You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Computers/Tech/Photo within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Some pics I shot up in Spokane, WA last week.
Some images from the zoo in Hyderabad, India from a recent business trip. Granted the images don't really show off what my Canon Rebel XTi with a 18-55 lens can do, but I thought they showcased something you might not see everyday
Here's a shot with my macro lens from a recent trip to Maui:
Last edited by Dr. Strangelove; July 18th, 2007 at 03:03 PM.
Yeah you do! I love love LOVE it! Be forewarned though, that camera really likes having really good glass in front of it. Because it is a full frame, soft edges really start showing up. I'm shooting with the 27-70 f/2.8 L like 90% of the time, and the rest with the 135 f/2.0 L, you simply can not take a bad picture with that lens
Edit: Now that I have said that, there are also a lot of non L lenses are like butter with the 5D, but mostly primes. The 50mm f/1.8 + f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 (I actually like the f/1.8 a bit better than the f/1.2, but I'm definitely in the minority in that decision) and the 100mm f/2.8 macro all immediately spring to mind.
Last edited by ValleyFan; July 18th, 2007 at 04:16 PM.
OK, well reality set in and there is no way I can spend $3,500 for a camera and lens for the D5, so I had the choice of the the 30D, the xTi or the wait for the 40d. After reading all of the positives and negatives of each and going to the store to hold each one and fire off a few shots, I decided on the 30D.
I read at Fatwallet that they were dumping the 30D Kit with the 18-55 lens at Circuit City to make room for the new configuration. I went to the local store and sure anough the kit was $849 (Usually over $1200) but they were already gone in every So Cal store. Damn!
I went on Ebay and sure enough the people who bought the kits at CC were dumping them for a profit. I found one with 45 minutes left and it was at $850, so I bid $904.06 and walked the dog. When I came home I was the proud owner of a brand new Canon D3!! W00t! Can't wait for it to arrive tomorrow.
I am trying to resist buying the 22-70 L 2.8 IM lens as a walkaround lens for this camera. I already have the 70-200 f4 L so this should take some great hockey pics. The 5 fps should be fun to play with. This should be quite a shock after owning the original Digital Rebel all this time and now upgrading over a few models to get something more current, rugged and professional.
I am trying to resist buying the 22-70 L 2.8 IM lens as a walkaround lens for this camera. I already have the 70-200 f4 L so this should take some great hockey pics.
The EF 24-70 f/2.8L might be a little long on the 30D for a walk-about, a very comparable lens that might be in a more comfortable zoom range for the 1.6 croppers is the EF-s17-55 f/2.8 IS. Unfortunately, it is the same price as the 24-70, and not an "L", but you get image stabilization, and being a EF-s, it is going to be considerable smaller and lighter than the 24-70, which is a beast in size and weight for that zoom range. I have heard that it's build is extraordinary, and really the only reason it didn't get an "L" is because it is an EF-s type lens (it is also not weather sealed). The only bad thing I have heard about it is that it is more prone to flaring than most in its zoom range, but, 30D + 17-55 = one of the standard wedding photog setups.
I dunno. I think that f/2.8 would be great for hockey pics with that big aperture. Depth-of-field control might be rough when things are moving that fast, but still...lots of light to be let in would allow a lower ISO to be used.
__________________ VOTE Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel IN 2008!!
I dunno. I think that f/2.8 would be great for hockey pics with that big aperture. Depth-of-field control might be rough when things are moving that fast, but still...lots of light to be let in would allow a lower ISO to be used.
f/2.8 lenses are great for sports with Canon bodies (Nikons might do this too, I just am not familiar with them), even if you aren't shooting it at 2.8 because with a f/2.8 or faster lens, it allows the body to use the faster cross type auto focus sensors, so AF becomes super snappy (on most lenses, the 85 f/1.2 is the notable exception just because there is so much glass to move when you focus) and impressively accurate for a non 1D body. You are going to want to change your auto focus to the * button and use AI Servo focus mode for sports, then you start tracking a player way off, hold down the * button, AF will track the subject, and exposure is set right before the shutter fires (exposure will be set with a half press of the shutter button, so with AF and AE both on shutter button, your AF might be right, but exposure will be set for the player being all the way across the ice.) The nice thing about AF on the *, is that you will be able to keep your camera in AI Servo all the time, because a quick press of the * and then off again, and it acts like AF single shot mode. Super handy in my opinion. Another trick is to only use either the center focus point, or one of the lower ones (you can set them using the little joystick) for sports. That way, if you slip off the player, the AF doesn't have far to hunt if it is tracking their torso or feet because it will slip to the the ice (or dirt, what ever you are shooting) right below or behind the player. If you are using all points and you slip off the player, if might decide that the top point, which has the netting or glass support 100' behind the player is pretty easy to focus on, then you have to wait for the lens to rack all the way back when you get it back on the player.
All that being said, I got to see a fiends 70-200 f/4 last week, and it is an impressively fast focuser for being a f/4.
Last edited by ValleyFan; August 17th, 2007 at 07:32 PM.
