Long lenses - soccer and birding

Ann McRae

Okay, I've been absorbing all the info in the lens threads to this point.
I am starting to think about outdoor soccer, and also about birding. I could use something longer than my current longest set up - a 1.7x tc on my 828. If my math is right (that's a big if) 200 x 1.7 = 340mm.

On the 20d with its 1.6 factor, a 300mm lens would give 480 mm, which sounds pretty long. Is that long enough for birding? What choices exist that are fast enough for dreary Edmonton evenings?

You folks are a wonderful wealth of information - I am learning so much about so many things here.

Thanks

ann

pathfinder

Ann McRae wrote:

Okay, I've been absorbing all the info in the lens threads to this point.
I am starting to think about outdoor soccer, and also about birding. I could use something longer than my current longest set up - a 1.7x tc on my 828. If my math is right (that's a big if) 200 x 1.7 = 340mm.

On the 20d with its 1.6 factor, a 300mm lens would give 480 mm, which sounds pretty long. Is that long enough for birding? What choices exist that are fast enough for dreary Edmonton evenings?

You folks are a wonderful wealth of information - I am learning so much about so many things here.

Thanks

ann

I posted that image of the white breasted nuthatch in the adjacent thread re: 70-200 + 2x telextender versus 100-400 zoom, so yes you can capture some birds with a 300mm lens. But I should add that most folks who are serious about bird shooting find that 400mm is not enough even with the 1.6 mag factor of the 10D,20D,D70 et al. I found 300mm too short and have bought several longer lenses to slake my lust for longer glass.
Serious birders usually start at 500mm and go on up to 600 to 1000mm if they can. It all depends on how much you want to get good images. I would suggest also that you consider a blind as opposed to a longer lens. Many of the published expert bird images were captured by shooting from a blind which allows the use of 300mm rather than a longer lens. Cabelas has all kinds of shooting blinds for about $100. Lots cheaper than a new lens too. And has multiple uses.
Go to birdsasart.com and read Arthur Morris thoughts about shooting images of birds. He is a world expert and uses cover and concealment to sneak up on birds too. You can find a number of books about bird photgraphy at Amazon of course. And most of them discuss shooting blinds as a very useful tool.

Mongrel

Hi Ann,
I don't do any birding but I'll give you my experience with shooting outdoor field sports.

I originally bought a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX to go with my 300D for shooting field hockey and lacrosse. While the 70-200 was adequate for this purpose it wasn't really *good enough*.

That was for the '03-'04 season. This year, I not only picked up a 20D, but I picked up a Sigma 1.4x TC to go with the 70-200. This was better but still not really satisfying-lol.

After a lot of online research and deliberation I got the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX HSM. OK...heheh, now were getting somewhere. I found this combination quite versatile and the quality (to me anyway) was outstanding. I often shoot field hockey without the TC, but when I was asked to shoot my nephews football team, I found the 1.4x TC gave me that extra reach to shoot tight clear across the field (sideline to sideline that is). The loss of a stop put me at f/5.6 but that was usually sufficient on sunny days. I did loose a little bit of bokeh as the f/5.6 produced a deeper dof.

I could recommend this combo for soccer without hesitation. The AF speed is fast and accurate and the lens is sharp and produces decent color.

I'm already drooling at the thought of jumping up one more time to the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. It's another highly rated (by most accounts...) lens for field sports and gives some advantage over the f/2.8 primes because of the ability to zoom in and out a bit.

Here are some shots using the Sigma 100-300 f/4 on a 20D:

#1 100mm @f/4




#2 300mm @f/4




#3 300mm @f/4




#4 300mm w\1.4x TC @f/5.6



#5 300mm w\1.4x TC @f/5.6



#6 Something a little different around 137mm @f/4



#7 Last but not least a 'portrait' with the 100-300



Some of these are 'straight out of the camera', some are processed (I honestly forget which lol), I put some up as an example of what I was getting from this lens.

Hope this is of some help in your decision.

Ann McRae

pathfinder wrote:

I posted that image of the white breasted nuthatch in the adjacent thread re: 70-200 + 2x telextender versus 100-400 zoom, so yes you can capture some birds with a 300mm lens. But I should add that most folks who are serious about bird shooting find that 400mm is not enough even with the 1.6 mag factor of the 10D,20D,D70 et al. I found 300mm too short and have bought several longer lenses to slake my lust for longer glass.
Serious birders usually start at 500mm and go on up to 600 to 1000mm if they can. It all depends on how much you want to get good images. I would suggest also that you consider a blind as opposed to a longer lens. Many of the published expert bird images were captured by shooting from a blind which allows the use of 300mm rather than a longer lens. Cabelas has all kinds of shooting blinds for about $100. Lots cheaper than a new lens too. And has multiple uses.
Go to birdsasart.com and read Arthur Morris thoughts about shooting images of birds. He is a world expert and uses cover and concealment to sneak up on birds too. You can find a number of books about bird photgraphy at Amazon of course. And most of them discuss shooting blinds as a very useful tool.

Thank you so much, pathfinder. I will definitely check out that site - so many cool sites out there!!!

To date, my birding has been in or near my yard. A blind would work nicely I think - of course all my feeder birds get pretty used to me. I still rely way to much on cropping images because there is too much empty space. I would like to be able to catch the grouse and the hawk that are around. And there are quail in the field across the street - til the houses go up anyway!

I know I will be shooting lots of soccer, and the birding will only happen 'in my free time - '. I think that 500mm will be too long for soccer.......

Thanks again

ann

ann

Ann McRae

Hi Mongrel



Great samples - Of course the other advantage of the 20d is its clean high ISO so that if it were cloudy or dark, cranking the ISO could make upfor the loss of apeture that the tcon brings.......good food for thought.

Thanks
ann

pathfinder

Like Mongrel said - the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 gets very good reviews, and aparently can be used with a teleconverter as well. The zoom would be real nice for soccer shooting also.

Steve Cavigliano

Ann McRae wrote:

Okay, I've been absorbing all the info in the lens threads to this point.
I am starting to think about outdoor soccer, and also about birding. I could use something longer than my current longest set up - a 1.7x tc on my 828. If my math is right (that's a big if) 200 x 1.7 = 340mm.

On the 20d with its 1.6 factor, a 300mm lens would give 480 mm, which sounds pretty long. Is that long enough for birding? What choices exist that are fast enough for dreary Edmonton evenings?

ann

Hiya Ann

Your math is immpecable....lol Yep, 300mm's on the 20D gets you 480mm's FOV

As far as birding lenses go, the longer the better, IMO. Even with the Bigma, almost 800mm's at full tele, small birds that are 50 feet away, are still small birds. If you can get close, it can almost fill the frame with a small bird.

I guess, the point I'm trying to get across is that long lenses don't perform miracles.

I should be getting the Tamron 1.4X today or tomorrow (shipped Monday, 3 day UPS), and I'm going to try it on the Bigma. Why? Cuz it doesn't have enough reach We'll see how it works out at 1100mm's

The Bigma isn't a slow focuser, but it's not as fast as my F2.8, or better lenses. For outdoor soccer, you might want something faster, and faster focusing, like a F2.8 70-200mm. Even if you have to add a 1.4x TC (450mm's approx) and shoot at F4. I also plan to try the 1.4X TC on the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8, and I'll let you know how this one works out.

Hope this helps some,
Steve

ginger_55

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Hiya Ann

Your math is immpecable....lol Yep, 300mm's on the 20D gets you 480mm's FOV

you might want something faster, and faster focusing, like a F2.8 70-200mm. Even if you have to add a 1.4x TC (450mm's approx) and shoot at F4. I also plan to try the 1.4X TC on the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8, and I'll let you know how this one works out.

