TubeNet

I am just now making the plunge into pro-sumer photo gear and having serious sticker shock. We just ordered a Canon 20d and am now looking for some lenses, but the L lenses are crazy expensive. Our first lens is the 17-85 F/4-5.6 IS. I am drooling over a 70-200 F/4 L or a 70-200 F/2.8 IS L.

Anyone here happen to run a camera shop or have a hookup to dealer costs and willing to pass on some savings? Instant message or email if you would rather not make info public.

Better yet, ya got any Canon L lenses you want to unload cheap

There's nothing pro-sumer about the Canon L lenses. They are pro lenses. If they are giving you sticker shock, look at the prices of the equivalent quality Nikons or worse yet, Hasselblad.

Mark wrote:There's nothing pro-sumer about the Canon L lenses. They are pro lenses. If they are giving you sticker shock, look at the prices of the equivalent quality Nikons or worse yet, Hasselblad.

The pro-sumer part was our camera body and first lens. I was hoping to get the pro lens at more of a pro-sumer price. I am also open to something like Sigma if it is good. I want to avoid losing money when "upgrading" later. i would rather take the financial pain now and be content with the product for years than to spend weeks/months/years wishing I had spent the extra $300 initially. This is why we went with the 20d instead of the Rebel XT. Plus the Rebel XT is REALLY small to hold IMO and the wife liked the feel of the 20D better.

I have no plans to earn any real income from photography so i find it difficult to justify the $1600+ for the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L IS lens when the F/4 version is only $600.

WoodSheddin wrote:I have no plans to earn any real income from photography so i find it difficult to justify the $1600+ for the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L IS lens when the F/4 version is only $600.

A lot the of the Canon non-L lenses are very good lenses. Be careful about thinking you need the really fast lenses. Most times, you'll probably stop down the lens anyway, so you are paying extra for an aditional f-stop you may never use. Also, the faster lenese are faster and more expensive becuase of the large glass. They are also a lot bigger and heavier because of the large glass. Heft the 300mm F4 vs. the 300mm f2.8 and think about which you would rather be hauling around.

Some of the off-brand lenses like Sigma can be very good lenses, but be careful that they work the same as Canon lenses. E.g. the zoom rings turn the same direction, etc. Otherwise, it can get confusing.

Companies like Vivitar, Tamron, and Sigma make decent aftermarket lenses for many cameras - unless you are photographing for the cover of Time you will probably not notice the difference.

Just a thought on F-stops and stopping lenses down...
All lenses perform better when stopped down, instead of wide open. So, An F 2.8 lense will work better at F 4 and an F 4 lense will do better at F 5.6 - avoiding wide open unless absolutely necessay is usually the best way to go.

I had a Sigma F 2.8-3.5 75-200mm zoom lense for my Pentax Super Program that produced outstanding results. It had a pretty big filter size of around 72mm, I think - a lot of glass up front.

Funny - I sold a huge lot of 35mm equipment a few months ago because I decided to go completely digital, and my higher-end (2.5 yrs ago) digital camera went completely kaputt about a month ago. Figures!

Check these out.
Norm



Price Scan
http://www.pricescan.com/home_digiphoto ... d=46860012

Digital Photography Review
http://www.dpreview.com/

Steves Digicams
http://www.steves-digicams.com/

WoodSheddin wrote:I am just now making the plunge into pro-sumer photo gear and having serious sticker shock. We just ordered a Canon 20d and am now looking for some lenses, but the L lenses are crazy expensive. Our first lens is the 17-85 F/4-5.6 IS. I am drooling over a 70-200 F/4 L or a 70-200 F/2.8 IS L.

Anyone here happen to run a camera shop or have a hookup to dealer costs and willing to pass on some savings? Instant message or email if you would rather not make info public.

Better yet, ya got any Canon L lenses you want to unload cheap

Sean, the 70-200/4L is the cheapest of the L lenses and the best value. You won't regret having that lens at all. Here's an image I made with it at Niagra Falls:



I like it because it's light and handles beautifully--MUCH better handling than the Canon 75-300 USM.

