After the EF 70-200 F2.8L IS USM, 17-40 F4L reserved

[TT]

Well, finally I entered the SLR world myself! Actually tomorrow since the battery grip had to come from another store, so I decided I will pick up the whole bundle tomorrow evening, anyway today I paid for

Canon 350D
18-55 mm lens
70-300 mm tele lens
battery grip
polarizer (obviously)
backsac

Can't wait to test it out!

[No.1]

Can't wait to see your new pics with this camera too 8)

There was nothing wrong with the Pro1, but the 350D is a dream for me at the moment

If you don't mind me asking, how much did it cost you in total for the whole package? And what are you going to do with the pro1?

[mindgam3]

Nice TT, glad you can eventually join the 350D club ;) Getting used to mine took a little while but after a few weeks u know exactly where everything is and a complex camera turns into your best friend.

Image quality is superb.

I would give you some advice though - save up for some L lenses instead of buying regular/3rd party.

When you stick an L lense on your 350D you WILL notice the difference, and it REALLY makes the 350D alive. You really aren't unleashing this camera's full potential unless you go for high quality L lenses. I suggest the 80-200 F4L, possibly with an 1.4X extender for track stuff and a smaller L zoom lense - possibly the 350D specific L lenses they do for close up work. This is all you will need for at least a few years ;)

Happy snapping

[TT]

Well for now I will stick for some basic lenses, and maybe in 2006 I will pick up a "pro" one ;)

As for the price, all included it costed 2100 CHF (www.xe.com for conversions)

[5vz-fe]

I am deciding between the 350D and D50 ..... can't wait for ur shots TT, I am sure they will make my decision much easier.

[Darkel]

As I already said, congrats :good:

Mindgam, you're right but the problem is : as soon as you own such a camera you want to be immediately equipped for all circumstances and you don't really care about your future pro-config :D
IMO that's some good stuff to begin with; he'll probably sell a few things on ebay one day and buy himself a killer lens like the one you're talking about :wink:

[mindgam3]

Well for now I will stick for some basic lenses, and maybe in 2006 I will pick up a "pro" one ;)

As for the price, all included it costed 2100 CHF (www.xe.com for conversions)

Yeah, thats not too shabby considering what you got.

I haven't go any L's myself yet (can't quite afford it) but i'm always playing around with my dads lenses, and they really make a difference across the whole camera - not just image quality - but focus speed and flexibility etc.

As soon as you can, get one ;)

[No.1]

^^^ Thx for info - xe.com is my preferred currency converter :wink:

[TT]

LOL I hope so. I guess I will still need to learn something, so maybe at first I bet carry both cameras with me, just in case :D

[dingo]

Congrats, a nice choice. :D

What made you decide to buy a new camera, any particular reason?

[TT]

Uhm, difficult to explain, I am the kind of guy that can pass in front of a given item at the store 10'000 times without feeling the need to own it, then one day, I am like ZAPPED from the heavens and I KNOW I can't resist.

It happened for my second PS2 (PAL model while I had already an US one). One day I saw an offer at the store. I say to me I don't need it. Came back home, sit down on the sofa and after 10 minutes I was again in my car.. and came back home with it.

And well, this morning I was in town and saw a bundle with 350D, 18-55 and 55-200... no idea why, I flashed... again I tried to be strong. Came back home and first thing I did was fire up the PC to check reviews about that 55-200 which turned out to be quite crap. Instead of beeing happy and stop the frenzy, I went back in town in a specialized little store, talked with the seller for a while and ended up with an offer.. basically for the same price I got the much better 70-300 and amost all the accessories. It was impossible to say no.

[MIHALS]

wow, congrats Matteo!!! I just bought my A200, so my 350D is still waiting somewhere on the drawing sheet :D .... I need to learn use this cam first and then maybe in 2 years I'll go for SLR... at this time, my camera has too many features compared to my 2 Mpix cam and carrying the user manual with me is a daily routine :lol: ....

so, enjoy your new toy, play with it a LOT, so we can see your fantastic pickies and mainly, have fun with it!!! (I know you will :wink: )

[TT]

Oh boy I will :D luckily it shouldn't be too different from my Pro 1 :D just a bit better :)

[MIHALS]

Oh boy I will :D luckily it shouldn't be too different from my Pro 1 :D just a bit better :)

luckily for you, but unfortunatelly not fo me :D . but everybody has to get through those first days of learnig, so tomorow I'm going to do some hunting 8)

[TT]

Sure! it would be totally wrong to start shooting with an SLR, it's better to go step by step

[skituner]

congrants man i just got the same cam same lenes too dident get the battery grip but im thinking about getting one, how do you like?

[ae86_16v]

TT, I always though you had a Nikon D70. What were you using to shoot before?

The 350D is a great camera, I had the pleasure of using my friend's and it was super nice. What made you choose that over the Nikons?

Reason why I asked is because I am in the same predicament myself. I can't decide between the Canon or the Nikon.

[skituner]

ahhh nikon vs. canon the age old question
i went with canon becaue i already had a 35mm rebel ti with a two lenses and a flash that are compatible with the 350d. i have heard many opionins but its seems like canon is the most popular

[MercedeSChink]

honestly, facing cameras day in and day out, i would recommend the canon 350d/rebel xt...for the same or even cheaper price, you get a better quality, camera in megapixels and also getting more accessories with canon...i've been an avid photography enthusiast because my family is in the camera industry, and ever since i was young, i've had 35mm nikons, but wen digital came along, canon surpassed nikon and became the dominant company in digital cameras...

[MartijnGizmo]

Welcome to the club! :)

Now start saving up for lenses, as you'll become hopelesly addicted. :D I'm selling my Sigma 70-300 APO DG to get a Canon 70-200 F/4 L. 8)

[TT]

congrants man i just got the same cam same lenes too dident get the battery grip but im thinking about getting one, how do you like?

Hehe, I will tell you in a couple of days ;)

TT, I always though you had a Nikon D70. What were you using to shoot before?

The 350D is a great camera, I had the pleasure of using my friend's and it was super nice. What made you choose that over the Nikons?

Reason why I asked is because I am in the same predicament myself. I can't decide between the Canon or the Nikon.

I was using a Canon Powershot Pro 1, SLR-alike like they Canon says ;)
As for the Nikon vs Canon debate, honestly, for the average user, both the D70 and 350D are good cameras.. it's up to personal preferences. I am a Canon man, always had Canon cameras, so it was natural to go for the 350 :D

[MartijnGizmo]

Nice TT, glad you can eventually join the 350D club ;) Getting used to mine took a little while but after a few weeks u know exactly where everything is and a complex camera turns into your best friend.

Image quality is superb.

I would give you some advice though - save up for some L lenses instead of buying regular/3rd party.

When you stick an L lense on your 350D you WILL notice the difference, and it REALLY makes the 350D alive. You really aren't unleashing this camera's full potential unless you go for high quality L lenses. I suggest the 80-200 F4L, possibly with an 1.4X extender for track stuff and a smaller L zoom lense - possibly the 350D specific L lenses they do for close up work. This is all you will need for at least a few years ;)

Happy snapping

If you really need the long focal lenght, you're better off with a fast prime (300 or 400mm) than using an extender on a regular base. Allthough the 1.4x is quite okay, you'll still sacrifice a lot of image quality. Other good option is the 100-400 L.

Top-tip for the midrange is the Tamron 28-75 2.8. Very fast for a zoom at F/2.8, optical results are comparable if not better than the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L. Off course the Canon will focus faster with it's USM, but it's also 4 times as expensive.

congrants man i just got the same cam same lenes too dident get the battery grip but im thinking about getting one, how do you like?

Get one, you'll love it. Since I bought mine, I only removed it once, to look up the serial number of my camera. :D

Pro's:
- longer battery-live (I've got 4 batteries, never ran out of them)
- better handling, especially in portrait
- better weight balance with heavier lenses (well, it still looks a bit out of place on the back of, say, a 70-200 2.8 IS) :)

[stmoritzer]

Congrats to your new camera, nice read how you got it :wink:

Well, since you mentioned to take both cameras with you at the beginning, could you take picture of the same object/car with both cameras to show us the differences? -> discussion about the 2 cameras

[MercedeSC32/eSCalade]

personally, since tt will most likely use this camera to take pictures of cars, i'd highly recommend the new 24-105 f/4 IS L...you got a lil bit of wide at the bottom end and wen you can't get close to a car you still got 105mm with a factor of 1.6 on top...although its quite expensive so the next alternative would probably be the 28-135 IS...its a non L series lens so this lens only cost around 650 CDN, so its not that big of an investment...

[TT]

Yes stmoritzer, I will do it for sure ;) sadly not today since I am here with all the material but still waiting for the batteries to charge :D

And thanks for the suggestions on L lenses guys, I will wait for sure 2006 before considering one :)

[sentra_dude]

Congrats TT! I always thought you already had an SLR, silly me. :P

I can't wait to see the comparison shots between your old and new cameras...as I am thinking about picking up an SLR...eventually. :lol:

[Jabba]

OMFG nearly £1,000...take care you dont drop that beauty TT.

[Fleischmann]

Congrats dude, a perfect 8mipxel SLR. I don't think I have to encourage you to put it into good use :P Can't wait to see comparison shots between the 350 and you previous cam. But be carefull, it cost an awful lot of money :P

[TT]

Ok, did some nighttime testing and I am back with some impressions.

Sadly it wasn't a very wise idea LOL. I was tired, had to piss and it's cold..
So, I picked up a parking lot and shoot a test picture with the Pro 1. That's ISO 50, exposure time 15 sec and F was at 3.2
http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/3496/01pro1iso5015secf320vn.th.jpg (http://img456.imageshack.us/my.php?image=01pro1iso5015secf320vn.jpg)

I then started to test the 350D with its standard 18-55 lense. and after 2 sec I was pissed off already. With the pro 1 I always use the viewfinder, but not when using a tripod, where the rotating LCD is sooooooo practical. I was already suffering from some pain in my back, so it was really sucky to shoot pics.
Also, another negative point is the viewfinder itself. I wear glases and with them I can't see the whole picture when looking through it. I can with the Pro 1. It's a minor problem but have to get used to it.
And finally, I think those low to medium grade lenses are not up to the task of shooting at night. It wasn't easy to focus and actually most pics are un-postable since too blurry.
Last negative point, the aspect ratio of the pics... instead of 1600x1200 you get 1600x1067 and 1024x768 is 1024x683.. WTF! Luckily I always crop my pics, and with 8 MP it's easy to still obtain the proper 4/3 ratio I still prefer :!:

Details actually.
So, the pictures at ISO 100 were blurry, but I could save this one, ISO 400, 5 sec exposure and F7.1
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/1529/02eosiso4005secf718gh.th.jpg (http://img443.imageshack.us/my.php?image=02eosiso4005secf718gh.jpg)

Well, the Pro 1's still looks better, especially colorwise, but I didn't play with the white balance (in any of them), and every camera is different.

For these pics I was at about 15 meters from the car. The Pro 1 was basically shooting at its max focal lenght (the max at which it can still focus since lately at full lenght it can't anymore), and same goes for the 55mm
I then switched to the 90-300mm and took a pic from the same position, at 90mm, so the "wider" field possible. Got this
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/2397/03eos300mmiso100and15sec0sr.th.jpg (http://img443.imageshack.us/my.php?image=03eos300mmiso100and15sec0sr.jpg)
LOL!
At 300 I was able to have the wheel filling the picture completely.
I walked backwards untill I was around 50 meters from the car and still impossible to have it completely inside the picture at 300mm. Couldn't try to walk some more since there was a wall LOL. Basically impossible to use the 300mm in town I guess, but it will be precious at events or on track. Even without a stabilizer IMO.

So, first impressions are not as good as you might expect, but well, considering the situation, I was expecting it to be like that. Wanted to wait for tomorrow to come and test in daylight first but impossible to resist.

Anyway, definitely, to shoot at night the Pro 1 is much more practical with it's rotating LCD. Period.

Can't wait to test it tomorrow with daylight because I am sure it will be a blast!

On the positive side, since the 350D uses the same mem cards as the Pro 1, I am not forced to install new software but I just use the Pro 1 to transfer the pics :D

[MartijnGizmo]

Don't forget that dSLR-pictures need more postprocessing on the pc at home. Compact-pictures are more saturated and sharped as the average consumer doesn't want to fiddle with them afterwards.

[mindgam3]

indeed, i usually whack up my saturation and sharpness by default on my 350D.

A tripod is a must to make use of the 350D's long exposure settings in dim light. Getting used to the different focusing modes will also improve composition hugely.

As with all things, practice makes perfect, good luck mate

Happy snapping ;)

[MercedeSC32/eSCalade]

try to master your white balance settings in order to get amazing colors!!!

[TT]

Don't forget that dSLR-pictures need more postprocessing on the pc at home. Compact-pictures are more saturated and sharped as the average consumer doesn't want to fiddle with them afterwards.

Well, I think I am able to edit a picture ;) this was just a simple test with no white balance fiddling and so on.

[sameerrao]

Ok, did some nighttime testing and I am back with some impressions.

Sadly it wasn't a very wise idea LOL. I was tired, had to piss and it's cold..
blah... blah ... blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...

Most of what you posted went over my head ....

However, I seemed to find the one small detail that everyone seems to have missed. You took a piss and it was cold. So what happened then ... something froze?

[TT]

Nono, I didn't took a piss out in the wild, I wanted to wait the coziness of my home :roll:

[stmoritzer]

Thanks for the first impressions TT.

[MartijnGizmo]

Oh, and forgot to add: the kitlens is quite soft when used wide open, for best results stop it down to F/8..... I just don't use mine. :)

[TT]

Today I did some more testing:

With the 90-300 at 90mm
http://img342.exs.cx/img342/894/0009hu.th.jpg (http://img342.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img342&image=0009hu.jpg)

And 200mm
http://img342.exs.cx/img342/5411/0011fs.th.jpg (http://img342.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img342&image=0011fs.jpg)

More like 100mm
http://img342.exs.cx/img342/9035/audirs61tc.th.jpg (http://img342.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img342&image=audirs61tc.jpg)

200mm, car driving along at 100mm, pretty nice shot for a non-stabilized lense ;)
http://img342.exs.cx/img342/6812/mitsuevovi7ly.th.jpg (http://img342.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img342&image=mitsuevovi7ly.jpg)

And 300mm, but pretty quick shutter, so it ended up still ok
http://img342.exs.cx/img342/4/ferrari400i4vg.th.jpg (http://img342.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img342&image=ferrari400i4vg.jpg)

Now, Pro 1:
http://img342.exs.cx/img342/3307/e36withpro11uv.th.jpg (http://img342.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img342&image=e36withpro11uv.jpg)

And 350D

ISO200
55mm, no filter
http://img342.exs.cx/img342/759/e3655mm4jn.th.jpg (http://img342.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img342&image=e3655mm4jn.jpg)
filter
http://img342.exs.cx/img342/8130/e3655mmpola8fp.th.jpg (http://img342.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img342&image=e3655mmpola8fp.jpg)

90mm
http://img342.exs.cx/img342/9350/e3690mm1vy.th.jpg (http://img342.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img342&image=e3690mm1vy.jpg)

300mm, pure nightmare.. impossible to have a sharp pic, and I tried alot. Had to raise to ISO 800 so I was able to have a shutter speed of 1/500 and ended up with an almost acceptable result. Bu needed to use Neat Image to reduce grain :bah:
http://img342.exs.cx/img342/4190/e36300mmiso800shutter5001rj.th.jpg (http://img342.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img342&image=e36300mmiso800shutter5001rj.jpg)

So, basically this lense is ok up to 200mm.. then it becomes pretty tricky to have good pics.

As for the aperture thing, I admit I always am confused because the terms seem to say the opposite as I would think. you mean not to go higher or lower than F8? I guess not higher :D I just never understand how to call it when the value is higher or lower :D so I just talk abou the value, (and of course I know what an high value does vs a low one ;))

[mindgam3]

Nice bit of testing there, glad to see ur experimenting ;) Although the shots of the car (with the 350D) seem a little overexposed in the background?

Not sure if i understand your last paragraph though, why wouldn't you not want to go higher or lower than F8? :?

[TT]

I think the problem is contrast, set a bit too high.
As for the last paragraph, it was in response to the previous post. For sure anyway, higher than F8 becomes hard to handle with no tripod anyway ;)

[MartijnGizmo]

In the F/x number the F stands for Focal Lenght. Let's take the kitlens at 18mm for example:
- at F/3.5 the diaphragm is 18/3.5 = 5.14mm
- at F/8 the diaphragm is 18/8 = 2.25mm

So the larger the F-number, the smaller the diaphragm is.

See for yourself why you should stop it down a little for better results:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/review/18mm_corner.jpg


Oh, and I'd like to add: you might consider picking up a EF 50 1.8. It's only €80 or so, tacksharp from F/2.8 on and great to play with a small DOF @ F/1.8 to let those details stand out on cars for example.

[TT]

Yes yes, as said, I know what the aperture does, but always thought there is something weird in the way the terms work. Having a "low" aperture means a big number, "wide open" means small number.. just mental confusion :D

I was tempted to buy also a simple lense for details shots, but to be honest, I don't like to take details pics, so why should I bother :D I will end up never using it.

For now the two ones I got will do and next one will be a stabilized one.. probably not an L though :?

[MercedeSC32/eSCalade]

or you should pick up a 35 1.4 ;)

[TT]

:P

I am about to complete my testing, then this topic can die and I will go back at shooting cars..

or maybe birds?
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/2636/gull6si.th.jpg (http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gull6si.jpg) http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/286/gull27vq.th.jpg (http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gull27vq.jpg)

185mm the first, 235 the second. Both pretty sharp (both 1/640 anyway, so difficult to mess up ;)). For sure the constant focusing option is damn good for such task (first pic obviously).

Only car, this plain 993 C4, shot at 170mm, 1/250, F5, obviously no filter.
http://img492.imageshack.us/img492/8308/993c48lv.th.jpg (http://img492.imageshack.us/my.php?image=993c48lv.jpg)
As expected, you can't use a not stabilized telelense in difficult light conditions with a filter :D

Anyway, I am getting the feel of it finally.. today I could go hunting some more :)

[mindgam3]

For now the two ones I got will do and next one will be a stabilized one.. probably not an L though :?

If you can afford it, go for the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM.

Its light, smaller than both the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and any L lense although it does proide L quality picture. Very versatile lense that you won't need a big bag for. IS on this lense is immense. Bare in mind the IS on the regula 70-300 is the very first generation IS and is a bit behind, although IMO, still better than most other brand IS.

Here's a pic i quite like that i took from the stands at a recent F1 test after he spun. At 300mm, and on a very dull, overcast day ;) (I'll probably be posting the rest of them later)

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/6080/img1095copy3vp.th.jpg (http://img368.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1095copy3vp.jpg)
http://img464.imageshack.us/img464/199/img1089copy1zb.th.jpg (http://img464.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1089copy1zb.jpg)
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/2017/img1191copy6pg.th.jpg (http://img368.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1191copy6pg.jpg)

[TT]

Yep, that one and the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM are the ones I am interested in. but the DO one costs something like twice the other one, and begin to be lot of money, so not for now I guess :D

[sentra_dude]

The detail on those birds is just amazing. :D

TT, what is the highest resolution you can shoot with, and what size pictures does that give you?

[Wutputt]

:P

I am about to complete my testing, then this topic can die and I will go back at shooting cars..

or maybe birds?

So swisscarsightings.com will die and replaced with swissbirdsightings.com :P ?

Well congrats with your new camera. And I'm you're progressing with the testing.

[SDK2003]

Congrats on the 350D purchase TT :)
Switching from a Point & Shoot to D-SLR will take time to adjust but you'll get there.

