Options
The sickness worsens...
Guys i have a very old (but perfect working cond)
Tamron 1:3.8
1:4/210
80mm-210mm
CF TELE MACRO
BBAR MC THETA 58
30 DEG - 11.3 DEG
Also says on barrel...1:2,8
1:1,4 2x conv
Also....32 down to 3.8/4
Well thats whats written on it anyway. Piece of cheap junk or will it fit & work well on a rebel ??.
AND ...I have a
Focal 28mm F2.8 Multi-coated Automatic Diaphram Wide-angle Lens (75 deg) for a canon (my old AE-1)
Again..is this stuff rubbish or will it fit & do ok on a rebel ?
Thats it..ive asked the question a day after i said i dont want a DSLR !!
Tamron 1:3.8
1:4/210
80mm-210mm
CF TELE MACRO
BBAR MC THETA 58
30 DEG - 11.3 DEG
Also says on barrel...1:2,8
1:1,4 2x conv
Also....32 down to 3.8/4
Well thats whats written on it anyway. Piece of cheap junk or will it fit & work well on a rebel ??.
AND ...I have a
Focal 28mm F2.8 Multi-coated Automatic Diaphram Wide-angle Lens (75 deg) for a canon (my old AE-1)
Again..is this stuff rubbish or will it fit & do ok on a rebel ?
Thats it..ive asked the question a day after i said i dont want a DSLR !!
0
Comments
And those long long white canon lens's...you know the ones..creamy cloured & smooth with a few black lines to throw a dangerous animals camoufage signal to keep clear.
i think im gone....
That will be £7357 in English
Have you been looking at the lens envy thread
Cincinnati Smug Leader
Don't worry you can get real camo for those lenses here. Let us know when you get one or two.
'gus, i know the feeling.
april 2004 - bought a rebel
june 2004 - bought 10d
sept 2004 - bougth 20d
dec 2004 - bought 1ds mk2
don't worry, after a while you are numb to the disgustingly high prices of all the gear.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
4 camera within a year.Picked up the 1D MKll 2 weeks ago and now figuring my finance for the 1DS MKll and I want another 10D
What can I trade or sell
Cincinnati Smug Leader
when i bought the 1ds mk2, i said to self, i'll sell the 20d. one consideration now is that i keep the 20d for long work
dunno if that's a luxury i can afford though... we'll see. i'm giving the ff camera a workout and if i like it, it'll stay. if not, out it goeS!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Cincinnati Smug Leader
'gus, I think those lenses were for pre-EOS cameras, but I would not swear to the correctness of my answer. If they will fit the Digital Rebel they must say they fit EOS system Cameras somewhere. Look at the base of he lens that inserts into the camera and look for four electrical contacts.
I just took a quick shot of the rear end of an EOS lens for you to examine and compare with yours...
Regarding the Digital Rebel - I would not buy a new one now unless you get a smash-up deal on price. Buy a good used 10D, of hold out and get a 20D. You will be much happier in the long run, if you insist on going down the DSLR route. You know from the poor "L" glass addicts here how dangerous that can be to your finances.
"I am an L glass addict and I promise to reform" :cry
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
no matter how well it is made, is worth the price of a new Chevy Cavalier. Unless of course, it can bend reality and bring you to the sites to see them up close and personal instead of just making them seem closer. That way a telephoto lens can let me meet the girl getting undressed in the window across the street! Then it might be worth it..
MainFragger
I think i am going to have to get a DSLR the more i think about it.
I really (i dont know how or why the typeface just changed !!) want to do surfing shots & anything under 400mm aint going to cut it. The FZ-20 has got that but i am concerned that if i grow out of it in 12 months then thats the price of good glass wasted. (do people on crack think like this ?)
Another question i cannot find an answer too...at least in laymans terms.
What is the REAL difference in a $2000 canon 400mm & a $400 sigma 400mm ? I understand glass quality but is that it ?
Im just going to go & curl up in the fetal position in the corner now & attempt to get that pic of the long white canon lens from my minds eye.
the glass is so much better - resulting in better color, saturation, contrast & sharpness.
but can the $400 400mm take good pics? sure, you bet. but you'll be able to shoot in more adverse conditions with the canon L - it's faster and also has i.s.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
For surfing shots I suspect you will want at least 400mm in length,'gus, and at least f4 if possible. Auto focus works much much better with f4 lenses than f5.6 or f6.3. I like the Canon 400mm f4 DO IS quite a bit - no larger than the 300 f2.8 and no heavier.