Hope this helps some,
Steve

Steve, what kind of camera are you putting these things on?
And what about the 2Xs extender. I read several places that it is not that bad.

ginger

Steve Cavigliano

ginger_55 wrote:

Steve, what kind of camera are you putting these things on?
And what about the 2Xs extender. I read several places that it is not that bad.

ginger

Ginger,
I am using them on "our" camera The same one Ann has and that you have posted about picking up, the 20D

You are right, depending on the lens the 2X can work very well too. But, I figured I'd see how the 1.4X works on my Sigmas and then decide whether to invest in a 2X. The TC I am getting is the cheap Tamron, which reports aperture straight on through to the camera.

As you may be aware, using TC's cost you stops of light. So a 1.4X will make an F2.8 lens appear to the camera as an F4.0. Similarly, a 2X will cost 2 stops and make that F2.8 appear to be an F5.6. Since the 20D's AF is not guaranteed to work with max apertures above F5.6, the TC's that report the correct aperture can cause AF problems, when used with slower lenses, like the Bigma (F4-F6.3). That's why you read about people taping the contacts, thus fooling the camera.

I'm sure I have told you more than you ever wanted to know about TCs.....

Steve

marlinspike

ginger_55 wrote:

Steve, what kind of camera are you putting these things on?
And what about the 2Xs extender. I read several places that it is not that bad.

ginger

Got my gear back from canon (noticed a misfocus when using my 70-200 f/2.8, couldn't tell if it was the lens or the camera, so I sent my dReb, 70-200 2.8, and kit lens to them and said calibrate this...I knew before focus was off, but I didn't realize by how much until now...wow it's like night and day, but I digress). Here is a link to a gallery where I took pictures with my 70-200, my 1.4x sigma tc, and my 2x Mk I canon TC
http://Davidson.smugmug.com/gallery/373053/1/14844444

Here was the setup for the shots
Camera was at ISO 400, lens was always at 200 f/2.8, so with the 1.4x thats 280 f/4 effective, and with the 2x that's 400 f/5.6 effective. The 2x one might be a bit unfair since I don't have a tripod with me (long story, don't ask) and the best I could muster at ISO 400 was only 1/250 (considering that it's 400mm, 1/250 is a bit slow), but I used the windowsill for help holding the camera steady. All pictures were taken in RAW and in the PS CS RAW conversion I set sharpening up from 25 to 34 (since that's the amount that makes it look good without any TC) and I set luminance noise reduction at 9 (color noise reduction was left at the standard 25, everything else was left at standard too). I tried stacking them, but even with the windowsill, 1/250 is just not fast enough for 560mm.
Richard

marlinspike

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

The TC I am getting is the cheap Tamron, which reports aperture straight on through to the camera.

Since the 20D's AF is not guaranteed to work with max apertures above F5.6, the TC's that report the correct aperture can cause AF problems, when used with slower lenses, like the Bigma (F4-F6.3). That's why you read about people taping the contacts, thus fooling the camera.

Steve

For the first part, you do realize that the cheaper TCs don't have as good image quality, right? I don't know how much it matters for 1.4x though, but for 2x there are large differences. The best are canon and sigma, with canon being slightly better than sigma.

As far as AF, when I tried stacking my sigma 1.4x and canon 2x on my 70-200 2.8, my camera only reported the 2x's info (i.e. aperature was read as 5.6 and focal length as 400 with the lens set at 200, even though if I use just the 1.4x my camera reads f/4 and 280mm, and with just the 2x it reads f/5.6 and 400mm). My dRebel tried to focus, and it actually got it a couple times but only in an EXTREMELY sunny area that was high contrast.
Richard

ginger_55

No, thanks, Steve. I wanted to know all that. I have read about taping which only confused me more, so your mentioning it brings it a little closer to understanding.

What I don't understand, now, is where you mention the 20D's AF not being "guaranteed" to work with apertures above 5.6. Some lenses, many lenses seem to, start at 5.6.

