unedited JPG extracted from a RAW file.
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 02:04:27.
|
|
|
07/20/2004 02:32:18 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by MrAkamai: PS: If you want, I can email you an unedited JPG extracted from a RAW file. |
I've just pm'd you. |
|
|
07/20/2004 02:39:45 AM · #16 |
Haven't received the PM yet. You can email me here: mrakamai_at_cox_dot_net. I just don't want any mail bots to harvest my address so I typed it that way. I'm sure you can figure it out. :)
|
|
|
07/20/2004 03:31:38 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by MrAkamai: Haven't received the PM yet. You can email me here: mrakamai_at_cox_dot_net. I just don't want any mail bots to harvest my address so I typed it that way. I'm sure you can figure it out. :) |
oh no! not obvious enough for my small brain. must work out... cypher... to ... crack ... ... riddle... before ... ... ... imminent death ...
occurs...... |
|
|
07/20/2004 08:36:13 AM · #18 |
I'd love to have that lens but unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to afford it anytime soon. I've recently heard about the tamron 28-75/2.8 and it sound like it could be a decent compromise between cost and optical quality as it retails at //www.adorama.com for $329. Lens ratings at //www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm show little difference between the two optically which is most important for me. To date I've only bought canon primes and a 28-105/3.5-4.5 metal mount(which I'm unhappy with). Now though I'm am seriously considering the tamron.
Message edited by author 2004-07-20 08:38:41.
|
|
|
07/20/2004 08:42:24 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by ericsuth: I'd love to have that lens but unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to afford it anytime soon. I've recently heard about the tamron 28-75/2.8 and it sound like it could be a decent compromise between cost and optical quality as it retails at //www.adorama.com for $329. Lens ratings at //www.photozone.de/bindex2.html show little difference between the two optically which is most important for me. To date I've only bought canon primes and a 28-105/3.5-4.5 metal mount(which I'm unhappy with). Now though I'm am seriously considering the tamron. |
You may find the most significant difference to be in focusing. Canon does not release the specs for its AF system (nor its E-TTL system), so third party manufacturers are left to reverse engineer the system with varying degrees of success. Just make sure you try it out first.
You may also want to consider the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. It's a bit more than the Tamron, but still less than half of what the Canon L costs.
|
|
|
07/20/2004 11:15:29 AM · #20 |
I have the Sigma 24-70mm 2.8F and I love it...
Here are a couple quick examples from the other day at a softball game. Mind you, it was also 7:00 PM, so I wasn't working with much light either.
Example 1
Example 2
Don't let my lack of ability detract from the lens though... I'm very happy with the purchase.
|
|
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: 09/11/2025 04:12:38 PM EDT.