You may find you want 500mm also. Sigma does make some zooms around that length I believe.
The Canon long glass if frighteningly expensive - but solid, sharp, and reliable and re-saleable if in decent condition. The mechanicals in the iris and the lens barrels are quite different than the cheaper lenses. You know the difference between a first class tool and a cheaper tool. The Canon L glass teles can be shot WIDE open - full aperature f2.8 or f4 and are sharp and crisp at those aperatures. Most of the Sigmas and Tamrons do not have IS and it is worth the cost for sharper pictures.
If you really want first rate telephoto shots be prepared to purchase a good tripod and ball head as well. The tripod and head suitable for long glass will cost more than the DMC-FZ20 though. I figure 1K USD
You may be able to hand hold a 400mm lens for a while, but not when you add telextenders or go to a 500mm prime. This is a whole new world and requires new skills. Think of looking through a 6x rifle scope and trying to keep it on target from a standing position - You WILL need support of some type, and the type is a good tripod.
I looked and looked last year for a more inexpensive way for real long glass and I have not found an acceptable alternative yet. I can find cheaper lenses and cheaper hardware - but the results are not the same and generally you can see the difference.
I told you it is a sickness, 'gus - You were warned!
An additional thought occured to me also - Anoher way of getting really long glass is called digiscoping - where you attach a standard digital camera to the eyepiece of a spotting scope ( I am not sure if that is the term in Ozzie - it is a telescope used to look at rifle targets from the shooters postion on a rifle range) - just google - digiscoping - You probably could use your curent Oly camera that way which would decrease the cost substantially. Won't compare to L glass and a 1D, but still prettty good and might work for you.
Another thought about long glass is that it is one of those things you dream about ( Me too - I own several long lenses ) When you really need one for sports or birds there are no real substitutes - but you really don't use them that much. My normal range zooms shoot 10 or 20 times more images for me than my teles -
Really long glass 400 and up - are very special tools and not walk around lenses. They end up being a lot of money that is used only sometimes for special activities - normal range lenses get a lot, lot more use. It can end up feeling likeyou spent a lot of money for an expensive lens to store in your closet much of the time unless you have a specific need and plan to do it often. Rental is the way to go otherwise. No such rental in my community unfortunately or that is the route I would go. You might see if rental is available in Perth or Sidney or somewhere. I know there are photographic tours of Ozzie that suggest lens rental is available. Just a thought.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Ive just slipped my foot in the door so you cant run for a min....
When they talk about faster like f1.8 ..now thats a wide ap but this also lacks depth of field so why is it dear ?
I assumed that a lens with good depth of field would be the dear one. If i know the basics i will read more but i dont know how this is all tied in.
I can see the jigsaw on the floor but cant see it together if you know what i mean.
ta
My name is Humungus & im a lens addict.
At first i picked up a Kodak 2.1 mp cx 4230 3 years ago...there was no apparent problen back then... just point & shoot.
I then convinced my self that the 5 mp Olympus could juuuuuuuust help that little bit more with low light shots & the family backed me 100%.
Things went down hill from there...i said over & over that i didnt need a DSLR or any fancy shmancy lens's to go with it. I was talking in a News Group & someone posted photos of those long white canon lens's.
Now i find myself loitering daily through glass manufacturers sites & clearing my search history before the family come home. I keep the curtains drawn & now believe that the people downstairs have listening devices & cameras in my unit....Im not eating & my skin is turning a pasty white...
The beauty of long teles with wide aperature IS that the offer very shallow DOF with a very nice bokeh of the background isolating the subject very nicely. You can always stop a tele down ( except for mirror teles - but you can find 500 f8 mirror teles from B&H for under $300 USD) and get the larger DOF. But you cannot open to a larger aperature than the lens has. But larger aperature lenses f4, f2.8 f1.2 mean that the front objective lens is very large and that generally means it is expensive also if it is to be sharp and crisp optically.
On of the reall differences between P&S cameras with 2/3 sized sensors and DSLRs with APS sensors ( twice the size of the 2/3s sensor ) or a full-frame sensor like Andy's 1DMkll, is that the bigger the sensor the more shallow depth of field at the photgraphers disposal. P&S cameras can be very sharp, but it can be very hard to create the shallow depth of field for artistitic purposes.