I thought at 2.8, reducing the light to 5.6 was reasonable as that is where the 70-200 starts at the long end???

ginger

I hate to bother you again, but is this just a guarantee thing, or a "habit" that the 20D has? My Rebel focuses until it starts to get dark, not by the aperture.

marlinspike

I forgot to add, I focused on the symbol on the front wheel.
Richard

marlinspike

ginger_55 wrote:

No, thanks, Steve. I wanted to know all that. I have read about taping which only confused me more, so your mentioning it brings it a little closer to understanding.

What I don't understand, now, is where you mention the 20D's AF not being "guaranteed" to work with apertures above 5.6. Some lenses, many lenses seem to, start at 5.6.

I thought at 2.8, reducing the light to 5.6 was reasonable as that is where the 70-200 starts at the long end???

ginger

I hate to bother you again, but is this just a guarantee thing, or a "habit" that the 20D has? My Rebel focuses until it starts to get dark, not by the aperture.

The 70-200 is always f/2.8 wide open (i.e. you can do 70 f/2.8 and 200 f/2.8). You camera doesn't stop down the lens until you take the picture (i.e. it focuses with the lens wide open, whatever thay may be). This is why with f/2.8 and larger lenses, the 20D goes into higher accuracy focusing mode (i.e. f/2.8 and larger lets in SO much light that it gets higher accuracy). Between 2.8 and 5.6 the 20D would be in regular accuracy mode. After 5.6, if you tape the contacts (or, like in my situation with stacked TCs have a communication issue so the camera thinks that wide open is still 5.6 or less), the camera (20D or 10D or dRebel) will try to focus, but unless it's really bright it won't be able to (even then, no guarantee). 1 series cameras can focus even with a lens that's f/8 wide open.
Richard

wxwax

Richard, for what it's worth, I've stacked a Canon 1.4x and 2x on a 300 f4 lens on a tripod, in bright sunlight. The multiple extenders stacking really made the images soft. I was disappointed and have since pretty much rejected using both extenders at the same time.

ginger_55

Thanks, that makes sense re the wide open. Kind of the same thing as looking through the lens, focusing, whatever, it is wide open until the photo is taken. And the TC changes the "wide open". And the camera doesn't know that. Or something.

I looked at the comparison you did. Funny, I also used the front wheel to focus my attention on. I think you did very well with the 2Xs, I looked at the rubber indentations on the top of the tire. They actually seemed clearer with the 2Xs. I looked at the originals to compare.

ginger

Am I going to find a lens that I am going to be happy with. I am getting so tired of thinking about lenses. My 75-200 is actually maybe not the best bird lens, but I am used to that length. I wouldn't want anything shorter, would love longer, as it seems everyone does. But my funds are limited, etc.

I make up my mind and something comes along to change it. My last mind set was the 70-200 f2.8 IS with the TC left on most of the time, or all of the time, smile. My mind is hurting with this. I am afraid I am going to sell the lens I have and end up with nothing.

ginger again

or use all my money from everywhere and not be any happier with the new lens than I am now. I have stopped thinking about money in this, I am traumatized.

marlinspike

wxwax wrote:

Richard, for what it's worth, I've stacked a Canon 1.4x and 2x on a 300 f4 lens on a tripod, in bright sunlight. The multiple extenders stacking really made the images soft. I was disappointed and have since pretty much rejected using both extenders at the same time.

Yeah, I got some books to put the camera and lens on so I could knock down the shutter speed. Stacking them could be done, but you have to seriously sharpen the image (like set the RAW conversion sharpening to like 70), which obviously makes for a poor image. I actually think the quality with the stacked TCs is a lot like the 75-300 is past 220mm wide open.

Interestingly enough, while the stacked TCs only report the 2x TCs info, the auto exposure meter calculates proper exposure for having both 2x and 1.4x on there.
Richard

marlinspike

ginger_55 wrote:

And the TC changes the "wide open". And the camera doesn't know that. Or something.

I looked at the comparison you did. Funny, I also used the front wheel to focus my attention on. I think you did very well with the 2Xs, I looked at the rubber indentations on the top of the tire. They actually seemed clearer with the 2Xs. I looked at the originals to compare.

Am I going to find a lens that I am going to be happy with. I am getting so tired of thinking about lenses. My 75-200 is actually maybe not the best bird lens, but I am used to that length. I wouldn't want anything shorter, would love longer, as it seems everyone does. But my funds are limited, etc.

I'll take it a paragraph at a time.

The camera does know that the TC changes the wide open (i.e. if I put my 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4x TC on my camera and set it wide open, it says f/4, and with a 2x it says f/5.6. At least with sigma and canon, I'm not sure about others).

At some point, maybe tomorrow, whenever there is more light, I'm going to take more tests pics. I'm hoping for light that lets me shoot 1/500 f/5.6 iso 200. The canon 2x actually doesn't look too bad at all.

You mean the 75-300, right? I know when I had that lens, I almost never went beyond 215 because if I did, I would have to stop it down to like f/10 just to get a decent picture. So for me, going down to 200 wasn't really a big change since I didn't use 300 anyways. Also, no need for IS if you have the light for f/5.6 (I'm assuming you get a 2x TC). I hear the IS is a little softer than the non-IS anyways. Not to throw a monkey wrench in the works, but what about the Bigma? Also, what are you planning on paying for a 20D? I know of an ebay dealer that offers new stuff at good prices. I'm off to check how much she charges for a 20D now (sadly, she doesn't sell lenses).
Richard

Hmm...they don't have any 20Ds listed right now. I've e-mailed her to find out if she'll be listing more and how much.
Richard

Steve Cavigliano

ginger_55 wrote:

No, thanks, Steve. I wanted to know all that. I have read about taping which only confused me more, so your mentioning it brings it a little closer to understanding.

What I don't understand, now, is where you mention the 20D's AF not being "guaranteed" to work with apertures above 5.6. Some lenses, many lenses seem to, start at 5.6.

I thought at 2.8, reducing the light to 5.6 was reasonable as that is where the 70-200 starts at the long end???

ginger

I hate to bother you again, but is this just a guarantee thing, or a "habit" that the 20D has? My Rebel focuses until it starts to get dark, not by the aperture.

Never a bother Ginger and you're welcome for all the other info

Richard did a good job of explaining, so all I'll add is that you shouldn't get to concerned with the len's aperture range. The main figure, as Richard points out, is the maximum aperture. On an F4-F6.3 lens, the max aperture is F4. So the 20D's AF should work fine with this lens. As he also points out, lenses with an F2.8, or wider, max aperture can take advantage of the 20D's higher accuracy AF mode. While lenses with max apertures above F2.8 on up to F5.6 use the normal AF. Max apertures higher than F5.6, may have problems with the 20D's AF. Like Richard wrote, the light and contrast have to be really good, to get an AF lock. I'm sure that's one reason why you seldom see AF lenses, with max apertures higher than F5.6.


I hope this clears it up a bit for you,

Steve

Steve Cavigliano

marlinspike wrote:

For the first part, you do realize that the cheaper TCs don't have as good image quality, right? I don't know how much it matters for 1.4x though, but for 2x there are large differences. The best are canon and sigma, with canon being slightly better than sigma.

As far as AF, when I tried stacking my sigma 1.4x and canon 2x on my 70-200 2.8, my camera only reported the 2x's info (i.e. aperature was read as 5.6 and focal length as 400 with the lens set at 200, even though if I use just the 1.4x my camera reads f/4 and 280mm, and with just the 2x it reads f/5.6 and 400mm). My dRebel tried to focus, and it actually got it a couple times but only in an EXTREMELY sunny area that was high contrast.
Richard

Hey Richard

Yes, I am aware of the possible image quality issues. But, I have seen some nice results with this TC and it will work with just about any lens (unlike the Canon's and Sigma's). While the Canon and Sigma TC's would work with my 70-200mm, I'm not sure either would work with the Bigma. I have seen some corner softness in a few of the images, shot using this TC, when I viewed them. But, I'm hoping that the center frame area won't be too bad. If not, I only wasted $80. I have a couple of friends who use it with the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 and they swear by it. So we'll see


Thanks for the input,
Steve

ginger_55

OK, now I am thinking of finding and buying the 20D, a given all along but it is getting scarcer. And I am thinking of keeping my 75-300. Just because..... For the time being. And I am thinking of getting the 400 Canon lens (no zoom), because someone said it is very sharp. It is looooonger than I have had. Keeping my lens and buying this one is a lot cheaper than I was getting into. Now it is only a grand...

That way I can see. I am just thinking..... And I might like it, who knows. Or I might fall into Shem Creek when I am all alone at night and drown, but it will be cheap er. If it doesn't work out then I can sell the 400, I won't be any worse off than I am now, and there is always next year.

Actually, I will be better off as I will have the 20D which as broke as we are, well I am pretty lucky to be getting the 20D.

ginger

Seamus

ginger_55 wrote:

OK, now I am thinking of finding and buying the 20D, a given all along but it is getting scarcer. And I am thinking of keeping my 75-300. Just because..... For the time being. And I am thinking of getting the 400 Canon lens (no zoom), because someone said it is very sharp. It is looooonger than I have had. Keeping my lens and buying this one is a lot cheaper than I was getting into. Now it is only a grand...

That way I can see. I am just thinking..... And I might like it, who knows. Or I might fall into Shem Creek when I am all alone at night and drown, but it will be cheap er. If it doesn't work out then I can sell the 400, I won't be any worse off than I am now, and there is always next year.

Actually, I will be better off as I will have the 20D which as broke as we are, well I am pretty lucky to be getting the 20D.

ginger

My very humble opinion is to get the 20d and keep your current lens. Shoot away and get used to the new camera. The pictures you post are fantastic. The shots from the docks in your last post were brilliant.. When you are used to the new camera think about a new lens.

Keep a mental note on how close you get to the birds you are trying to capture. take the shots with the 75-300. check afterwards what zoom you used. were they all shot at 250 to 300? or were most of them inside 200. When you have a pattern from a lot of shots you will know whether you need a 100-400 or a 70 - 200.

To give you an idea of what I mean I was out yesterday shooting ( badly ) landscapes. When I got home I checked what I shot them at. Only 2 of the shots were under 24. The rest were between 24 to 55 and I missed a nice shot of a robin because the 55 was too short. I have been trying to decide on my next lens. I was thinking about a 17-35/40 but I will shoot some more over the next few months. I do think I will find that a 24 - 70 will be a better lens for me than a 17-35 / 40.

Hopefully this has helped


Shay.

ginger_55

shay wrote:

My very humble opinion is to get the 20d and keep your current lens. Shoot away and get used to the new camera. The pictures you post are fantastic. The shots from the docks in your last post were brilliant.. When you are used to the new camera think about a new lens.

Shay.

Thanks, Shay, I agree with you. I appreciate your comment about my pictures.
Most of them are, if I am using that lens, in the long range. But I will be more aware, and I do think I was trying to do too much at once.

Thanks,
ginger

marlinspike

Hey Ginger,
How much you looking to get a 20D for? The place on ebay I was talking about pulled them because they weren't selling but said a 20D would cost $1155. That seems like a pretty hard to beat price. I don't know how they do it, but they sell brand new items for way less than everybody else (I got an eye-one color 2 for $200 from them, everybody else wanted at least $240). Let me know if want me to forward the e-mail they sent to me to you. The seller's ebay id is new-items-only btw. Has like 8000 feedback.