Canon sells three grades of lenses. The consumer grade has plastic lens mounts, slow and noisy focus motors, and no manual override of the focusing (you have to turn off autofocus to adjust the focus). The top line include the L-series lenses. The middle line is mostly denoted by having USM focus motors with manual override and metal lens mounts. The mid-range lenses are generally excellent, and can produce image quality on a par with L lenses of the same focal length and range. They just don't have some special feature of the L lens, like ultra-low dispersion glass, and are therefore a bit more limited either in speed or zoom range. I have a Canon 20-35 USM zoom lens that is every bit as sharp as the 17-40/4L, but it's a half stop to a stop slower and has the narrower zoom range.

Here's an image with that lens:



The only problem with the 20-35 is that it isn't wide enough for me. The normal lens on your 20D is a ~28mm lens, same as my 10D, and that compares with 45mm on a regular 35mm camera. 20mm is only 71% of normal, which isn't that wide. So, I also have a Sigma EX 12-24 to get really wide. It was more expensive than the 70-200/4L, but it's cheaper than Canon's equivalent lens (the EF-S 10-22) and unlike the EF-S lens it covers the full 35mm frame, meaning I can use it on the 5D I'm going to buy when Karla wins the lottery.

Sigma EX lenses fall in the middle between Canon's mid-line lenses and the L-series zooms. Sigma's non-EX lenses strive to be as good as Canon's mid-line lenses, but sometimes don't succeed.

A good 50mm lens is a nice short portrait lens for the 20D-sized sensor, if you want to take pictures of the kid. The consumer-grade 50/1.8 looks and feels cheap, but it's optically excellent and is known in Canon circles as the Nifty Fifty. That's a no-brainer expenditure of $75 bucks.

You can also fool around with optically excellent but obsolete manual-focus lenses, using adaptors. Adaptors for Pentax screw-mount lenses (the mount is also called M42) cost about $30, and the lenses don't cost much more. I paid $80 for a 135mm/3.5 Zeiss Jena Sonnar in the M42 mount, and I would rank it among the best lenses I own. You lose autofocus and you have to stop the lens down manually, but the camera will work just fine with it, including the auto exposure (put the camera in Av mode). I also have an old Pentax Super Takumar 50/1.4 that will work with that adaptor, and that old lens is a bit yellowed but a stunner otherwise. So, you can spend pocket change and get fun and cheap stuff to play with while you save up for the expensive Canon lenses.

We should get together at the Army conference and talk more.

By the way, you will love the 20D. They corrected the little issues I have with my 10D completely, and I think it's capable of really excellent images.

And don't think there are any good deals on Canon lenses, particularly L-series lenses. They sell used nearly as much as new, and the demand is too high to allow much discounting. Most stores sell them at thin markups to compete with the mailorder outfits. Be careful of getting them too cheap--you may not get a U.S. warranty and as good as these lenses are, some have had issues with autofocus accuracy and needed service. I buy stuff either from Ace Photo in Sterling (and I usually get a reasonable discount because I've spent a lot there--but I doubt a better discount than most folks could get), or from BHPhoto in New York.

Rick "who could write ten times this much on this topic without taking a breath" Denney

MartyNeilan wrote:Companies like Vivitar, Tamron, and Sigma make decent aftermarket lenses for many cameras - unless you are photographing for the cover of Time you will probably not notice the difference.

Marty, Vivitar is just a marketing name now, and their lenses are made by Cosina or Samyang. Some are decent, and others are not. I have a Cosina 100-400 (identical to the Vivitar lens of that focal range) that makes it pretty difficult to get a first-class image.

Tamron has not impressed me in a while, though they have one or two mid-length zooms that have a good reputation.

Sigma's premium EX line is excellent, nearly (but not quite) as good as Canon's pro lenses.

And next time you want to sell a batch of screw-mount stuff from you old camera, give me a call. I can adapt any of those lenses to my digital Canon as a matter of course.

Rick "picky about images, not lens labels" Denney

MartyNeilan wrote:All lenses perform better when stopped down, instead of wide open. So, An F 2.8 lense will work better at F 4 and an F 4 lense will do better at F 5.6 - avoiding wide open unless absolutely necessay is usually the best way to go.

All true, of course. But I think you'll find that the Canon 70-200/4L makes a better image wide open than most cheaper zoom lenses at f/5.6 or even f/8. It will definitely give the 20D sensor a run for its money, and the 20D sensor has the highest pixel density currently available. But it's true that a lot of cheaper lenses are indistinguishable from more expensive lenses if you have enough light to stop them down to f/8 or so.

Rick "not a fan of all L's, but definitely a fan of that one" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:You can also fool around with optically excellent but obsolete manual-focus lenses, using adaptors.

manual focus = obsolete?
Didn't you just complain above about the cheap lenses that don't have manual foucus override? Sound like there is still a need for manual foucus no?

Adaptors for Pentax screw-mount lenses (the mount is also called M42) cost about $30, and the lenses don't cost much more.

You saying there is an adaptor to use standard 35mm lenses on on a digital body?
Cool. One thing that's kept me from Digital SLRs wa special lens requirments. Being able to use normal lenses would be a plus.

Do they make an adaptor for the Pentax K (bayonet) mount? I've seen adaptors to use screw mount lenses on a K mount body. I've got a few K mount lenses for my 35mm camera.

Not a big Cannon fan, but this could be a good development.

Still wish somone would make a replacement back for my Pentax that I could afford. Nothing big, like a 2-4Mpx sensor.

Rick Denney wrote: Sean, the 70-200/4L is the cheapest of the L lenses and the best value. You won't regret having that lens at all. Here's an image I made with it at Niagra Falls:

Now that alone is reason to ditch the point and shoot.

I like it because it's light and handles beautifully--MUCH better handling than the Canon 75-300 USM.
Sigma EX lenses fall in the middle between Canon's mid-line lenses and the L-series zooms. Sigma's non-EX lenses strive to be as good as Canon's mid-line lenses, but sometimes don't succeed.

I have done some research on Canon lenses but little to none on Sigma apart from reading about how many people find them a capable alternative. I need to study up on Sigma nomenclature.

A good 50mm lens is a nice short portrait lens for the 20D-sized sensor, if you want to take pictures of the kid. The consumer-grade 50/1.8 looks and feels cheap, but it's optically excellent and is known in Canon circles as the Nifty Fifty. That's a no-brainer expenditure of $75 bucks.

With the current Canon coupon deals I can get the 50 F/1.4 for about $175 after mail in rebates. I was thinking maybe that and the 70-200 F/4 which would be about $425 additional after mail in rebates if i bought both of those lenses before January 15, which is when the deal ends on triple rebates from Canon.

The other way I was thinking was to send back the 17-85 if we don't care for it and get the 17-40 F4 L which is $525 after MIR coupled with the 70-200 F/4 and of course the 20D body makes the third item in any combination.

You can also fool around with optically excellent but obsolete manual-focus lenses, using adaptors. Adaptors for Pentax screw-mount lenses (the mount is also called M42) cost about $30, and the lenses don't cost much more. I paid $80 for a 135mm/3.5 Zeiss Jena Sonnar in the M42 mount, and I would rank it among the best lenses I own.

I would be highly interested to try out your adaptor at the conference to see just how well it works with older lenses. From what you are saying I could go eBay crazy and not lose my shirt that route.

BTW. Do you have any shots with the 70-200 F/4 taken in less than ideal light situations sans flash? I am trying to figure out if the 2.8 is really worth more than double the cost for our needs/wants.

ThomasDodd wrote: manual focus = obsolete?

No, I didn't say that. I said obsolete lenses that had manual focus. The lenses I'm thinking of are no longer made, hence obsolete. I didn't say they were inferior, else I wouldn't have recommended them.

You saying there is an adaptor to use standard 35mm lenses on on a digital body?
Cool. One thing that's kept me from Digital SLRs wa special lens requirments. Being able to use normal lenses would be a plus.

There are adaptors for Nikon AIS, M42 (aka Pentax or Universal screw mount), and Pentacon Six (which is a medium-format lens mount). The Pentax K mount had a shorter backfocus distance so that screw-mount lenses could be adapted to K-mount bodies, and thus they are too short for the Canon EF mount and still retain infinity focus. And (sadly) the old Canon FD mount lenses do not adapt to the EF mount for the same reason. I have a bunch of them. But they still work fine on my old F-1.

The adaptors are all in the $30 range. Take a look at www.dvdtechnik.com.

This image was made with a Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 Sonnar-MC, for which I paid $80 on ebay. The lens is manual focus and aperture, but the glass is as good as just about any lens of that focal length on the market at any price. It has a Sonnar old-world rendering of out-of-focus areas, making it particularly nice for portraiture. I blows the doors off the Canon 135/2.8 soft-focus portrait lens, which I also own.



There are zillions of M42 lenses that are cheap and excellent. On a Canon EOS camera (film or digital), put the auto-exposure mode in Av, set the metereing to what you normally use, and the camera will select the proper shutter speed to match whatever aperture you use. Turn the aperture ring to wide open, focus, and then stop down to the taking aperture. For a lens like the Sonnar, you'll want to use it wide open or nearly so because that's where that lens really shines, so the manual aperture is not an inconvenience. But you'll have to have good focusing skills to use that lens wide open, heh, heh.

Rick "who has at least 20 non-Canon-mount lenses that can be adapted to his Canon 10D" Denney

WoodSheddin wrote:I have done some research on Canon lenses but little to none on Sigma apart from reading about how many people find them a capable alternative. I need to study up on Sigma nomenclature.

The thing to remember is EX. That's their pro line.

Here's Sigma's explanation of their nomenclature:

http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses.asp

ASP and APO don't matter. A lens may be good or not, with or without aspherical or apochromatic elements.

IF and RF are both nice, because they don't turn the front element to focus. That means you can use a polarizer without the autofocus upsetting the polarizer setting. All the better Canon and Sigma lenses have internal or rear focusing.

HSM means hypersonic motor, the Sigma equivalent of Canon's USM. Worth having. Makes autofocus a quiet click instead of a whir.

DF is also nice, it means you can adjust the focus manually even in autofocus. Canon's better lenses also have this feature.

DG means it's made for digital cameras but supports the full 24x36 format. DC means it's made for digital cameras with a smaller sensor and might not cover the full 24x36 format. Both will work fine on your 20D, but I prefer not to buy lenses with a format limitation because someday Karla's lottery ticket is going to hit and I'll get that 5d with the full-frame sensor.

With the current Canon coupon deals I can get the 50 F/1.4 for about $175 after mail in rebates. I was thinking maybe that and the 70-200 F/4 which would be about $425 additional after mail in rebates if i bought both of those lenses before January 15, which is when the deal ends on triple rebates from Canon.

Both are outstanding lenses and those are excellent prices. The 50/1.4 is as good as any L-series lens, and doesn't get the L designation only because it doesn't use special glass. I've never heard anyone on the Canon forums say a bad thing about it. I have the 1.4 in the old FD mount, and it is superb.

The other way I was thinking was to send back the 17-85 if we don't care for it and get the 17-40 F4 L which is $525 after MIR coupled with the 70-200 F/4 and of course the 20D body makes the third item in any combination.

Also a good option, and also excellent prices. I bought the 20-35 before the 17-40/4L was available, and at the time the only L-series option was the discontinued 17-35/2.8L, which was pushing two grand. That lens has been replaced by the 16-35/2.8L which is also much more expensive than the 17-40.

I would be highly interested to try out your adaptor at the conference to see just how well it works with older lenses. From what you are saying I could go eBay crazy and not lose my shirt that route.

BTW. Do you have any shots with the 70-200 F/4 taken in less than ideal light situations sans flash? I am trying to figure out if the 2.8 is really worth more than double the cost for our needs/wants.

Ebay is fun when what you are shopping for costs in the range of $50-80. Would it that tubas were that way, heh, heh. I'll bring some stuff to the Army conference to show you.

What do you mean by less than ideal? Let me see...

This one of the new moon was shot at 1/125 and f/5.6 using a Canon 1.4x teleconverter and racked out all the way. f/5.6 is wide open with the teleconverter, so this is worst case. It's a 280mm focal length, but on a 20D acts like 450mm, and would thus usually need a 1/500 shutter speed to be sharp handheld. I braced this shot against a fencepost to steady the camera.



Here is a bit of the middle of the above image shown at full resolution:



In this one, I was really living dangerously. I shot this at 1/250 at f/5.6, bracing the camera with my elbows resting on my knees. The game was at night, using stadium lights at a rookie-league minor-leage baseball stadium in Washington state. (The player is my wife's godson.) Again, I was using the teleconverter, and should have used 1/500 second. But I was already at ISO 800, and 1600 gets pretty noisy. It looks fine in a 4x6 print, but any larger it doesn't quite hold up. The 2.8 with image stabilization would have been an advantage here, and might have allowed me to get a bit more sharpness.



And, as before, here's a full-resolution crop of a bit of the center:



I had to really dig to find images made with the lens that would show any weakness at all. These are just as they came out of the camera with no sharpening or other subsequent manipulation. The 2.8 gives you about two or three stops more useful hand-held range, but at the expense of lots of money and lots of weight and size. Hold them in your hands before you decide.

I've used the f/4 for work where I've made images of test equipment and stuff under test in factory light with completely usable results. A monopod can do as much as IS, or even more, and it's a lot cheaper.

Plus, your 20D will give better results at high ISO's compared to my 10D.

Rick "who thinks there's a reason sports pros buy $6000 lenses" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:

ThomasDodd wrote: manual focus = obsolete?

No, I didn't say that. I said obsolete lenses that had manual focus. The lenses I'm thinking of are no longer made, hence obsolete. I didn't say they were inferior, else I wouldn't have recommended them.

OK, kinda teasing there. I'm rather fond of old obsolete things. One of my cameras is a C330 twin lens. Unfortunately theres a bit of parallax error in the lens I have, and I haven't been able to justify replacing it. Too hard to get 120/220 film here, let alone get it developed or printed. No justificaton for a darkroom (and no space )

The Pentax K mount had a shorter backfocus distance so that screw-mount lenses could be adapted to K-mount bodies, and thus they are too short for the Canon EF mount and still retain infinity focus. And (sadly) the old Canon FD mount lenses do not adapt to the EF mount for the same reason. I have a bunch of them. But they still work fine on my old F-1.

I wonder if loosing infinity is all that bad....

Oh well. Maybe I could sell the camera and lenses and get M42 replacements.

It has a Sonnar old-world rendering of out-of-focus areas, making it particularly nice for portraiture. I blows the doors off the Canon 135/2.8 soft-focus portrait lens

The inability to take shots like that is one thing I hate about full auto cameras. It's kept me with old stuff, becase, for a while at least, the newer stuff had no manual override unless you went full pro-line stuff. Way out of my price range.

put the auto-exposure mode in Av,

I'm quite used to Av mode. The Pentax 35mm is Av only. Inherited it, like the C330, and have considered replacing it a few times. Just haven't found the right body at the right price.

I also use it a lot on my current digital. It a fixed lens, but support several auto modes (auto, P, Tv, Av) and full manual control. It's a HP/Pentax collaboration and looks/feels like a 35mm SLR.

Rick Denney wrote:You can also fool around with optically excellent but obsolete manual-focus lenses, using adaptors. Adaptors for Pentax screw-mount lenses (the mount is also called M42) cost about $30, and the lenses don't cost much more. I paid $80 for a 135mm/3.5 Zeiss Jena Sonnar in the M42 mount, and I would rank it among the best lenses I own. You lose autofocus and you have to stop the lens down manually, but the camera will work just fine with it, including the auto exposure (put the camera in Av mode). I also have an old Pentax Super Takumar 50/1.4 that will work with that adaptor, and that old lens is a bit yellowed but a stunner otherwise. So, you can spend pocket change and get fun and cheap stuff to play with while you save up for the expensive Canon lenses.

Does your 10D do this with an adapted manual lens? I put my EF-S 17-85 in manual focus and also switch off IS for the heck of it. When I held the shutter button down halfway for the metering to take place i also started to do the manual focus thing. When one of the 9 focus points got in focus it blinked and beeped just like autofocus does. Only difference is that I was moving the lens manually? So the camera still assists you even in manual mode.

Does this same functionality carry over to the lenses in your collection with the adaptor ring? If so then I lose nothing except needing to turn the dial by hand and stopping down the apeture for photos. And the camera still meters for me to give me suggested settings and even tells me when I am pretty much in focus. This all sounds too good to be true. I am sooooooooooooo close to pulling the PayPal trigger and grabbing the adaptor and a lens to try it out. A quick poke around of eBay showed some darned low prices on the older stuff.

I also saw 2 other adaptor rings on the website you pointed me to. Is the M-42 the most ubiquitous?