This is why the FZ-20 may not create images like a DSLR at long tele ranges. Andy can tell you more about the DOF available with the Sony 828 at the long end of the zoom versus his 1DsMkll.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Rental 'gus rental. Think how much cheaper in life things could be if you only could rent instead of buy.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
pf answered ya perfectly.
i shoot my long lenses wide open most of the time. i want that shallow depth of field.
here's one lens i've got my eye on
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I can get a new sigma 170-500mm f5-6.3 for about $1300 0z...shame is that i like the speed the D70 can run at but its wasted with these smaller apatures i assume.
No-one told me it would get this bad.
What you can't see from the image is that it was shot from a tripod and a nice Arca-Swiss ballhead. With long glass, technique - tripod, mirror lock up, high shutter speed etc - are much more important. That is why handholding 400mm+ lenses does not usually lead to the quality of image that you are hoping for.
Andy is already noticing that the 16-35 L form Canon does not seem as sharp on the 1DsMkll as it seemed on the 20D in the corners of the frame. Full frame cameras are much more demanding optically. Micheal Reichman has written extensively about how higher quality digital sensors place increasing demands on the technique of the photographer and the optical quality of the lenses.
That is maybe one more reason to buy the best lenses you can, because as we upgrade our camers, previous interchangeable lenses may no longer be satisfactory. In the end, that is why I bit the bullet and bought the 400mm DO IS last year.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Andy - Canon no longer makes the 200 f1.8 do they? You would have to find a used version then?
You are a wide angle close in shooter - I really thought you would prefer the 85mmf1.2 - Now there is a lens that will give shallow DOF and has a nice bokeh. And it is nice and black, and not as off- putting of candid subjects as the white teles are...... Just a thought. Comments?
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Like I said 'gus - the problem with long teles no faster than f5.6 is that they tend to be slow to AF, and they usually not really good quality at their maximum aperature - so they may be f5.6, but need to be stopped 1 or 2 stops to f11 for really good image quality. This is a far cry from a lens that is f2.8 and can be shot at f2.8 - MUCH brighter in the viewfinder and much heavier to hold and much heavier to have to pay for. BUT once paid for, no doubt which lens you will prefer to shoot with.
What you will find is no matter which choice you make - you will want both. The Canon 100-400 is a very handy piece of glass because it can zoom. So I usually have it in my kit somewhere on a 2nd body. You'll notice that Andy has at least 2 bodies and an 828 as well. I'd venture to guess that you have more than one wrench in your kit too.
Most of the surfing shots I have seen seem to be shot with a 500mm f4 or a 600mm f4. Now these are big honking pieces of glass. And yes, they cost more than a nice used car - about the price of a new 650cc bike more or less. So many choices - so little time .......
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I can see the issues that evolve as the best surf shots are late evening or early morning so you HAVE to have the fast stuff in that light.
What a terrible terrible addiction. I dont want to spend 1/3 of that new bikes value to realize i would be better of with normal stuff.
My fav bike saying is.."its much more fun to ride a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow"
Now i see why so many like the Sony F717.
the 85 f/1.2 is nice - but heavy, and slow on the af - so i opted for 85 f/1.8 which i just ordered today, having shot with it a couple weeks ago (borrowed it from steve cavigliano). the 85 f/1.8 is universally liked, and for the money, it's a great value.
yeah, the 85 f/1.2 is superbly creamy in the bokeh dept - it's a specialty lens that i would consider after owning the 85 f/1.8 for a while, and if i find myself shooting that fl much, i'll upgrade
the 200 f/1.8 - yeah they don't make it anymore, so it'd have to be a used purchase - but i do have my eye on it!
i'm slowly drifting into wanting primes. i have the 35 f/1.4, the 50 f/1.4, and now the 85 f/1.8. at a minimum i'm considering the 200L f/2.8 - also a really good bargain (relatively speaking)! but damn - that 200 f/1.8 whooo boy
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
yeah 'gus - i can 100% guarantee that you won't be happy with any f/5.6 - 6.3 lens, becuase you're right - not only are the best shots taken during the "magic hour" and so light is low, but you also need fast shutter speed, so light gathering ability is paramount in for this type of shooting. additionaly, the faster glass (f/2.8 or f/4) would allow you to put on a 1.4x converter for yet more reach, still losing only 1 stop.
save your pennies, you'll be glad you invest in the better glass. and, as pf says, the glass will outlive any camera you buy
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter