Lens Talk - It's Started !!

[setiprime]

Well it has finally started to happen, sure sign a forum is growing.

"FlyBall Rebel" has decided he may just NEED a 17/40L lens for his D-rebel.

It would be nice to pass along your experiences with this lens if you have the time.

If Canon calls it an L (Luxury) lens then you can be pretty sure it is top quality - but that will surely be part of the conversation.

I just took some shots with my new lenes and am in the process of getting them ready to upload.

In the meantime, if you respond to "Flyball Rebels" request, I'm sure he will get some dialogue going.

[setiprime]

I do not have this lens but....

I use a site called "Fredmiranda.com" for most of my information on lenses. They generally give the specifications and then post opinions from users. Most of the users are pretty concise in their reviews, as they often are professionals in the field.

I don't do much landscape shooting so I opted for the
28/135IS USM. As my "walk around" glass. Hopefully, I will have some shots up on my gallery in the next few days.

Hope somebody sends you a coffee and Donut while you are waiting.

[setiprime]

I just threw up (not literally) a few shots from Saturdays quick trip to the Zoo. They're sitting in my gallery.

Resized and auto balanced. The EXif data might be helpful.
The lens is the Canon 28-135 IS with USM.

It was a cloudy day, for most of the shots.

The Flamingo sequence was from 65+ ft.

The Water tower was about 1/4 to 1/3 of a mile away

at least its something to look at

[Flyball Rebel]

Sorry I've put no pics up yet setiprime but I've been hobbling about with gout . It's on the way out now so should get going before long. I find that the IS mode on my Canon lens a great help, don't seem to be able to hold the camera as stready as I used to!!! Regards [F.R.]

[jlpriestley]

OK - I am serious here, so don't laugh (too hard).

I got my camera over the holidays and with the kit lens I got the 75-300 USM III 4.0 lens -- nice stuff eh?? (yes you can chuckle). Obviously it is not the best for indoor/lower light photos. So, I must now begin my quest toward a new lens -- it may be a long quest as I am looking at the L-glass now -- 70-200's, 2.8 and 4.0 (I think). Seeing as there is a big $$ difference, is there a big gain in quality between those two, and vs. the 75-300. And is the 2.8 giving you a lot more capabilities in low light?? (My guess is yes it is -- stop and a half? pretty big, no??)

Also, I have seen the 50mm or so, 1.8 Canon lens (under $100US) and thought it might be a cheap lens to add -- worth the money? Thought it might help out where the kit lens fails in low light.

I know some of you have these lenses and would be interested in your input especially if you know my pain with my current set-up.

Couldn't have picked two lenses further apart on the spectrum, eh?

[Flyball Rebel]

Hi JLP how are you? I was thinking of getting a 17-40 f/4 L lens and have heard that unless you are going to want very large prints you will see very little difference from the L's to the regular's, just a matter of preference (and money of course!!!). I have a 50mm lens and find it very useful indeed especially in low light. Go to my site (nothing fancy) at http://www3.sympatico.ca/flyball_2 and look at my LINKS. You will find a site called "The Luminous Landscape", when you get there click on "Product Reveiws" then click on "Canon Lens Selection". There are also some other Lens Test sites Under my LINKS too. Hope this may be of some help. Regards [F.R.]

[setiprime]

Just my 2 cents worth -

Seems like all of us with the 300D soon start looking for "the right" lenses.

The kit lens is OK, in fact it does some nice work but.......

My original purchase was based on learning a couple of things over the last 30 years or so. I had my basic education with a variety of still cameras and eventually got into Cinematography.

One thing kept coming back time and again. The better quality glass gave me a better image.

I figured that cameras were going to keep on changing rapidly and I would replace the body soon enough.
However, quality glass doesn't change much.

So I went with the Canon 100/400L IS USM as part of my original purchase. Costly?, you bet, but a really fine piece of equipment.

I looked, asked, and then did more looking and asking.

I just bought the Canon 28/135 IS. Now this is a nice little lens that gives ME what I'm looking for, at a reasonable price.

I do not shoot landscapes on a regular basis, so no need for wide angle. I do concentrate on my Grandsons soccer and baseball games. My daughter trains and judges Arabian horses, so I need the reach for shows, and the flexability of the 28/135 for portrait and "beauty shots".

Two lenses and I have my basic NEEDS covered. My WANTS will always be ongoing.

you can ease into the lens situation by going with prime lenses, thereby having more control over how fast a lens is. On the other hand - is swapping lenses on a shoot what you want to put up with.
It is not so much which lens but what style of shooting do you do.

[setiprime]

Just a quick shot first day out with my 28/135IS USM.
Detroit Zoo inside of the Aviary. -

there are a few new shots in my gallery-

please comment if you would- on any aspect

[Flyball Rebel]

The point you make about swapping lenses is a good one setiprime, every time you take a lens off and put another one on is one more time for foreign matter to get into your camera body, especially out in the open on perhaps a windy day with no shelter. I like primes but only have a 50mm f/1.4, a very useful lens for me and I like it very much, but I shall now go for a zoom. Regards [F.R.]