WoodSheddin wrote:Does this same functionality carry over to the lenses in your collection with the adaptor ring?...

I also saw 2 other adaptor rings on the website you pointed me to. Is the M-42 the most ubiquitous?

I don't recall seeing any focus confirmation with my adapted lenses. I haven't tried it with a Canon lens in manual focus mode, but I do think it's an issue with Canon EF versus adapted lenses. The EF lenses have the electronic signals to communicate the focus position to the body, while the adapted lenses do not.

My Pentax 645 has focus confirmation with adapted lenses, but the autofocus logic on the 645 is all in the camera body, not partly in the lens as it is with Canon.

But if I can focus a lens manually with a 10D with my inferior sight, then you can focus a lens manually on the better 20D screen with your better eyes.

And I'm not sure but I think you can get alternative focus screens for the 20D, while it requires a more risky mod to do on a 10D.

M42 is the way to go. Pentax Takumars (particularly the Super Takumars and the SMC Takumars) are truly excellent--better than many new lenses and silky smooth. Many of the Zeiss Jena lenses are truly excellent (particularly the Sonnars), and they are even cheaper than the Taks. But there are also lots of really junky M42 lenses that wouldn't be worth the five bucks you'd have to pay for them. It's a great way to build a collection of fixed primes, though.

One that is worth getting is the Russian Zenitar 16mm/2.8 fisheye. It comes either in an EF mount or in M42, but the EF mount has no electronics and therefore no automation. It's positively the best way to get a real wide in the sub-$150 price point, and the optical quality is generally excellent.

Another cheapie that gets a lot of praise considering its cost is the Jupiter 85mm/f2, also Russian. It's a Sonnar design, but I don't think it has the Sonnar look like a real Sonnar. And the focus of mine is annoyingly stiff. But it's a pretty nice portrait lens for less than fifty bucks for a new one.

Many of the normal and short telephoto designs just haven't improved since they were designed many decades ago. Modern technology has improved zooms and rectilinear wide-angle lenses more than fixed primes, in addition to adding things like automation and image stabilization. I doubt you'd find a modern lens sharper than a 135mm/3.5 Sonnar or a 50/1.3 Super Takumar (if you can find one that is not yellowed).

The good news is that these are like mouthpieces. If you don't like it, just turn it back around on ebay and you won't lose much.

Rick "who says 'just do it'" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:I doubt you'd find a modern lens sharper than a 135mm/3.5 Sonnar or a 50/1.3 Super Takumar (if you can find one that is not yellowed).

I just ordered the adaptor on eBay and am now trying to decide if the 135 is worth the current $110-120 shipped price on eBay.

If you get a spare minute tommorrow and are near your camera, would you mind throwing on an adapted lens and doing the shutter button halfway down while manually focussing business to confirm to me that the focus confirmation is indeed not possible on them?

WoodSheddin wrote:I just ordered the adaptor on eBay and am now trying to decide if the 135 is worth the current $110-120 shipped price on eBay.

If you get a spare minute tommorrow and are near your camera, would you mind throwing on an adapted lens and doing the shutter button halfway down while manually focussing business to confirm to me that the focus confirmation is indeed not possible on them?

That's a reasonable price if it's pristine. The prices have gone up a bit recently, and that's probably my fault. I really talked them up on a Canon forum (that has about 25,000 readers) in a thread that got lots of attention and ended up as a sticky for a while. Of course, I did that after spending $80 for mine, heh, heh. But I think the prices will vary a bit if you pay attention.

I'll look at the camera when I get home today. I haven't been home since we started this discussion. I know that I get focus confirmation with a manual lens on my Pentax 645, but I don't think the 10D does that. I'll check.

Rick "stay tuned..." Denney

WoodSheddin wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:I doubt you'd find a modern lens sharper than a 135mm/3.5 Sonnar or a 50/1.3 Super Takumar (if you can find one that is not yellowed).

I just ordered the adaptor on eBay and am now trying to decide if the 135 is worth the current $110-120 shipped price on eBay.

I bumped into another eBay deal on the lens in question from Austria. He wanted $126 shipped for 2 of them. I figure i will keep the better of the two and throw the other one back on eBay. Shipped from the US I should be able to get a pretty decent price. I might end up only spending $20-$30 net when it is over.