I won't be using the walkabout for sports so I'm not sure if I even need the 2.8. I am afraid to get an S lens since they are going to be outmoded as soon as the full frame models take over and if I am spending that much on a lens I want it to outlast this camera. The weight difference sounds good so I am tempted. I'll do a little more homework.
The 17-55 would leave me with a gap between 55mm-70mm range.
I already have the 70-200 f4 L so this should take some great hockey pics.
You need 2.8 lens. If Canon 2.8 70-200 is too much, you should take a look at Sigma 70-200. Apart from 300-800mm I think 70-200 is the best lens Sigma has made. A good Sigma 70-200 is practically equal to Canon 70-200 - for considerably less money. The only difference might be SLIGHTLY slower focus. Aside from that, you can't say a difference between both lenses.
So why is Sigma cheaper? Because of control quality. 5% of Sigma 70-200 and 80% of Canon 70-200 are A quality. So you need to test lot of Sigma lenses to find a top quality lens. You need to test every lens, even the Canon L lenses, but you will find top quality Sigma lens less frequently. It's all about control quality.
Quote:
I am looking at this lens as an alternative, EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM.
I know you won't be having this for sport, but still 5.6 on the tele end is just too bad. Isn't F5.6 the lowest value where Canon can do the autofocus? So if it would be half F worse, this lens wouldn't be able to autofocus at 85mm. I know it's not important, it's just a visualization of how bad 5.6 is. I would really like to see some test photos at 5.6 @ 85mm anyway, because I think that they might not be the best. We all know that usually best photos are at apertures a couple of stops slower than fastest. F5.6 might be too limiting even for everyday use.
What's your price range for this kind of lens?
__________________ This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World.
Last edited by trdi; August 18th, 2007 at 06:03 AM.
You need 2.8 lens. If Canon 2.8 70-200 is too much, you should take a look at Sigma 70-200. Apart from 300-800mm I think 70-200 is the best lens Sigma has made. A good Sigma 70-200 is practically equal to Canon 70-200 - for considerably less money.
Sigma stuff is great. I've actually been more impressed with Sigma's lenses in a lot of cases than I have been with Nikon's. They seem to me to be more ruggedly built and they definitely focus much quieter. Also, they tend to hunt less with their AF.
The price point can't be argued with, either. Usually about 10-15% less than your name brand gear.
__________________ VOTE Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin-bim-bin-bim Bus Stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel IN 2008!!
Since I already have the 70-200 f4, I am not going to dump it for a 2.8 so I am going to have to make due. I guess I'm going to have to suck it up and spend $900 for the S lens or be content with the 18-55 kit lens.
I read that you are worried about S mount being replaced by some other stuff or abandoned completely because of full frame cameras. Don't be. S series is serious stuff and it will be more and more important, not less. Canon does not have any intention to abandon 1.6× cameras. Full frame will remain top level for a very long time, because top quality material is needed for FF program. And there is no industry in the world that would be offering only top level products. The only change in market might be in the range of entry level DSLRs (like Rebel) or top compacts ($900+ range). I can't say what is going to happen there, but it seems top end compacts are being replaced by entry level DSLRs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyBoeingJets
Sigma stuff is great. I've actually been more impressed with Sigma's lenses in a lot of cases than I have been with Nikon's. They seem to me to be more ruggedly built and they definitely focus much quieter. Also, they tend to hunt less with their AF.
The price point can't be argued with, either. Usually about 10-15% less than your name brand gear.
I won't be using the walkabout for sports so I'm not sure if I even need the 2.8. I am afraid to get an S lens since they are going to be outmoded as soon as the full frame models take over and if I am spending that much on a lens I want it to outlast this camera. The weight difference sounds good so I am tempted. I'll do a little more homework.
The 17-55 would leave me with a gap between 55mm-70mm range.
I am looking at this lens as an alternative, EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM.
I don't think you have to worry about Canon's APC sized sensors (1.6 crop) going anywhere for a long, long time. Having only two full frame models, it lends some justification as to why you would spend $8000 on their flagship camera (1Ds Mk II). If they moved all their bodies to full frame, they would have a hard time convincing pros that a slightly better Digic processor, AF, and weather sealing is worth $6000. This, coupled with the the fact that of all three sensor sizes that they offer, the 1.6 crop has been by far the most successful, and the concentration recently on only rolling out EF-s lenses (there hasn't been a new EF in a long time, only updates), I think Canon is convinced the 1.6 crop sensor is a HUGE potential market for them, the entry DSLR is where it is at right now, which means APC sensors, even for prosumer bodies.
As for the gap between 55-70, I don't think you will miss it at all. For a full frame, that is a gap between 88mm and 112mm. I currently have a gap from 85mm and 135mm, so a considerably wider gap than you will see, and I still don't feel the need to run out and get a 100mm, I don't even think about it.
As for the 17-85mm f/4-5.6, it all depends on what you want it for. If you are shooting outdoors or with flash, it will be a
FlyBoeingJets