Whooops, no wonder the price was so good, that's for new old stock 10d's. The 20D with 18-55 kit lens is $1500 shipped.
Richard

pathfinder

shay wrote:

My very humble opinion is to get the 20d and keep your current lens. Shoot away and get used to the new camera. The pictures you post are fantastic. The shots from the docks in your last post were brilliant.. When you are used to the new camera think about a new lens.

Keep a mental note on how close you get to the birds you are trying to capture. take the shots with the 75-300. check afterwards what zoom you used. were they all shot at 250 to 300? or were most of them inside 200. When you have a pattern from a lot of shots you will know whether you need a 100-400 or a 70 - 200.

To give you an idea of what I mean I was out yesterday shooting ( badly ) landscapes. When I got home I checked what I shot them at. Only 2 of the shots were under 24. The rest were between 24 to 55 and I missed a nice shot of a robin because the 55 was too short. I have been trying to decide on my next lens. I was thinking about a 17-35/40 but I will shoot some more over the next few months. I do think I will find that a 24 - 70 will be a better lens for me than a 17-35 / 40.

Hopefully this has helped


Shay.

I have said this before, but it is still true - 2/3 of all my images were shot between 24 and 70mm. For people and landscapes it is hard to beat. Birds, however, are an entirely different game - kind of like auto racing - bring lots of money.

ginger_55

marlinspike wrote:

Hey Ginger,
How much you looking to get a 20D for? The place on ebay I was talking about pulled them because they weren't selling but said a 20D would cost $1155. That seems like a pretty hard to beat price. I don't know how they do it, but they sell brand new items for way less than everybody else (I got an eye-one color 2 for $200 from them, everybody else wanted at least $240). Let me know if want me to forward the e-mail they sent to me to you. The seller's ebay id is new-items-only btw. Has like 8000 feedback.

Whooops, no wonder the price was so good, that's for new old stock 10d's. The 20D with 18-55 kit lens is $1500 shipped.
Richard

I got all excited about that price, . they are about the same as BH, though, in reality. BH has just the camera for 1379.95. That is still in stock.

Then it gets confusing. There appear to me to be more than one type of kit lens. There is 18-55 kit lens and there is the 18-55 USM kit lens, and there is a longer one with IS .. A lot of those are out of stock. I don't know the difference between the regular kit lens and one with USM.

I am supposed to get the tax refund deposited by Feb 4, and I don't know what will be in stock by then or if the prices will still be as they are now. Or I might get the refund earlier. It always comes on Friday, that is my memory of it. That is overnight, so I think it gets put in so it shows up on Sat, but I am not sure.

If everything is out of stock everywhere I will need to know where to find the e-bay person. Why don't you fwd the e-mail to me anyway. My e-mail address is ginger55@aol.com . Also, what is the difference on those lenses, the USM and the regular.

The person who swore he wanted to buy my Rebel has not gotten back to me yet. I am asking, demanding, 600.00 for that and the kit lens, or 500.00 for just the camera. That is not too far away from BH price, so he might think twice on it, but everyone else was getting it. There is a lot I don't have except the lens or the body, but I figured I could give it to him out of the stuff sent to me with my camera. Things like the USB cord. Bill threw out everything. He does that.

But because it gets kind of confusing, I am hoping that guy buys it. He is Bill's boss. And he is in town.

ginger, thanks......

marlinspike

ginger_55 wrote:

I got all excited about that price, . they are about the same as BH, though, in reality. BH has just the camera for 1379.95. That is still in stock.

Then it gets confusing. There appear to me to be more than one type of kit lens. There is 18-55 kit lens and there is the 18-55 USM kit lens, and there is a longer one with IS .. A lot of those are out of stock. I don't know the difference between the regular kit lens and one with USM.

If everything is out of stock everywhere I will need to know where to find the e-bay person. Why don't you fwd the e-mail to me anyway. My e-mail address is ginger55@aol.com . Also, what is the difference on those lenses, the USM and the regular.

I got excited about that price too. I was debating selling my dRebel and adding my radar detector money to that, along with some other money, and getting a 20D myself. Then a little while later I decided to check the auction number she gave me and saw it was for the 10D....anyways, as soon as I'm done typing this I'll forward you the e-mail. As far as the kit lenses...
18-55 non-USM, this is the one that comes with the dRebel in the US (in Japan, and recently in some other countries, and I think starting like a month ago some US dRebels get the USM one). It's the el-cheapo lens that gets the job done for wide angle (28.8-88mm after the crop factor).

18-55 USM, I see BH is charging $110 more for that version....SOOOO not worth it. It's not even the real type of USM (it uses the kind found in the 75-300, not the kind found in the L lenses), and it has exactly the same optics, i.e. the optics of a $70 (ok, so it's really good for $70, but it's no L) lens. The 18-55 non-USM is a pretty quiet focuser anyways. Don't waste your money. I'd maybe get this one if it were like $10 more, but even then I don't think I would

17-85 IS USM - this one I believe does have the real deal USM. Still, it's an expensive as all get out lens, and the optics by all reports are not that good. Not to mention it's a slow f/4-5.6 (which they try to make up for with IS). It doesn't have the optics to match it's price, but, if you need a relatively light lens that covers all the way from 17-85, it's your only choice. Some people like it. I don't, because from what I've seen it's got optics slightly better than the 18-55, yet it costs $600 just because it has IS and goes up to 85.

Richard

Ann McRae

marlinspike wrote:

17-85 IS USM - this one I believe does have the real deal USM. Still, it's an expensive as all get out lens, and the optics by all reports are not that good. Not to mention it's a slow f/4-5.6 (which they try to make up for with IS). It doesn't have the optics to match it's price, but, if you need a relatively light lens that covers all the way from 17-85, it's your only choice. Some people like it. I don't, because from what I've seen it's got optics slightly better than the 18-55, yet it costs $600 just because it has IS and goes up to 85.

Richard

I have the 17 - 85mm IS lens - cost me a fortune, frankly - $900cdn. I was not able to buy the 20d with a lens, and needed something useful and affordable to test the camera within the 2 week return.

I like it! If you look at my gallery, you will see quite a few shots with that lens. I'll even post y'all an example or two:






It has good range for a general purpose lens, has IS that seems to work (look at my 1/20 s exposure handheld) - it is a bit slow (requires lots of light or flash).

ann

marlinspike

Here's the thing about those photos. 1 - Can't really tell anything without seeing them at 100%. 2 - At least the first one (don't know about the others) was shot at ISO 1600. First, I'm kinda curious why, but secondly, again that means I can't tell anything.
Richard

Ann McRae

marlinspike wrote:

Here's the thing about those photos. 1 - Can't really tell anything without seeing them at 100%. 2 - At least the first one (don't know about the others) was shot at ISO 1600. First, I'm kinda curious why, but secondly, again that means I can't tell anything.
Richard

That ISO 1600 thing....well, I spend a lot of time shooting indoor sports - haven't gotten in the habit of changing ISO when I change lenses. not the first time I've made that mistake - but still there is good sharpness in that photo for that ISO.

Not really sure what you want to 'tell' - you are welcome to look at the photos on my smugmug site - or if what you want is 100% crops well then ask - what are you looking for?

I just wanted to point out to ginger that the 17 - 85mm is quite decent for a basic walk around -
it is slow
it does not give creamy bokeh
but it is sharp
it covers a useful range
and that it might suit her with her 20d. She might be just as happy with the 50mm f1.8 instead.........

marlinspike

Ann McRae wrote:

Not really sure what you want to 'tell' - you are welcome to look at the photos on my smugmug site - or if what you want is 100% crops well then ask - what are you looking for?

I suppose ideally I'd like a 100% crop (or just a 100% full photo) of something with something detailed in it that was shot in RAW, and all that was done in the conversion from RAW to JPEG was the default settings (i.e. no post-processing), or alternatively shot as a JPEG but the in-camera settings were for no adjustments.
Richard