Canon 350D

[-hh]

When I went to my local retailer to mess around with these for research I noticed a difference between the 2.8 and 4, but...

FWIW, I'm still trying to get used to the 2.8 versus the lens I was using as its predecessor, the (old style) 75-300mm IS. IIRC, the latter's only a ~1lb lens.

You may want to take a look at the SlingShot 200 bag from LowePro.

I'm currently configuring two carrying systems: an airline transport system, and a "carry it around" system. For the former, I've got one of the Tamrac 'backpack' types that includes a sleeve that carries my 12" PB. For the latter, I had solicited advice on <rec.photo.digital.slr-systems> and was pointed to the Kinesis system.

The key to my requirements was in wanting a holster case that would swallow the 20D with both the 70-200 f/2.8 and 1.4x teleextender attached ... the latter adds roughly an extra inch, which is what made the Lowepro "Off Trail 2 Camera Beltpack" I had picked up just a smidge too short (the zipper would close, but it was too tight). The Kinesis "c580" holster case is around an inch deeper and provides nice clearance:

http://www.kinesisgear.com/c.html#c580

Between the case, a heavy-duty belt, two lens cases and a dozen other little widgets (its a modular system), it has set me back another $300, but as a carrying system, it will most definitely do the job and the construction is top notch, so it will last for a decade or longer.

Do all polarizers snag a stop? I know that the 1.4x Teleconverter grabs one, but do the polarizers too? (can you tell I haven't opted cash for one yet?)

I'm pretty sure that they all do.

All in all, I generally value a polarizer more for wider angle shots, so I don't have to worry too much about the speed loss on a telephoto. Plus, I already have a 77mm for my WA lens, so if I do ever want to throw it on the 70-200 f/2.8, I'm covered.

<On Trade-Offs> Of course, that is why there are different offers both in lenses and bodies for unique applications and users. I would love to have large, bulky, fast lenses, but someone else may love compact, light, moderately speedy lenses even though you could argue they are sacrificing things.

Agreed. Even had I had the 2.8 last year when we went to Peru, there's simply no way that I would have lugged a lens that heavy with us on our hike of the Inca trail. Every extra pound on a 3 day / 20-25 miles (yeah, we took the "easy, short" route ... a lot lower elevation too: 8,000ft versus 11,000ft) hike is a trade-off. As it was, I left my 28-135mm IS behind.

The trade off is that when you do get lucky, the results can be less than stellar. There's a lot of frustrating fuzz in the below image, but there may be some hope for it, since its from only a 6MP scan a 35mm film original:

Peru's National Bird ("Cock of the Rock") taken with a 35mm Canon EOS Elan IIe and 75-300mm IS @ 300mm. Handheld; unknown f/shutter (shaded forest canopy, so probably f/5.6 and ~1/90sec) Film original scanned as 6MP JPEG; cropped ~75% (net effective focal length approx. ~1000mm).

But at least I have this shot

Perhaps if more and more lenses continue to become offered as DO lenses (diffractive optics) and maintain a certain level of speed then we will see a movement to DO as a new 'standard'.

1200mm DO lens still 30" long

Agreed. The 400mm f/4 IS DO (my "wish" lens) is a good example: its only 9.2" long and 4.3 lbs. Plus when you add a 1.4x and a 20D the stack makes it effectively a 900mm f/5.6 IS, which at a 33% crop should give you the equivalent of a 6MP @ 1200mm f/5.6 IS

Despite the $5300 sticker it comes with, in comparison to the custom-order 1200mm f/5.6 (reported MSRP is $120,000), it can be considered "affordable".


-hh

 

[amin]

its not my opinion, the f4 is a sharper lens than both the f2.8 versions, check out canons charts.

I think you are misinterpreting Canon's MTF charts. The chart shows greater resolution of the f/4 lens at f/4 than for either f/2.8 lens at f/2.8. However, the f/2.8 lens at f/4 is sharper (more contrasty with greater resolving power) than the f/4 lens at f/4, albeit not by much. The chart doesn't tell anything about the f/2.8 lens abilities at f/4. The same can be said for the 300/2.8 versus the 300/4 as well. The trade-off is size/weight and price. For these reasons, I chose the 70-200 f/4 lens over the f/2.8 version. If money were not an issue, I would have the f/2.8 IS version. Semantics aside, the ability to shoot a stop faster does result in smooth backgrounds in some circumstances that would be impossible with a slower lens, not to mention obvious advantages in low light action photography (basically any candid photography of children). One of my favorite photos of my son is one I took using a borrowed 70-200/2.8 IS. This was shot at f/2.8 and the background would have been more distracting at f/4. Also, I'm not sure I could have gotten a clear shot of my son on the move holding my father's hand without the extra light. There's some banding on the background in the resized JPEG which isn't present at all on a nice large print:

 

[efoto]

I think you are misinterpreting Canon's MTF charts. The chart shows greater resolution of the f/4 lens at f/4 than for either f/2.8 lens at f/2.8. However, the f/2.8 lens at f/4 is sharper (more contrasty with greater resolving power) than the f/4 lens at f/4, albeit not by much. The chart doesn't tell anything about the f/2.8 lens abilities at f/4. The same can be said for the 300/2.8 versus the 300/4 as well. The trade-off is size/weight and price. For these reasons, I chose the 70-200 f/4 lens over the f/2.8 version. If money were not an issue, I would have the f/2.8 IS version. Semantics aside, the ability to shoot a stop faster does result in smooth backgrounds in some circumstances that would be impossible with a slower lens, not to mention obvious advantages in low light action photography (basically any candid photography of children). One of my favorite photos of my son is one I took using a borrowed 70-200/2.8 IS. This was shot at f/2.8 and the background would have been more distracting at f/4. Also, I'm not sure I could have gotten a clear shot of my son on the move holding my father's hand without the extra light. There's some banding on the background in the resized JPEG which isn't present at all on a nice large print:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/72/51/1435172-25aa8764cefb78ac.jpg[img][/QUOTE]

WOW :eek: Amazing shot [i]amin[/i], simply stunning.

What you wrote seems to match what I trying to get at from what I had heard....that the 2.8's were sharper (at least as sharp) at f4 as the f4 was at f4. Anyway, I'm going back to jaw-dropping that shot, just amazing! Photography aside, you have an adorable son!! :)

 

[amin]

efoto, thank you for the very kind words about my son oliver and the photo!

 

[BakedBeans]

Amim, nice capture, shame about the cropped out hands outherwise it would have been near perfect - IMO the extra stop doesnt make a big difference to depth of field, not much difference but some.

I took the 2.8 IS out and loved it, I ordered one and then cancelled it because the price is horrific. The low light capabilities is awesome. I do find my F4 is great outdoors and is fast, sharp and contrast (im sure you find the same)

Im trying to find the MTF chart because im sure overall the lens is a touch sharper (although, not noticeably)

 

[efoto]

I took the 2.8 IS out and loved it, I ordered one and then cancelled it because the price is horrific. The low light capabilities is awesome. I do find my F4 is great outdoors and is fast, sharp and contrast (im sure you find the same)

Im trying to find the MTF chart because im sure overall the lens is a touch sharper (although, not noticeably)

The f2.8 is brighter which I believe to be the major selling point, not whether it is more or less sharp. Not to mention, starting low at f2.8 allows you to stick a 1.4x tele-converter and still have your f4 at a range of 98-280 (before camera mag if applicable), I think THAT is a major selling point as well.

I think the real gross upgrade is the IS. Canon charges over $500 for IS (on the 70-200), whereas the same IS is found on lenses costing below $500 retail. It makes me wonder how much IS costs (because I doubt that it is that much more in depth on a 70-200 compared to a 28-135 ($419 retail)).

 

[BakedBeans]

The f2.8 is brighter which I believe to be the major selling point, not whether it is more or less sharp.

brighter? faster do you mean.

Not to mention, starting low at f2.8 allows you to stick a 1.4x tele-converter and still have your f4 at a range of 98-280 (before camera mag if applicable), I think THAT is a major selling point as well.

yeah, your spot on with that, that is a huge selling point. the f4 is OK with it but not great but the 2.8 (IS esspecially) is awesome with the teleconverter on it.

 

[-hh]

I think the real gross upgrade is the IS. Canon charges over $500 for IS (on the 70-200), whereas the same IS is found on lenses costing below $500 retail. It makes me wonder how much IS costs (because I doubt that it is that much more in depth on a 70-200 compared to a 28-135 ($419 retail)).

I think the arguement that Canon will make is which "Generation" of IS is on each lens, which then justifies whatever price differential they're trying to get away with.

In general, my 28-135 IS and 75-300 IS both have IIRC "1st Gen" IS systems which basically have just an on/off setting. If you need to pan on a moving subject (birds, etc), you're supposed to turn them off.

Their L glass has (at least) 2nd generation IS, which has a switch that allows panning shots.

In reading the documentation, its my impression that all that that this switch *might* be doing is to leave the Y-axis (vertical) gyroscope turned on and to turn off the X-axis (horizontal axis) gyroscope.

It sounds like this approach would work for panning across the frame, but not for going against the grain (ie, rotated to a vertical composition, but panning horizontally).


There's also some inference of a claim about it also somehow being able to sense if you're mounted on a tripod and it will disable itself...? I'm still trying to sort this one out, as well as to try to figure out how the system knows what to do - - I'm wondering if its a simple switch that senses if the tripod ring mount is present, which means that I have to remove the tripod ring mount in order to get IS when in handheld mode...? I currently have the ring mount on, since that way I won't lose it


-hh

 

[efoto]

brighter? faster do you mean.

f2.8 lets in more light than f4 right? all other settings and conditions equal....

I think the arguement that Canon will make is which "Generation" of IS is on each lens, which then justifies whatever price differential they're trying to get away with.

Right, and I knew this but I didn't have the technical knowledge/specs to cite an example or proof, so I left it out. I figured the 70-200 2.8 IS has the latest, whereas the "budget" IS lenses are at one of the earlier versions, but I didn't know for sure.

As far as that auto-sensing thing, the crew at my camera store said that the 70-200 2.8 IS has v.3. This latest version has .off, .on (fully), .on pan modes, so three settings. I guess v.2 had this as well, but v.3 has simply been upgraded for speed and accuracy.

 

[amin]

Amim, nice capture, shame about the cropped out hands outherwise it would have been near perfect - IMO the extra stop doesnt make a big difference to depth of field, not much difference but some.

I find that background blur is noticeably different. Here's a duck at f/4:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/44/74/1537444-8e10ac7b29dc8ed7.jpg
Basically same shot at f/2.8:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/56/52/1535256-aaac036755f4a343.jpg
Then again, even at f/4 you can always work the DOF by moving closer:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/72/41/1524172-0dc0fa91a713150e.jpg

I took the 2.8 IS out and loved it, I ordered one and then cancelled it because the price is horrific. The low light capabilities is awesome. I do find my F4 is great outdoors and is fast, sharp and contrast (im sure you find the same)

I agree that the f/4 is a great outdoor lens. Here's a squirrel shot I grabbed with it in my backyard:

 

[amin]

Im trying to find the MTF chart because im sure overall the lens is a touch sharper (although, not noticeably)

The MTFs are available here: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=150
Here are the MTFs for the f/2.8 IS:

Here are the MTFs for the f/2.8 non-IS:

Here are the MTFs for the f/4 lens

Comparing line for line, the f/4 lens may look like it should be sharper. Again, this is because one is comparing the f/2.8 lens wide open to the f/4 lens wide open when the fair comparison is the f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/4 versus the f/4 lens wide open. The MTF charts can't tell you that, but most folkd agree the faster zoom is the sharper one, by a touch.

 

[efoto]

I find that background blur is noticeably different. Here's a duck at f/4:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/44/74/1537444-8e10ac7b29dc8ed7.jpg
Basically same shot at f/2.8:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/56/52/1535256-aaac036755f4a343.jpg
Then again, even at f/4 you can always work the DOF by moving closer:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/72/41/1524172-0dc0fa91a713150e.jpg

I agree that the f/4 is a great outdoor lens. Here's a squirrel shot I grabbed with it in my backyard:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/55/87/1518755-70cdbbfa399e8751.jpg[img][/QUOTE]

That freaky squirrel, trying to get all up on your fence like that :rolleyes:

Great shots yet again [i]amin[/i]. Do you have an online gallery or work posted anywhere else? I'm quite impressed with the shots you have, I'd love to see more ;)

 

[amin]

Funny, I'll never look at that squirrel shot the same way again =].

I have posted some shots online, mostly family snapshots, zoo pics, backyard birds, and the like. Nothing too original. Thank you for the nice compliment though!

 

[Dr_Maybe]

350d + grip
18-55
50mm f1.8
70-200 L

That's excactly what I got just recently, except for the battery grip!

Best bang for the buck must be the 50mm. It is very sharp. The 70-200 lens is a nice piece of quality equipment, but I haven't used it a lot yet

I got the camera with the 18-55mm kit lens because i wanted something wide without spending to much money. It is versatile because of the zoom range, but not very fast or super sharp. But it's OK, you can still take good pictures with it.

In the US you can get a good rebate since the Rebel XT (aka 350d) and 70-200L are included in the rebate program that expires January 15, 2006.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I got the camera with the 18-55mm kit lens because i wanted something wide without spending to much money. It is versatile because of the zoom range, but not very fast or super sharp. But it's OK, you can still take good pictures with it.

Good choice here for the short term. At PMA in February and at Photokina in October (?), you will see most likely a few fast, sharp 18-55 zoom lenses announced from maybe Canon, Tamron, and others.

 

[Yogurt]

shame that i missed the great off from canon (where they offered £100 discounts on this if purchased by the end of last year!)

mate has got one! result is just truely amazing, especially for the price! !

 

[Mike Teezie]

A little off topic, but I finally got my 70-200 f/4 L in a few weeks back

.

Now I just have to snap a shot of my girlfriend holding it, eh efoto?

 

[xPismo]

Is that a function of specific dslr bodies or is it a function of the lens? I'm not sure all bodies can do this do they?

Yeah. Shutter priority should relegate aperature values to the 1/2 or 1/3 stop values you set in the settings. Not sure how Nikon plays this game, but I'm rather sure its the same. (I'm a Canon user).

Aperature values are just human concepts anyway. The lens dosn't really care.

(edit, whoops sorry. discussion was a page back.)

 

[jared_kipe]

Couple of problems here. Firstly, the difference between 2.8 and 4 is 1 stop, not 1.2 stops. By construction, what we call 1 stop means the loss or gain of twice as much light (light and all other bosons are linear symmetric).

Meaning if you meter something at shutter speed of 1/100th of a second at f4, then at f2.8 you'll meter 1/200th second.

ALL polarizing filters loose 1 stop for this very definition. A polarizer cuts exactly 1/2 the incoming unpolarized light. UNLESS the light is already polarized at which point the angle matters and it goes from letting 100% of the light through to 0%.

And lastly the lens does care about its fstop number, because that number is a ratio between the opening of the lens (and how much light it lets through) to its focal length. Thus its easier to have a fast lens when its focal length makes it possible to be big diameter, like around 50-85mm. Too wide, and you have to shape the light so much you will end up taking too many big lenses to do it effectively. And to long and the glass has to be HUGE to be a good ratio to how long the focal length. And thus from using the ideology from the earlier game we played, when you cut the radius of the opening of a circle in half then you loose one stop of light and the number displayed on the camera must indicate this based on its starting aperture value. PHEW. You can figure out what number is one stop using wide aperture lenses by checking if your camera is set to 1/2 or 1/3 stop intervals and going to aperture priority and change the aperture smaller 2 or 3 times respectively.

Lastly (really this time) you don't need L glass when you are starting off or even if you're a pro. Check out sigma lenses like the 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG HSM, which is comparable in performance to the canon 70-200mm 2.8 L but comparable in price to the canon 70-200mm 4 L. And even consumer grade lenses can take good pictures, heres something I shot with my Canon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 USM II. (for sale if anyone is interested $200 shipped PM me )

 

[jared_kipe]

I recently had to do a archive and install to fix a hard drive problem, and ever since reinstalling CS2 the "save for web" feature seems to desaturate the crapola out of my images, as can be seen by this one. ^^

 

[ziwi]

I recently purchased a 350D - and love it. Took advantage of the rebate program, but now I am in need of something on the longer end - I purchased the 17-40 for the travel lens as the wide side really does come in handy. I also purchased the 50 1.4 for the low light conditions during normal use - I don't know what to do for the longer side - debating between the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f4 L. Similar price, but the IS intrigues me. Any thoughts on this? Can the 70-200 good hand held? Or will I lose too many shots?

 

[oblomow]

same here. I just purchased a 350D with a 17-40L (still have some focus trouble at infinity, but that must be me) and I am considering a small
tele too. Perhaps just a fixed lens. 85 or 135. Before I went digital I had a
pentax SLR with a 24mm and a 135. that was enough for most of my needs.

 

[jared_kipe]

I recently purchased a 350D - and love it. Took advantage of the rebate program, but now I am in need of something on the longer end - I purchased the 17-40 for the travel lens as the wide side really does come in handy. I also purchased the 50 1.4 for the low light conditions during normal use - I don't know what to do for the longer side - debating between the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f4 L. Similar price, but the IS intrigues me. Any thoughts on this? Can the 70-200 good hand held? Or will I lose too many shots?

I'd get the 70-300, almost as good optically much better than the old 75-300mm. Its quite a bit longer, and its only 1 stop slower on the light scale. But IS gives you 2-3 stops , so its actually more like a f2.8 or f2.0 for hand held situations. Of course you won't get as shallow DOF (maybe at 300mm) and it will be 1 stop slower on the "freeze motion" scale. Plus its way smaller.

 

[ChrisA]

thing abut max f-stop's effect on strobe use

same here. I just purchased a 350D with a 17-40L (still have some focus trouble at infinity, but that must be me) and I am considering a small
tele too. Perhaps just a fixed lens. 85 or 135. Before I went digital I had a
pentax SLR with a 24mm and a 135. that was enough for most of my needs.

The 85mm is great. (I have Nikon gear but I'm sure Canon is the same here) My 85mm opens up to f/1.8 I can't can't get a 135mm f/1.8 lens With the smaller format of d350 vs. 35mm film the 85 acts like a 135mm f/1.8 lens

All this talk about I don't need a fast lens I have "IS". Well, if you use a flash for daytime fill in light to control shadow depth you DO want a fast tele. The effective range in feet of a strobe depends on the f-stop. Shooting animals at the zoo in bright daylight, a fill flash helps but at 50+ feet you'd need a studio strobe setup if the lens can only do f/5.6

Just one more thing to concider

 

[-hh]

I recently had to do a archive and install to fix a hard drive problem, and ever since reinstalling CS2 the "save for web" feature seems to desaturate the crapola out of my images, as can be seen by this one. ^^

I've been hitting the same problem, but I've not tracked it down yet.

I *think* that its probably related to the color space definition - - sRGB or whatever - - as I suspect that what is happening is that the 'save for web' is eliminating the color space adjustments in order to "bland-ize" the .JPG.


For example, the RAW was a faithful rendition, but this saved-for-web JPEG of a pre-dawn view of sunrise is easily a full stop lighter than what IMO it "should be", which resulted in a loss of colors.


-hh