[jlpriestley]

Actually, with regards to primes, I was thinking that the 50mm 1.8 would be a really cheap way to get into a fast lens for indoor stuff -- parties, museums, that kind of thing. I think B&H has it for something like $69. A bargain I thought unless it is junk. (Anyone have one?)

I would never go without the versatility of a zoom. Although I hold my breath every time I change lenses (all 2 of them ) You just can't get results without them (at least based on my time and money).

[Flyball Rebel]

Hi JLP, I've read and heard nothing but GOOD about the Canon 50mm f/1.8, and if it is something that you can use for low light you can't go wrong at $69!! It's definitely NOT junk!! I use my 50mm quite often. Regards [F.R.]

Hi there,

I am new in this forum and site and found your questioning about the perfect lens. I don't know about perfect, but I think I have found a jewel: EF 24-70 f/2.8L. It is very useful although I am still testing it. A very good range for portrait and landscape.

What I am sure though is that, it is crisp clear like water. Very good focus speed and sharp.

Question for setiprime: I was and still am wondering about getting or not a 100-400 but I heard it is a push-pull zoom. From your experience, don't you find that annoying compared to a ring zoom ? I am asking 'cause I am still reading and looking for my third lens (mid-long to long range...don't know yet).

Thanks and keep shooting !

[setiprime]

Well Now-

I'm sure you are aware that after the great "What camera debate" the next step is the "What Lens debate". Some folks get REAL opinionated and authoritative.

I can only tell you of my reasoning and my results so far.

I do not have a large budget for camera gear, so I decided to buy the 300D; as cameras will continue to evolve rapidly in the next couple of years. This is the device that will probably be replaced in the not to distant future.

The Kit lens is OK and takes some pretty good stuff, but it has limitations, as you are aware.

Good glass is the real secret to starting the photo process.

I decided on the 28/135 IS USM as my main Landscape/Portrait and general "Walk-around" lens. Fair speed - good range- high quality construction. I'm very happy with the results I'm getting.

I shoot quite a bit at Zoos. My daughter trains Arabian Horses and wants me to start shooting for her needs. My Grandsons play all kinds of field sports and I want shots of their actions.

I made the decision to go with the 100/400L IS USM because of the above reasons.

As far as the lens itself (remember its just my opinion).

Clear, crisp, images period. The image stabilization works flawlessly. Auto focus is quite fast and accurate.
Construction is ROBUST.

I was not to crazy about the push-pull aspect, however, like anything you develop a method of use and it is now quite natural.

REMEMBER - this is not designed to be used as a typical "in-out-in-out" kind of zoom. Once I find my framing, I basically shoot within that range. If you require fast focal length changes - this isn't the lens for you.

Some consider this lens rather heavy to carry around for long periods. I don't mind it, again the Image stabilization is really good for hand held shots, the tracking is rock steady.

See my gallery for some recent stuff. The animal shots are all hand held. Check the EXIF data for camera/lens info.

Check with the other folks up here - Flyball Rebel, for one, comes at the lens question from a different viewpoint and has good reasoning.

[where1]

JDRebel,
I have owned the 100-400 IS L USM for about 3 weeks and I'm really pleased with it. I use it with a D-Rebel. It does have a ring on it so you can adjust how easily the push-pull operates. It goes from lock to easy. When I am walking around I usually lock it, and unlock it when I settle in to shoot. If you are shooting at up or down angles, the ring adjuster is really nice to have. I'm used to the push-pull because my only zoom lens when I shot film (manual focus) was an 80-200 p-p. Focus and zoom control is done with the same grip. The L lense auto-focuses really well so that isn't such a consideration any more. But you can go from far to near really quick. At 400mm, targets can be elusive, and looking for them at 100mm, then bringing them in can help.
There is also a switch for far or near minimum focal length, which helps with focus speed when shooting targets at a distance. At first I was shooting everything at 400mm and thought maybe I should have gone with a prime, but I think that was because I never shot anything with such a long lense before. Now I find myself using the complete 100-400 range.
The IS is great, I have some 400mm shots at 1/60 that turned out OK. I haven't used the panning mode for the IS so I can't comment.
It is a heavy lense, and when I carry the camera around, I carry it by the lense, even though I have the strap around my neck. My daughter (105 pounds soaking wet) used it the other day for about an hour, and she had no complaints about the weight. I watched her, and she did alot of zooming too.
As far as picture quality goes, this lense is really sharp, I am getting some good detail that I wasn't getting with the entry level 80-200 zoom I was using before.
That's my review as of now, and I am really glad I purchased it. For me, the price was worth the product.

Setiprime, Where1, thank you to both of you for your feedback on the 100-400.

Gees, it is difficult to make the choice considering the investment. I think I will wait for Canon's 28-300 L IS and 70-300 IS DO to compare.

Now there are 5 contenders:
1. Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
2. Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L USM (IS and not IS)
3. Canon 70-200 f/4 L USM
4. Canon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
5. Canon 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (ouch expensive...)

Choice criterias are in decreasing order of importance:

1. Sharpness
2. speed (aperture and zoom)
3. budget
4. weight
5. max range

have a good thinking and recomm. are welcome.

JD