I'll look forward to seeing your future car pics :)

[TT]

swissbirdsightings LOL! Good idea!

SDK, I wouldn't call the Pro 1 a point-and-shoot camera! Yes it's still an amateur camera, but closer to an SLR than to an IXUS IMO. I never used the automated modes but always worked in the "creative" ones. As far as settings go, the Pro 1 and the 350D are very similar.
Of course the 350 waits more, the telelense is long and I indeed need to adjust to it.

For sure I am learning again despite the similarities and it's so stressing to be in town and know I could see a supercar passing by and end up with a fucked up pic :D

Today I got a couple of cars, I think the pictures are ok:

dark day, late at afternoon, ence ISO 200 to have decent speed, F blocked at 4.5 to help ;)
Around 135mm
http://img357.exs.cx/img357/6850/audirs61353pj.th.jpg (http://img357.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img357&image=audirs61353pj.jpg)

One of the best shots, 100mm. Focused on a fixed point and not used the constant focusing
http://img357.exs.cx/img357/9334/porsche997carrera1005oe.th.jpg (http://img357.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img357&image=porsche997carrera1005oe.jpg)

And 90mm, easy ;)
http://img357.exs.cx/img357/5061/porsche996gt34770zm.th.jpg (http://img357.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img357&image=porsche996gt34770zm.jpg)

This was the only pic I could take at 90mm with the filter.. then the sun went away.
http://img357.exs.cx/img357/2421/bentleycontinentalgt5491aq.th.jpg (http://img357.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img357&image=bentleycontinentalgt5491aq.jpg)

I only need to test indepth the 18-55 in town with filter

And since the first night testing pissed me off, I tried some more:

45mm ISO 200 F6.0
http://img357.exs.cx/img357/1176/45mmiso200f609ff.th.jpg (http://img357.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img357&image=45mmiso200f609ff.jpg)

55mm ISO 200 F7.0
http://img357.exs.cx/img357/7558/55mmiso200f706ej.th.jpg (http://img357.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img357&image=55mmiso200f706ej.jpg)

90mm ISO100 F4.5
http://img357.exs.cx/img357/7886/90mmiso100f455zj.th.jpg (http://img357.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img357&image=90mmiso100f455zj.jpg)

135mm ISO 100 F6.0
http://img357.exs.cx/img357/4180/135mmiso100f608ut.th.jpg (http://img357.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img357&image=135mmiso100f608ut.jpg)

These shots are ok, but I got MANY blurry ones. The 300mm lense sure has focusing troubles at night at least. And while on the LCD the result seems ok, it isn't once in the PC. From 200mm on, it seems to focus proprely but doesn't in fact.
Please don't tell me I need to learn how to focus. After some thousands car pics in the last couple of years I think I know how to do it. I tried both the automated method to let the camera pic one or more of the 7 focusing points and also blocked it on the center one.. no reall change, still sometimes good, sometimes bad focusing, and maybe it's just me beeing blind, but can't judge the result from the LCD as I could on the Pro 1 :bah:

More testing needed, I will crack the bastard, but I guess it's not just me.
Tomorrow I will try on the tripod at 200 to 300mm to see if it can focus better with daylight

[TT]

Ok, here we are, the first "in depth" photoshoot with the EOS is planned for tomorrow! We are not talking about an Enzo, but "just" a slightly modified 3200GT.. still, big stress on me, don't want to mess up! :D I am tempted to take the Pro 1 with me as a lifesaver, but I guess it would be too easy like that :D

[MartijnGizmo]

Maybe your 70-300 has some focus-issues? You could test it using a focus-chart..... Have a look at this for example: http://md.co.za/d70/chart.html

Oh, and I would for sure bring the Pro1 along, or use the P-setting on the 350D. Always better than coming home with messed up pics. :) Good luck!

[TT]

Yep, of course when I want to go the easy way it is the P setting (I doubt I will ever test one of the preset ones.. never did on the Pro 1 anyway ;))

[SDK2003]

Those BMW photos look fine to me with regards to focus.
Don't be afraid to go up to ISO1600 if required, this is where D-SLR's really excel over P&S cams.

I'm sure you know already but you need to match shutter speed with focal length to reduce blur from camera shake.
If I'm taking photos of stationery cars in the dark, without a tripod or IS then I would be using Tv mode and setting the shutter speed to the focal length.

During the day I use Av mode, with a wide aperture (F2.8 ) and long focal length to make the photo 'pop'

For Example
100mm F2.8

http://www.ph-digitalphotography-motorsports.com/images/motorsports/o-park-trackday-12-04-05b/images/bmw-m3-csl-paddock.jpg

70mm F2.8

http://www.ph-digitalphotography-motorsports.com/images/trackday/oulton-park_07-05-05/images/impreza-05.jpg

[TT]

Yup I know, but my telelense is a F4.5, so I can't go wider than this ;)

IMO ISO 1600 is too grainy, although Neat Image can help.

Today I did some testing at ISO400 and even on a bad cloudy day, it's enough (no filter though)
(my dad visiting in a rented Merc :bah: )
http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/5702/mercedesbenzw203c2400015vb.th.jpg (http://img332.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mercedesbenzw203c2400015vb.jpg)

For sure panning shots are much easier to take with so much zoom and such rapid focusing, shooting :D

[mindgam3]

Focussing depends very heavily on the lens... does the 18-55 have any problems focussing?

What kind of shutter speeds are you using with the 70-300mm? If its anywhere over 1/100 then your prone to camera shake which could be causing the out of focus look. Anywhere over 200mm really exaggerates camera shake so I would bet this is the problem.

If you don't think its this then i'd get the lens looked at. If its happening with the 18-55 then id get the camera looked at ;)

[TT]

No major problems indeed with daylight with both the 18-55 and 300mm. Of course I try to be well above 1/100 when going higher than 135mm. What is weird is that even on a tripod and with the 10 seconds timer, the pictures came out blurry at night. Probably I would need to try a couple of times to have the camera focusing in the correct place, but sadly not easy to judge in the viewfinder sometimes

those gulls were shot at 235mm and 1/640 quite sharp
http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gull27vq.jpg

problem is at night, I forgot to test with daylight on a tripod at 300mm today dang :D

[MIHALS]

TT, could you give me a favor? can you upload some picture of a STANDING car in the nice sunny day re-sized to 2560x1920 and about 900k big? just would like to compare it :wink: (I know it's heaven and hell, but still... :bah: ) THANK YOU!!! want to compare with this...
http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/9764/mercedessl55amg076lf.th.jpg (http://img483.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mercedessl55amg076lf.jpg)

[TT]

Dude, since I don't keep my originals, I guess it would be easier for you to save a pic of yours to 1600x1200 and around 300 / 400kb ;) and compare it to one picked on my website. or do you want to compare with the 350? In this case, wait for tomorrow when I'll come back from the 3200GT photoshoot ;)

[No.1]

TT, could you give me a favor? can you upload some picture of a STANDING car in the nice sunny day re-sized to 2560x1920 and about 900k big? just would like to compare it :wink: (I know it's heaven and hell, but still... :bah: ) THANK YOU!!! want to compare with this...
http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/9764/mercedessl55amg076lf.th.jpg (http://img483.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mercedessl55amg076lf.jpg)

LOL.... don't know what the weather is like over in Switzerland, but over here its gonna be a long time before we get a sunny day in the UK Mihals :bah:

[Anonymous]

TT, could you give me a favor? can you upload some picture of a STANDING car in the nice sunny day re-sized to 2560x1920 and about 900k big? just would like to compare it :wink: (I know it's heaven and hell, but still... :bah: ) THANK YOU!!! want to compare with this...
http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/9764/mercedessl55amg076lf.th.jpg (http://img483.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mercedessl55amg076lf.jpg)

LOL.... don't know what the weather is like over in Switzerland, but over here its gonna be a long time before we get a sunny day in the UK Mihals :bah:

whatcha on about it was sunny off and on here today, jsut f'in cold with it :lol:

[MIHALS]

number1 :arrow: this pic is 3 days old mate :wink:

well, I didn't know that you don't keep originals :roll: :shock: :D but . ok, I'll have a look :wink: thanx anyway

[No.1]

TT, could you give me a favor? can you upload some picture of a STANDING car in the nice sunny day re-sized to 2560x1920 and about 900k big? just would like to compare it :wink: (I know it's heaven and hell, but still... :bah: ) THANK YOU!!! want to compare with this...
http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/9764/mercedessl55amg076lf.th.jpg (http://img483.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mercedessl55amg076lf.jpg)

LOL.... don't know what the weather is like over in Switzerland, but over here its gonna be a long time before we get a sunny day in the UK Mihals :bah:

whatcha on about it was sunny off and on here today, jsut f'in cold with it :lol:

There was pissing rain for those of us 'oop north

I want to move south for the winter :cry: ... you two are in Brighton and Dover 8) [EDIT] don't know where Dover came from AL :P

[Anonymous]

TT, could you give me a favor? can you upload some picture of a STANDING car in the nice sunny day re-sized to 2560x1920 and about 900k big? just would like to compare it :wink: (I know it's heaven and hell, but still... :bah: ) THANK YOU!!! want to compare with this...
http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/9764/mercedessl55amg076lf.th.jpg (http://img483.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mercedessl55amg076lf.jpg)

LOL.... don't know what the weather is like over in Switzerland, but over here its gonna be a long time before we get a sunny day in the UK Mihals :bah:

whatcha on about it was sunny off and on here today, jsut f'in cold with it :lol:

There was pissing rain for those of us 'oop north

I want to move south for the winter :cry: ... you two are in Brighton and Dover 8)

Actually it's dorset :lol: and i'm not there at the mo, forgot to update my profile, i'm in derby at the mo, north as far as i'm concerned :lol:

[No.1]

^^^ LOL my edit was too slow :oops:

And Derby may count, but the weather is still resoundingly shite here in Manc

[Anonymous]

^^^ LOL my edit was too slow :oops:

And Derby may count, but the weather is still resoundingly shite here in Manc

lol well what else have we got to complain about but the weather :P I want some decent snow though, hardly settled at all last year, just a bit on my car :bah:

[No.1]

^^^ LOL my edit was too slow :oops:

And Derby may count, but the weather is still resoundingly shite here in Manc

lol well what else have we got to complain about but the weather :P I want some decent snow though, hardly settled at all last year, just a bit on my car :bah:

That pic is still in your sig.... it never sticks... just turns to a muddy, slushy mush.

Anyways, let's nit hi-jack TTs thread.... we need a dedicated weather discussion forum :P :wink:

[MIHALS]

^^^ yeah, especially for english ppl :mrgreen:

cars and UK weather? two things that can't be together, but they are :nah:

SORRY TT FOR OT :oops:

[TT]

No prob guys ;)

[TT]

Ok, first photoshoot today and the camera didn't let me down, I think I am in love :) and the car was pretty sweet too!
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9646/013as.th.jpg (http://img196.imageshack.us/my.php?image=013as.jpg) http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/921/maser3200gt011fu.th.jpg (http://img196.imageshack.us/my.php?image=maser3200gt011fu.jpg) http://img323.imageshack.us/img323/4372/024td.th.jpg (http://img323.imageshack.us/my.php?image=024td.jpg)

[Anonymous]

Ok, first photoshoot today and the camera didn't let me down, I think I am in love :) and the car was pretty sweet too!
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9646/013as.th.jpg (http://img196.imageshack.us/my.php?image=013as.jpg) http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/921/maser3200gt011fu.th.jpg (http://img196.imageshack.us/my.php?image=maser3200gt011fu.jpg) http://img323.imageshack.us/img323/4372/024td.th.jpg (http://img323.imageshack.us/my.php?image=024td.jpg)

Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :P the car is pretty cool to :P :D BTW did it rain shortly after that shoot???

[TT]

No rain LOL, why?

[Anonymous]

No rain LOL, why?

old wives tale, when cows lie down it means it is going to rain! ;-)

[MartijnGizmo]

Ok, first photoshoot today and the camera didn't let me down, I think I am in love :) and the car was pretty sweet too!
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9646/013as.th.jpg (http://img196.imageshack.us/my.php?image=013as.jpg) http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/921/maser3200gt011fu.th.jpg (http://img196.imageshack.us/my.php?image=maser3200gt011fu.jpg) http://img323.imageshack.us/img323/4372/024td.th.jpg (http://img323.imageshack.us/my.php?image=024td.jpg)

Nice pics, good to see you're getting along with your new camera! :)


More OT: I sold my Sigma 70-300 APO DG friday, so I'm hunting for a 70-200 F/4 L. 8)

[TT]

This lenses discussion is giving me such a wicked desire to buy more :D

[TT]

LOL, there is nothing like that in either italian or french afaik :D
And definitely Swiss cown must not be aware of that since it didn't rain at all :D

[dingo]

The photoshoot pics look good, eager to see the rest! :D

BTW, I've never heard of that cow bullshit either. :?

.....I think I am in love :) and the car was pretty sweet too!

So the owner was pretty hunky huh? :P

[stmoritzer]

intersting read since I left the topic on friday :wink:
the flying gul picture is very nice
so is the Speedy car :wink:

[MartijnGizmo]

This lenses discussion is giving me such a wicked desire to buy more :D

I did, shoved out €659 and ordered the 70-200 F/4 L USM! The store is getting them fridayafternoon, so I fear it'll be monday before I can lay my hands on it. 8)

[TT]

Now a question, between the 70-200 F4 L USM and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, why should one pick the former rather than the latter?
I know L lenses are better quality, ok, but the other is "IS", which can't be a back thing.
On the other hand, indeed you have either the cheaper IS option or a better quality not IS L lense.. so in the end I would really have no idea what to pick especially since the price is basically the same

[MartijnGizmo]

The L-lens:
- is sharper, even when wide open at F/4
- has better contrast/warmer colors
- much better/faster focussing (internal)
- is a full stop faster at the long end
- full time manual focus
- the front lens element does not rotate during focusing (great for polarizers)
- 8 rounded diaphragm blades (great bokeh)
- both fluorite and low dispersion glass optics
- resale value

A no-brainer for me.


Oh, advantages of the 70-300 4-5.6 IS:
- lighter
- less supicious in black
- IS

That's it.

I can live happily without IS, either bump up the ISO or lean on something. Also IS only helps for stationairy targets. I know, the new 70-300 IS seems to be very popular on internetforums, but IMHO it's still a budget-zoom, but fitted with IS and USM. Most of them have to be stopped down to F/8 to be decently sharp Now if only Canon would make a 70-200 F/4 L IS. :)

I was tempted to go for the 70-200 2.8L IS, but it's almost 3 times as expensive now with the cash-back on the 70-200 4L. I really can't justify that right now, being an amateur and a student. :)

But even than, the 70-200 F/4 L is called the best zoom Canon ever made. Only the best primes, like the 300 F/2.8 and the 135 F/2 are sharper. It gets a 9.5 out of 166 reviews at FredMiranda.com: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

I've become an L-coholic. :D

[mindgam3]

Now a question, between the 70-200 F4 L USM and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, why should one pick the former rather than the latter?
I know L lenses are better quality, ok, but the other is "IS", which can't be a back thing.
On the other hand, indeed you have either the cheaper IS option or a better quality not IS L lense.. so in the end I would really have no idea what to pick especially since the price is basically the same

:o They're basically the same price over there? Lucky for some :P Even though the 70-200 F4L is the least expensive L zoom and has a 100mm less, its vastly superior to the non-L in every way. Add a 1.4L extender and you've got your 300mm back ;) Obviously a small amount of wuality is going to be lost in this, but its negliable.

Having said that, if I had the money i'd go for the 75-300 DO IS over the 70-200 L - its definately a more versatile lens.

[Darkel]

I was also wondering what were the differences between the L and the IS one, well, I now have the answers and it's even harder to choose :/

A white L lens rules (basically :mrgreen: ) but I still have to be conviced the IS is not really needed at 300mm, of course you can set ISO1600 but having seen TT's tests it's not that great IMO compared to a stabilised shot at a lower ISO :|

[mindgam3]

I was also wondering what were the differences between the L and the IS one, well, I now have the answers and it's even harder to choose :/

A white L lens rules (basically :mrgreen: ) but I still have to be conviced the IS is not really needed at 300mm, of course you can set ISO1600 but having seen TT's tests it's not that great IMO compared to a stabilised shot at a lower ISO :|

You're gonna struggle to get decent shots above 200mm with a non-IS lens unless the conditions are perfect or you're using a tri/monopod- i've never used ISO 1600 on my 350D, 800 is too grainy for me :(

I did a test with my dads DO IS, and at 200-300mm, i could still take decent shots without the IS, but they were slightly uncontrollable. I.e I could select a low enough speed (this was on a cloudy day) so that the pictures were not blurred, but camera shake meant I could not hold the camera in the same spot - this was a bigger problem for me than the blurring.

Although having said that - with moving car shots you will most likely be panning which generally reduces camera shake significantly.

Tough decision :(

[Darkel]

You're gonna struggle to get decent shots above 200mm with a non-IS lens unless the conditions are perfect or you're using a tri/monopod- i've never used ISO 1600 on my 350D, 800 is too grainy for me :(
Yup, but you can't always have the time (or the space) to put the heavy tripod down and so on; actually I'm thinking about my hockenheim (DTM) trip last year, being just there as a regular "supporter" I had a regular seat (quite far from the track) with almost no space even for my legs (beside the fact that my crappy P&S digicam had almost no zoom), I'd now imagine that if I had had such an IS lens I should've been able to take some decent shots which obviously wasn't the case.
I agree that's quite a particular example but TT's everyday hunt in downtown Lausanne also proves it :lol:

Although having said that - with moving car shots you will most likely be panning which generally reduces camera shake significantly.

BTW, what about the specific IS mode for panning shots ? I'm sure some of our pro photographers here already tested it, is it really effective ?

[TT]

HAHA, instead of making the decision easier, this discussion is creating a big mess in my head! I didn't realize the final part of an L doesn't rotate and indeed it is painfull when it does because it fucks up the filter orientation when you drastically change distance and it rotates a lot :(

Having a white L is for sure ice cool BTW! And beeing "just" a 200, indeed IS isn't vital I guess.
And picture quality for sure is better.
But of course, if the IS makes the other useable even close to 300, it could score some points, and as said by Darkel, modern IS can sense when you are doing a panning shot and adjust themselves to just correct vertical movements (if you are panning horizontally that is)

BTW, about the DO IS.. it's damn interesting, beeing so compact, but costs quite a lot more than the other two we are talking about

[Darkel]

I didn't realize the final part of an L doesn't rotate and indeed it is painfull when it does because it fucks up the filter orientation when you drastically change distance and it rotates a lot :(

The Sigma 18-200 I was once interested in had the same thing but it's not exactly the same range of price AND quality :roll:

[mindgam3]

Although having said that - with moving car shots you will most likely be panning which generally reduces camera shake significantly.

BTW, what about the specific IS mode for panning shots ? I'm sure some of our pro photographers here already tested it, is it really effective ?

The IS DO has the IS panning function. The ferrari shot on the other page was taken with it, and they're not exactly slow ;) I took a load of F1 pics too, which were ok considering it was my first time with a proper camera and a proper lens at a track. I'll try and post them soon ;)

[TT]

I didn't realize the final part of an L doesn't rotate and indeed it is painfull when it does because it fucks up the filter orientation when you drastically change distance and it rotates a lot :(

The Sigma 18-200 I was once interested in had the same thing but it's not exactly the same range of price AND quality :roll:

I think you better forget Sigma and co.. or only if you really look for a focal lenght that only Sigma can offer (no idea if there is something like that)

[MartijnGizmo]

:o They're basically the same price over there? Lucky for some :P Even though the 70-200 F4L is the least expensive L zoom and has a 100mm less, its vastly superior to the non-L in every way. Add a 1.4L extender and you've got your 300mm back ;) Obviously a small amount of wuality is going to be lost in this, but its negliable.

Having said that, if I had the money i'd go for the 75-300 DO IS over the 70-200 L - its definately a more versatile lens.

We're not talking about the DO IS, but the regular IS!

Prices in the Netherlands:
- 70-200 F/4 L USM €559 (€659 with €100 Cashback from Canon)
- 70-300 F/4-5.6 IS USM €588
- 70-300 F/4-5.6 DO IS €1159

Now paying €1159 for a budget zoom that's been made more compact, is insane IMHO. Sure, the size might be an advantage if your backpacking or hiking for many miles, it ways more! But that's no concern to me, I'm a healthy young man. :D

At €1159 you're really getting into L-territory. If IS is a must, you can have a EF 300/4.0 L IS USM for €1235, or a EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L USM IS for €1429. Non-IS you can get the 70-200/2.8 L USM for €1138!

Also, about the range advantage of 300 vs 200: a shot at 200mm with the L cropped and enlarged to '300'mm is still sharper then a shot at 300 with the 70-300 F/4-5.6 IS.


And in the end the need for IS is quite personal I think. IS does not help if you need to freeze a subject, only a fast shutterspeed will do that. And for that, you need a large max aperture. And for that, you need lots of cash. :) The Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX costs just a little more, at €799, but I really wanted the L-lens.

It also depends if you've got shaky hands or not. I havn't, I got sharp shots out of my Sigma 70-300 APO DG up to 1/125s @ 300mm.....

[TT]

Well, you make sense of course, and it's obvious that if you have enough light to shoot at 1/1000, the IS is pointless. Sadly pretty often (like today damn), the sky is cloudy, and that means that, at 200+ and at a decently low ISO (let's say max 400), you can find difficult to obtain 1/100. And consider I want to use a polarizer, that will reduce it even further: I was in the 1/40 yesterday at 200mm, and 1/40 is definitely too slow at 200mm, even for a statue :D I am far from that, I am actually kinda shaky probably and that's why I was thinking (and still do), that IS can help. Afterall, Canon knows about shutter speed and such, and if they created stabilized lenses it's indeed because you can't always have a fast enough shutter to "freeze" the subject :bah: even a standing one. And if it can help you avoiding tripod work every now and then, it's a winner.
Sadly the big issue here is picture quality.
I am wondering if there is somewhere in this world a webpage comparing the two lenses with identical shoots of the same subject in the same light conditions to compare quality.

[mindgam3]

:o They're basically the same price over there? Lucky for some :P Even though the 70-200 F4L is the least expensive L zoom and has a 100mm less, its vastly superior to the non-L in every way. Add a 1.4L extender and you've got your 300mm back ;) Obviously a small amount of wuality is going to be lost in this, but its negliable.

Having said that, if I had the money i'd go for the 75-300 DO IS over the 70-200 L - its definately a more versatile lens.

We're not talking about the DO IS, but the regular IS!

Prices in the Netherlands:
- 70-200 F/4 L USM €559 (€659 with €100 Cashback from Canon)
- 70-300 F/4-5.6 IS USM €588
- 70-300 F/4-5.6 DO IS €1159

Now paying €1159 for a budget zoom that's been made more compact, is insane IMHO. Sure, the size might be an advantage if your backpacking or hiking for many miles, it ways more! But that's no concern to me, I'm a healthy young man. :D

At €1159 you're really getting into L-territory. If IS is a must, you can have a EF 300/4.0 L IS USM for €1235, or a EF 100-400/4.5-5.6 L USM IS for €1429. Non-IS you can get the 70-200/2.8 L USM for €1138!

Also, about the range advantage of 300 vs 200: a shot at 200mm with the L cropped and enlarged to '300'mm is still sharper then a shot at 300 with the 70-300 F/4-5.6 IS.


And in the end the need for IS is quite personal I think. IS does not help if you need to freeze a subject, only a fast shutterspeed will do that. And for that, you need a large max aperture. And for that, you need lots of cash. :) The Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX costs just a little more, at €799, but I really wanted the L-lens.

It also depends if you've got shaky hands or not. I havn't, I got sharp shots out of my Sigma 70-300 APO DG up to 1/125s @ 300mm.....

I think you underestimate the IS DO ;) The IS DO is not "budget zoom". It is in fact L quality but in a compact form, with the latest generation IS and 300mm. I mean check out thier other DO - the 400mm f4 DO IS USM, retailing at $5,600. Now tell me that won't be L quality glass :P

The nearest L lens in terms of price as you mentioned, is a prime lens - not too much good to most unless you're a pro and want to lug around 4 or 5 lenses. I personally bought the 350D for its lightweight compactness, and the 70-300 DO IS is its perfect companion, especially for car shots. Having said that the 70-200mm is a very nice lens and it would probably be my next purchase, but it has many drawbacks unless you can afford to have a selection of L lens :(

Of course IS helps to freeze a subject. The main idea with IS, is not as many people think - to remove camera shake, but is in fact to essentially give you an extra 2 or 3 stops when you need it. Which in turn allows faster shots etc etc.

[mindgam3]

Well, you make sense of course, and it's obvious that if you have enough light to shoot at 1/1000, the IS is pointless. Sadly pretty often (like today damn), the sky is cloudy, and that means that, at 200+ and at a decently low ISO (let's say max 400), you can find difficult to obtain 1/100. And consider I want to use a polarizer, that will reduce it even further: I was in the 1/40 yesterday at 200mm, and 1/40 is definitely too slow at 200mm, even for a statue :D I am far from that, I am actually kinda shaky probably and that's why I was thinking (and still do), that IS can help. Afterall, Canon knows about shutter speed and such, and if they created stabilized lenses it's indeed because you can't always have a fast enough shutter to "freeze" the subject :bah: even a standing one. And if it can help you avoiding tripod work every now and then, it's a winner.
Sadly the big issue here is picture quality.
I am wondering if there is somewhere in this world a webpage comparing the two lenses with identical shoots of the same subject in the same light conditions to compare quality.

I'm not saying this is the best picture in the world, and it was my first outing to a track with my 350D but:

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/2017/img1191copy6pg.th.jpg (http://img368.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1191copy6pg.jpg)

Shutter Speed: 1/640
Apeture: F/5.6
ISO: 200
Focal Length: 300mm

I'm not trying to sound big headed or anything, but I doubt those sort of settings could produce that sort of quality and detail in conditions like that - they were very overcast, raining etc by a budget lens - especially non IS. I know its not the best photo, but you can see the potential - especially with the amount of scope you've got left with shutter speed, and ISO rating

[MartijnGizmo]

[...]

I am wondering if there is somewhere in this world a webpage comparing the two lenses with identical shoots of the same subject in the same light conditions to compare quality.

Well, here we go, straight out of a 350D:

70-200 F/4 L @ 70mm:
http://hometown.aol.com/gamlaura1/ebay/70-200-at70.jpg

70-300 F/4-5.6 IS USM @ 70mm:
http://hometown.aol.com/gamlaura1/ebay/70-300-at70.jpg

70-200 F/4 L @ 135mm:
http://hometown.aol.com/gamlaura1/ebay/70-200at-135.jpg

70-300 F/4-5.6 IS USM @ 135mm:
http://hometown.aol.com/gamlaura1/ebay/70-300-at135.jpg

70-200 F/4 L @ 200mm:
http://hometown.aol.com/gamlaura1/ebay/70-200-at200.jpg

70-300 F/4-5.6 IS USM @ 200mm:
http://hometown.aol.com/gamlaura1/ebay/70-300-at200.jpg


If you save them all to your HD, you can quickly switch views in Windows for better comparison.

I think you underestimate the IS DO ;) The IS DO is not "budget zoom". It is in fact L quality but in a compact form, with the latest generation IS and 300mm. I mean check out thier other DO - the 400mm f4 DO IS USM, retailing at $5,600. Now tell me that won't be L quality glass :P

My bad. :) But if it's over €1000, I want it to be white. :D

[...]

Of course IS helps to freeze a subject. The main idea with IS, is not as many people think - to remove camera shake, but is in fact to essentially give you an extra 2 or 3 stops when you need it. Which in turn allows faster shots etc etc.

I should've been more precise, it doesn't freeze moving subjects. For example a fast moving child or so.....

Oh, another good option just came to my mind: the Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX OS APO. It has a great range (400mm!) and image stabilisation and costs >€1000. Too bad the focus isn't the fastest around.
http://foto.itek.cz/k_128-Objektivy-Sigma/img-shop/507156.jpg

But, in the end, for me personally: L > IS. :)

Here's an example of the gorgeous bokeh (background blur) on the L:
http://k43.pbase.com/u17/catson/upload/42258665.IMG_3305.jpg

[MartijnGizmo]

I'm not saying this is the best picture in the world, and it was my first outing to a track with my 350D but:

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/2017/img1191copy6pg.th.jpg (http://img368.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1191copy6pg.jpg)

Shutter Speed: 1/640
Apeture: F/5.6
ISO: 200
Focal Length: 300mm

I'm not trying to sound big headed or anything, but I doubt those sort of settings could produce that sort of quality and detail in conditions like that - they were very overcast, raining etc by a budget lens - especially non IS. I know its not the best photo, but you can see the potential - especially with the amount of scope you've got left with shutter speed, and ISO rating

Just noticed: the shutterspeed is 1/640, so there's no IS-advantage in there. :)

[mindgam3]

I'm not saying this is the best picture in the world, and it was my first outing to a track with my 350D but:

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/2017/img1191copy6pg.th.jpg (http://img368.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1191copy6pg.jpg)

Shutter Speed: 1/640
Apeture: F/5.6
ISO: 200
Focal Length: 300mm

I'm not trying to sound big headed or anything, but I doubt those sort of settings could produce that sort of quality and detail in conditions like that - they were very overcast, raining etc by a budget lens - especially non IS. I know its not the best photo, but you can see the potential - especially with the amount of scope you've got left with shutter speed, and ISO rating

Just noticed: the shutterspeed is 1/640, so there's no IS-advantage in there. :)

Of course there is, i mean i could have easily taken that shot in ISO 100 and opened up the shutter speed and have got the same result, but less noise. Taking into account that it was very bad conditions, and the wheels are frozen (which i don't really want -> shutter speed is too high).

With a non IS lens, to get the same amount light in for the same sort of shutter speed, the ISO would have had to be raised - meaning more noise and less quality.

With panning, IS doesen't effect it as much, but still I doubt the exact shot and settings could have been taken with IS off without a compromise in quality.

With still objects, especially at 300mm, IS has a very significant advantage over non IS.

[SDK2003]

MartijnGizmo - your photo comparisons are all over the place with regards to aperture. Some of the 70-200 F4 samples are F2.8 !!!

The 70mm examples are F2.8 (L) vs F4 (IS)
The 135mm examples are F2.8 (L) v F5 (IS)
The 200mm examples are F2.8 (L) vs F5 (IS)

If you are comparing sharpness then you NEED to use the same aperture.



My choice between the 70-200L and the 70-300 IS would be the L lens, no question.

[mindgam3]

MartijnGizmo - your photo comparisons are all over the place with regards to aperture. Some of the 70-200 F4 samples are F2.8 !!!

The 70mm examples are F2.8 (L) vs F4 (IS)
The 135mm examples are F2.8 (L) v F5 (IS)
The 200mm examples are F2.8 (L) vs F5 (IS)

If you are comparing sharpness then you NEED to use the same aperture.



My choice between the 70-200L and the 70-300 IS would be the L lens, no question.

lol, which means it not a comparison of the 70-200 F4 vs 70-300 IS, but a comparison of a 70-200 F2.8L (IS/non IS?) which is a hell of a lot more dollar ;)

[SDK2003]

lol, which means it not a comparison of the 70-200 F4 vs 70-300 IS, but a comparison of a 70-200 F2.8L (IS/non IS?) which is a hell of a lot more dollar ;)
Excuse the sarcasm but I did already notice that ;)
You do also realise that at the wide aperture of F2.8 it will be much softer than 5.6 (like the other lens) ;)

I have a 24-70L and at 2.8 it's quite soft compared to F4. If you need sharpness wide open then a prime is what you want :)

[mindgam3]

lol, which means it not a comparison of the 70-200 F4 vs 70-300 IS, but a comparison of a 70-200 F2.8L (IS/non IS?) which is a hell of a lot more dollar ;)
Excuse the sarcasm but I did already notice that ;)
You do also realise that at the wide aperture of F2.8 it will be much softer than 5.6 (like the other lens) ;)

I have a 24-70L and at 2.8 it's quite soft compared to F4. If you need sharpness wide open then a prime is what you want :)

hehe, i was just pointing it out ;)

However, 2.8 on an L lens is likely to sharper than 5.6 on the non L lens we're discussing. 2.8 and 5.6 on the respective lens are they're max aperture - this is more relevant, not the actual F number itself.

eg. F9 on the 2.8L will be sharper than F9 on the non L ;)

obviously a higher F number on either lens will be sharper than a lower F number on the same lens

[SDK2003]

However, 2.8 on an L lens is likely to sharper than 5.6 on the non L lens we're discussing. 2.8 and 5.6 on the respective lens are they're max aperture - this is more relevant, not the actual F number itself.

Maybe.
The 17-40L F4 doesn't get any sharper beyond F4 and the 24-70L from F4 is also very sharp.
From my experience only zoom lenses suffer at little softness at 2.8, primes do very well though.

As for the discussions on IS. On a long lens (300mm+) it's essential, especially if you are in country that doesn't have reliable sun all year.
I took this shot below last weekend, it was taken at 400mm with a shutter of 1/50 !!!! (Canon 100-400L IS)

http://www.ph-digitalphotography-motorsports.com/Robin/robin-5.jpg

Obviously it's not as sharp as it could have been using a faster shutter speed but it shows what IS can do.

Here's a couple more from the 100-400L - 1/200, F5.6, ISO 400

http://www.ph-digitalphotography-motorsports.com/Robin/robin-1.jpg

http://www.ph-digitalphotography-motorsports.com/Robin/robin-4.jpg

[Anonymous]

I have no idea what you guys are jabbaring on about but stunning pics as always SDK! :D :D
I'm a complete noob but think i'll point mine in the direction of some wildlife soon see what happen! :D lovely!

[mindgam3]

Gorgeous pics mate!

[TT]

thanks Martin for those L vs not-L shots. Actually at such sized pics the quality is basically the same, there is no major changes IMO! And as SDK pointed out, since aperture isn't set at the same value, it isn't that easy to judge.

As for your birds pics SDK, Holy lord 1/50 at 400mm! Either that IS is fucking awesome, either you have rocksolid arms because 1/50 is damn slow :D

LOL, the debate is still open. I mean, in an ideal world, an IS L is obviously the way to go, but between the two lenses we are talking about, there is sadly no BIG difference... both have their pro and cons and none really stands out :D

[SDK2003]

TT - if you need the longer focal length and IS then get the 70-300 IS, however the 70-200L is better quality but unless you are printing large photos or need the better build then it will be money wasted.

[MartijnGizmo]

MartijnGizmo - your photo comparisons are all over the place with regards to aperture. Some of the 70-200 F4 samples are F2.8 !!!

The 70mm examples are F2.8 (L) vs F4 (IS)
The 135mm examples are F2.8 (L) v F5 (IS)
The 200mm examples are F2.8 (L) vs F5 (IS)

If you are comparing sharpness then you NEED to use the same aperture.



My choice between the 70-200L and the 70-300 IS would be the L lens, no question.

Woops, that's what you get when doing research in a hurry. :oops: To make the comparison even worse, this one seems to have focus-issue's as well. :oops: So the quest remains to find a decent comparison. :)

[TT]

I never print my pics larger than 13 cm anyway ;) and they are basically just either for my albums or the net. So the extra quality will be lost while resizing and saving at a "low" quality value.
While 200 is rather long already, sometimes on track you need the extra mm ;) and if it's IS, it can only help.

Of course I would like to go around with a professional looking L lense, but beeing realisting indeed for now the 70-300 IS seems a more sensible option for me

[MartijnGizmo]

I can only agree with that, it's the more rational choise for sure. But I listened to my heart. 8)

[mindgam3]

I find these website extremelly helpful, for real life comparisons of lenses and what can be done - rather than boring review tests.

www.trekearth.com

go to gallery -> catergories -> equipment -> lenses to search all the different photos by lens type.

Here are a few galleries

70-200 F4L

http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=1649
http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=1465
http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=3308
http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=3081

75-300 IS

http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=1910
http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=575
http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=2859
http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=2229

[TT]

I can only agree with that, it's the more rational choise for sure. But I listened to my heart. 8)

I also have to consider the fact I already look suspicious now with my 350D, but if I will take pics in town with the L, car owners will be even more puzzled/scared :roll:

[TT]

Thanks mindgam for those galleries, once again, I am not shocked by the difference and it would probably be impossible to figure which ones were taken with which lense if I would have to guess.

[MartijnGizmo]

I find these website extremelly helpful, for real life comparisons of lenses and what can be done - rather than boring review tests.

www.trekearth.com

go to gallery -> catergories -> equipment -> lenses to search all the different photos by lens type.

Here are a few galleries

70-200 F4L

http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=1649
http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=1465
http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=3308
http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=3081

75-300 IS

http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=1910
http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=575
http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=2859
http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=2229

Thanks, added that one to my favorites. I also use PBase for that purpose: http://www.pbase.com

I also have to consider the fact I already look suspicious now with my 350D, but if I will take pics in town with the L, car owners will be even more puzzled/scared :roll:

That can idd be a big disadvantage of L-lenses. Just as the steal-me-factor, but we've got insurance for that .:)

[ae86_16v]

I am seriously confused now it is getting waaaay to technical for me. . .

But damn those bird pics looks awesome. Any processing afterwards?

[TT]

Shit, I did it :D the 90-300 is gone, say welcome to the 70-300 IS :good:
I did some quick testing, time to put the pics in the PC and see how they are, but the effect of the stabilizer in the viewfinder is already amazing :D

[TT]

Ok, first tests, I am charmed already :D

Voilà quelques test rapide ce soir:

300mm 1/160
http://img398.exs.cx/img398/8784/300mm11609lr.th.jpg (http://img398.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img398&image=300mm11609lr.jpg)

300mm 1/50 :!:
http://img398.exs.cx/img398/5433/300mm1503eq.th.jpg (http://img398.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img398&image=300mm1503eq.jpg)

200mm, impossible to go wrong, that was 1/250 (would have been blurry with the non IS IMO)
http://img398.exs.cx/img398/702/200mm12501mz.th.jpg (http://img398.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img398&image=200mm12501mz.jpg)

at the store, forgot to raise the F, but where it is sharp, it really is, and that was 70mm and 1/25
http://img398.exs.cx/img398/3899/070mm1252qh.th.jpg (http://img398.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img398&image=070mm1252qh.jpg)

[MartijnGizmo]

Nice to see you got what suits you best. :) We're organising ameeting on a Dutch photography-forum in january, so I can try the 70-300 IS hands on.


Oh, and I warned you: a dSLR is gonna cost you money! :D

[TT]

No I promise, for a while it will be ok.

[MartijnGizmo]

No I promise, for a while it will be ok.

Haha, that's what I say every time I've got something new. :D

I just ordered a new bag, a Crumpler Geekstar:
http://www.taschenversand.de/out/oxbaseshop/html/0/dyn_images/1/ge004-product_p1.jpg

My old Stunner is way too small for what I have now:
http://www.taschenversand.de/out/oxbaseshop/html/0/dyn_images/2/stu003-product_p2.jpg

The Geekstar is 7 liter vs 4 for the Stunner, so it should make quite a difference.

[TT]

Uhm, I wondered for a while if a bag like yours could be more practical than a backpack, but I went for the latter afterall. easier to walk or run with a backpack ;)
But mine is now 100% full.. I will soon need a bigger one

[TT]

Guys, I have a question for the ones with a reflex and IS lense.

Did you ever shoot at freezing cold temperature? I am talking about something between 0 and -10 Celsius.

I know the 350D is granted down to 0, but I asked at the store and they said basically the only problem when still at acceptable T like -10 (and not -30) could be with the batteries, lasting less or just the camera unable to be turned on, and maybe slower mem card..

ok, BUT, since some days I am shooting some indepths in the Alps and around and it's fucking cold indeed. And well, I am wondering if it is good to rape the 70-300 IS using it with cold weather.
I have the strong feeling the stabilizer works pretty badly at low T because even static pics with pretty quick shutter (1/100, 1/125) at 130 to 200mm ended up VERY often blurry. And a pain also for panning shots in mode 2.
Does somebody know if it is normal? I am trying to have an answer from Canon but it isn't easy and I have some more pics to take with cold weather.

What I want to know is if indeed the IS can't work proprely in cold weather and if there is a risk to damage it for good. So far, when back in "warm" T, it works again like a charm, but I need to be sure I can't fuck it up.

[gigdy]

I doubt it will be a problem unless you leave your camera in the cold for a while. But if your using it, your hands should keep it warm enough.

[nthfinity]

there can be several problems... that arent always obvious.... and you may notice it too... also, you may not... its more noticable with larger optics... i do notice it in my 3.5 inch newtonian reflector telescope.... not so really with the 18-55 lens... i havent cold weather tested my 100-300

the glass/metal/plastics all expand and contract when going from warmer to cooler temperatures... and at different rates, so you will have some distortion in your pictures.. once the camera is as cool as the surrounding temps, then it will be pretty much fine.

when going cold to hot, you have the same problem, but also another serious problem can happen... water condensate can happen inside the lens/ camera body... definately a big no-no.

the way you can combat that is to put your camera in its bag where its low humidity, zip it up/ wrap it up... and then it will slowly rise back to temperature, and not a single problem :)

hope that answers your questions.

[MartijnGizmo]

Just put some silica-sachets in your bag and watch your batteries. They tend to lose a lot of capacity when it's cold.

[TT]

Thanks guys for the advice. I knew already about trying not to make the camera suffer some abrupt changes, but the silica-sachets are indeed a good idea :!:
But nobody asked my question: is it normal that the IS can't work proprely at such temp?

[nthfinity]

i dont yet have a lens with IS... so unfortunately, i dont know :?

[5vz-fe]

I can't answer u just yet, coz toronto is quite warm lately ..........

will do some test for u once the weather gets colder.

[TT]

Ok what Canon said is that they already have records of a similar case where the IS wasn't able to work proprely in cold weather but they confirmed it can't be fucked for good in such relatively "not-so-cold" temperatures :bah:

BTW, the fucking silica sachets! Talk about a complicated thing to retrieve!! I looked for them everywhere and no luck. Then in the end I asked in a store owned by a couple of women I know and indeed they always keep aside one or two when they get packages and stuff but coming back home I realized the infamous dolls did it again! In their boxes there are always those damn sachets (and I threw to the bin tons of them in the past), so I managed to steal them a couple more, so my 350D will be ultra dry now :D

[MartijnGizmo]

A shoestore is also a good place to ask for them. You can re-use them after putting them in the microwave.....

[dingo]

We have literally 1000's and 1000's of those silica sachets at work.....just thought I'd mention that. :P

[TT]

dingo, next time you'll come to Switzerland (LOL), take a couple with you ;)

A shoestore is also a good place to ask for them. You can re-use them after putting them in the microwave.....

? How to know when it is time to rewamp them in a microwave? And for how long should I keep them in there? :D

[mindgam3]

You'll have to watch for any condensation and/or water as only L lenses and a few others are weather sealed

[TT]

BTW, here is how crap the basic EF-S 18-55 is compared to a proper lense:

18-55 at 18mm of course
http://www.uploadhouse.com/images/87627287118.jpg (http://www.uploadhouse.com)

and the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM of a friend of mine at 16mm
http://www.uploadhouse.com/images/38695847916.jpg (http://www.uploadhouse.com)

mindblowingly better!

And he was using it with his new 5D which is pure sex!

those two are the original pics, just resized and sharpened, no editing whatsoever. You can fix the problems of the 18 with some editing and make it still look ok, but still :bah:

[5vz-fe]

Wow, so much brighter and much sharper at the edge.

[nthfinity]

soooo much more amazingly sharp!!!!!!!!!

wow!!!!

that lens is simply AMAZING compared to the std. lens :shock:

[MartijnGizmo]

BTW, here is how crap the basic EF-S 18-55 is compared to a proper lense:

18-55 at 18mm of course
[image]

and the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM of a friend of mine at 16mm
[image]

mindblowingly better!

And he was using it with his new 5D which is pure sex!

those two are the original pics, just resized and sharpened, no editing whatsoever. You can fix the problems of the 18 with some editing and make it still look ok, but still :bah:

I told you from the beginning. :P And apart from that, the 17-40 F/4 L is even sharper and less flare-prone. 8)

[MartijnGizmo]

TT, have you seen this regarding the 70-300 IS? http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=16623268

Some people are getting blurry pics in portrait (standing) only.....

[TT]

Oh yes, actually noticed that too, rare but it happens even at less than 300 actually.
But I take so few portait pics anyway ;)

Coming back at the silica: how long should I put them in the microwave? :D

[MartijnGizmo]

Oh yes, actually noticed that too, rare but it happens even at less than 300 actually.
But I take so few portait pics anyway ;)

Coming back at the silica: how long should I put them in the microwave? :D

In a regular oven a couple of hours at 50 degree C according to my Google-research. :P

[TT]

Ok! Thanks!

[TT]

Big news for me! After Darkel, my turn to take a step into the L world!

Here is the new baby on the Audi A4 that is taking the place of the Porsches for now (V6 2.8 quattro, 174 hp)
http://img125.imagevenue.com/loc495/th_76399_145mm1_60f4.0_122_495lo.jpg (http://img125.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=76399_145mm1_60f4.0_122_495lo.jpg)ht tp://img130.imagevenue.com/loc574/th_76404_200mm1_60f3.4_122_574lo.jpg (http://img130.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=76404_200mm1_60f3.4_122_574lo.jpg)ht tp://img171.imagevenue.com/loc596/th_76409_70mm1_60f4.0_122_596lo.jpg (http://img171.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=76409_70mm1_60f4.0_122_596lo.jpg)

And first pic, 100 meters after leaving the store.. sadly the light turned green so I had only a sec to shoot (1/60, > 100 mm)...
http://img23.imagevenue.com/loc478/th_76532_porschegt2_01_122_478lo.jpg (http://img23.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=76532_porschegt2_01_122_478lo.jpg)

How cool it is compared to the "cheaper" ones is beyond belief :D with it I had to buy also the 77mm polariser and a new backpack obviously

[MartijnGizmo]

Congratulations on the lens! But beware, you'll quickly become an L-coholic now. ;)

[sameerrao]

Congrats!

[dutchmasterflex]

Nice TT! I plan on getting my 18-200VR lens within the next month or so!

[TT]

Congratulations on the lens! But beware, you'll quickly become an L-coholic now. ;)

Too late!

[MartijnGizmo]

Let me guess: 17-40 f/4 L? ;)

[TT]

I'd rather try to grap a F2.8 also for short range, but I still have some time to think about it ;)

--

Highway hunting, 200mm, 1/250, F3.2 and that's a 100% crop :shock:
http://img139.imagevenue.com/loc332/th_89414_200mm1_250f3.2_122_332lo.jpg (http://img139.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=89414_200mm1_250f3.2_122_332lo.jpg)

200mm, 1/320, F3.5
http://img15.imagevenue.com/loc430/th_89419_200mm1_320f3.5_122_430lo.jpg (http://img15.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=89419_200mm1_320f3.5_122_430lo.jpg)

[TopGearNL]

Nice one TT! :D

The 406 one is great with that setting! :shock:

[MartijnGizmo]

I'd rather try to grap a F2.8 also for short range, but I still have some time to think about it ;)

f/2.8 wideangles are great, that's why I exchanged my 17-40 f/4 L for an older 17-35 f/2.8 L.

Nice captures on the highway!

[Igorionia]

what means that "L" ?
and what means "IS" in this model "24-105 4 L IS" ?

[sameerrao]

So TT what backpack do you have for your lens? I need to get a good one myself.

[TT]

I got a big Lowepro.. this one, or quite similar:
http://www.lowepro.com/Products/Backpacks/classic/Photo_Trekker_Classic.aspx
maybe a bit smaller, but good enough to carry around the camera + 2 L lenses if needed (+ all the other accessories and a tripod)

[MartijnGizmo]

So TT what backpack do you have for your lens? I need to get a good one myself.

I just swapped my shoulderbag (Crumpler Geekstar) for a Crumpler Pyjama Pride L backpack. So far I think it's great! I'd really recommend having a look into the Crumpler-backpack's.

[Stoopie]

OMG 3490 francs? That's a lot of money :| But I guess it's worth it!

[TopGearNL]

You've got a D50 too right Sameerao?

Ive got a Nikon backpack. Ill have a look if I can find it online.

[pterps]

So TT what backpack do you have for your lens? I need to get a good one myself.

I just swapped my shoulderbag (Crumpler Geekstar) for a Crumpler Pyjama Pride L backpack. So far I think it's great! I'd really recommend having a look into the Crumpler-backpack's.

Looks great to me Martijn, I will have to look at something like this soon, I really need more space, I use a Lowepro bag at the moment, and it's completely filled.

[MartijnGizmo]

OMG 3490 francs? That's a lot of money :| But I guess it's worth it!

I payed €189, Crumpler lists it for €220. Considering the value of the contents of the bag, I think that it's not a wise idea to cheap out on a bag. ;)

[TopGearNL]

http://www.h6.dion.ne.jp/~h-kai/lenses/lense_bag.jpg

Image of the bag I have

[MartijnGizmo]

Here's a pic of me with my backpack:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~akoevoet/GoT/DSC_2336.jpg

I just weighed it, with the stuff in my signature (except the EOS 600, IXUS and the Nikon SB's) it comes at 8.3kg.....

[TT]

Martijn, the others, I need some inputs: I fear I'll have to buy a wide angle lense sooner than expected since I will cover a couple of events this year where a tele lense would simply be too much for many situations and since now that I have the big ass 70-200, I can't stand the 18-55 anymore. today there was a nice AMV8 parked in a nice way, but I had not enough room to use the 70-200.. well, I just walked away because really, I don't want to put the 18-55 on my camera anymore LOL

So there are three options:

17-40mm F4L
16-35mm F2.8L
24-70mm F2.8L

The latter is probably not "wide" enough, as simple as that. Darkel is VERY happy with his 17-40, but I am wondering if 2.8 could come in handy every now and then..

Fact is the 16-35 would cost pretty much as the 70-200 costed, maybe a bit less, but the 17-40 is half the price..

any thoughts?

[MartijnGizmo]

I warned you!

I think that the 17-40 will do just fine. The difference in DOF on a crop-camera is hardly noticeable and it should be less flare-prone than the 16-35. The one-stop-difference doesn't matter that much in shutterspeed at wideangle anyway.


My other advice: 10-22! Sure, it doesn't have metal tube, but that's the only difference. True wide-angle, and on my 30D it used to be sharper/have more contrast than the 17-40!


(btw: the 24-70L is awesome, but I will post about that later :))

[Igorionia]

MartijnGizmo you are talkin about Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ?
You wanna say it is as good as 17-40mm F4L ?

[sameerrao]

I don't know much about the Canon lenses but based on my experience with the 12-24mm Nikon lens - I found the 12mm angle of very limited use for shooting cars. It is great for creating distortions but it gets painful to edit out in Photoshop when all you want to do is take a normal image.

Honestly 17/18 mm seems good enough to me at the min and perhaps 40-70mm as max. I think F2.8 will be awesome for the bokeh aspect but you need to check if it allows you take a picture close to the car. F4 should bemore than enough I think. An IS feature will be awesome and be the useful aspect as you can skip the tripod.

[TT]

Thanks guys. Yes, 10-22 is definitely no use for me.

I am pretty sure I'm gonna buy the 17-40, just need to find the time to pay a visit to my trusty store, which is in Lausanne where I won't be before february

[MartijnGizmo]

If you plan on staying with a crop-camera you could also consider the EF-S 17-55/2.8. Havn't tried it myself, but it should be really good. Quit pricey though.

[TT]

Yes, I tested it at the store, seems fine, but quite expensice. For now the price of the 17-40 is really a good deal for what it offers, and well, in an year time or so I could sell it for a good price and upgrade to 2.8 if I really want to, or just wait some more and get the 24-70 2.8L to fill the gap between it and the 70-200

[TT]

Ok, 17-40 ordered. Will pick it up at the store next month when I'll be in Lausanne :)

[TopGearNL]

Ok, 17-40 ordered. Will pick it up at the store next month when I'll be in Lausanne :)

Awaiting pics ASAP :wink: :D

[lambocars]

If you plan on staying with a crop-camera you could also consider the EF-S 17-55/2.8. Havn't tried it myself, but it should be really good. Quit pricey though.

I actually replaced my kitlens with the 17-85 IS first, nice lens with a nice range, but didn't convince me on sharpness ... so sold it again and bought the 17-55 2.8 IS ... now that's an amazing lens.
Awesome DOF, IS and USM, works great for indoor events ... but I do agree it's a bit overpriced ... and there's no hood either, had to buy it seperately.

Next on the list is the 70-200 IS and after that I do consider the 10-22, used the latter once and it only heavily distorts on 10 to 12 mm, after that is takes really nice shots of cars ... and distortion can be fixed with DxO easily.

Still an expensive hobby ...

Mark

[stmoritzer]

Yes, I tested it at the store, seems fine, but quite expensice. For now the price of the 17-40 is really a good deal for what it offers, and well, in an year time or so I could sell it for a good price and upgrade to 2.8 if I really want to, or just wait some more and get the 24-70 2.8L to fill the gap between it and the 70-200

24-70 is quite a big zoom range, a friend of mine ( 3/4-pro with a D200) didn't recommend me to buy a lense with that much zoom range.. the 17-40 sound good!

[MartijnGizmo]

24-70 is quite a big zoom range, a friend of mine ( 3/4-pro with a D200) didn't recommend me to buy a lense with that much zoom range.. the 17-40 sound good!

Next advice: don't listen to that friend. :P The 24-70 is among the sharpest zoomlenses that Canon offers. Contrast, bokeh and AF-speed are excellent. So I really think he's wrong and should try one himself. :)

The 'safe' range for zoomlenses is around 3x zoom (70/24=2.9) but there are a lot of exceptions to that old rule-of-thumb.

[lambocars]

Yes, I tested it at the store, seems fine, but quite expensice. For now the price of the 17-40 is really a good deal for what it offers, and well, in an year time or so I could sell it for a good price and upgrade to 2.8 if I really want to, or just wait some more and get the 24-70 2.8L to fill the gap between it and the 70-200

24-70 is quite a big zoom range, a friend of mine ( 3/4-pro with a D200) didn't recommend me to buy a lense with that much zoom range.. the 17-40 sound good!

Most pro-photographers talk about a 3x zoom as the maximum to be able to have a pro-grade lens, so 24-70 still falls within these limits, and the 24-70 2.8 lens from Canon is still an L-lens, so it should be good.
Even the 24-105 IS should be rather good, it also costs around 1000 Euro, so it would better be good no ? But it doesn't have enough wide angle for photographing cars on an event.

Mega-zooms like the 18-125 or the 18-200 from Tamron or Sigma have a problem with decent sharpness, they are nice walk around lenses and don't require you to re-mortgage the house for, but I wouldn't buy them anymore ... great to start with, but after a while you encounter their flaws like poor AF speed, which is really annoying when taking panning shots on a circuit, only a good USM or HSM lens will be able to track a moving race car.

Mark

[TT]

24-70 is quite a big zoom range, a friend of mine ( 3/4-pro with a D200) didn't recommend me to buy a lense with that much zoom range.. the 17-40 sound good!

Next advice: don't listen to that friend. :P The 24-70 is among the sharpest zoomlenses that Canon offers. Contrast, bokeh and AF-speed are excellent. So I really think he's wrong and should try one himself. :)

The 'safe' range for zoomlenses is around 3x zoom (70/24=2.9) but there are a lot of exceptions to that old rule-of-thumb.

Yup, I confirm it's a hell of a good lense. I used it in several occasions, inside and outside (Geneva, the RS6/Quattroporte/JRX indepth, snowdring school) and it's just perfect IMO.
All alone it won't be any good for me, but to fill the gap I'll have between the 17-40 and the 70-200, it will be great. The 17-40 afterall will only be used for inside events and very crowded place.
Just not sure if I should try to slot a 580ex in before buying a third L :bah:

[MartijnGizmo]

Wow, you managed to live without an external flash so far? :shock: You could also consider the 430EX, much cheeper.

[TT]

Well, yes, first of all because I never liked flashes. Mostly because I started with a bridge camera probably, and the flash was totally useless like in any compact camera.

Then, well, weird, but a flash IMO draws more attention than a tripod... and I always have the tripod in my car.

Then well, I know in some cases, to kill some shadows, a flash is a must, but we come to point #2: I don't like to have to learn new stuff, and I know you need to practice quite a bit to really use a proper flash. plugging it in and just shooting won't work. I don't like to feel like a total noob againn, and most important, I have no time to practice lately.

Ah yes, also: to use a 580EX with the 18-55?! LOL, comon! And with a tele lense, not sure it would be any use

I know the 580 is not that cheap, but well, if I'll buy one, I want the best one if possible :)

We'll see. I am not really conviced I'll use it that much, but I'll probably end up buying it anyway one day... and hopefully its price would have dropped a bit by then

[MartijnGizmo]

Flash ugly?

This was done with just one flash:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~akoevoet/JW/24-70_580EX/IMG_2742cp.jpg

And fill-flash with long lenses can be great when panning etc. A lot of info about off-camera flash can be found here: http://www.strobist.com

And about flashes and cars:
http://www.martijnfoto.nl/assets/galleries/58/img_0284.jpg

[stmoritzer]

24-70 is quite a big zoom range, a friend of mine ( 3/4-pro with a D200) didn't recommend me to buy a lense with that much zoom range.. the 17-40 sound good!

Next advice: don't listen to that friend. :P The 24-70 is among the sharpest zoomlenses that Canon offers. Contrast, bokeh and AF-speed are excellent. So I really think he's wrong and should try one himself. :)

The 'safe' range for zoomlenses is around 3x zoom (70/24=2.9) but there are a lot of exceptions to that old rule-of-thumb.

he's not a Canon man, so the comment was not specific about that lense :wink: but any comment about some lenses is welcome since atm I'm looking for a DSLR camera (the two options are D80 or EOS 400D and some proper lenses).

[TT]

Sure, I know you are right and I know you can do marvels once you know how to use a flash. I am just saying I don't have the patience and willness to learn to use it. I don't want to just plug it in and start shooting without first knowing some bases.

That's why indeed I am looking also for tutorials, both on the web or on paper because I fear the user manual won't go that deep into things.

Thanks for this link already, but I must say I simple HATE blogs, and as soon as I end up on a website structured as a blog, I just close the window and move away :D so I guess I need to find something else :) but there is really no urge because I think I will resist the temptation some more, unlike I did with the first then second L :D

[MartijnGizmo]

I'm also no blog-fan myself, but strobist.com is just great, I learned some of the best things from David Hobby. :)

Oh, and the day I stop learing something new about photography, is the day I'll find a new hobby. ;)