Rediscovering Good Lenses < $1,000

[PetKal]

I must say I am pleased that I got rid of all those lenses laden with fluorite and IS garbage.;)
Back to the unadulterated joys of photography using rather elementary means, such as the economy EF 200mm f/2.8L USM. Have not used that lens in a while, and today she reminded me how decent she was.
Two examples..... JPG shots, hand-held, no cropping/no postprocessing.

[PetKal]

Two more, the seagull is a crop.

[nicksan]

Very nice!
Is that 200mm the newer version?

[PetKal]

Very nice!
Is that 200mm the newer version?
Thanx Nicksan, yes that's MkII with detachable hood. Mind you, I believe MkI and MkII are identical lenses optically, but have no first hand experience with MkI.

[Technophile]

wow those are nice, thanks for posting.

[blam]

the 200mm F2.8L is laden with flourite.

[nicksan]

Cool...I saw the MKI version selling somewhere for $450...if they are optically the same, then that might have been a decent deal...


Thanx Nicksan, yes that's MkII with detachable hood. Mind you, I believe MkI and MkII are identical lenses optically, but have no first hand experience with MkI.

[Heatseeker99]

the 200mm F2.8L is laden with flourite.
It doesn't have any flourite. It does have two UD elements though.

[PetKal]

the 200mm F2.8L is laden with flourite.

Maybe, but not fluorite.;)

[blam]

I thought all L glass had fluorite?

[PetKal]

Cool...I saw the MKI version selling somewhere for $450...if they are optically the same, then that might have been a decent deal...

Perhaps. However, there are a few things to keep in mind:
* Canon often do "silent" parts/assemblies substitutions in their lenses. For example, it might be that the MkI USM or a PC board is different than the MkII USM or the PC board. So that would lead to potential mtce problems with the MkI lens. One needs Canon's drwgs and bills of material in order to tell for sure.
* The early Canon design of built in hoods suffered from a couple of flaws....such as the hood would not lock in either position (an elastic band usually fixes that).

[LightRules]

I'm still waiting for your 18-55 versus 300f2.8IS shoot-out :evil: You promised this a while back and still haven't delivered.

BTW, Peter, we Californians own hockey :lol: Is that first photo in celebration and honor of the Mighty Ducks? :)

[PetKal]

Damn, I thought we did that shootout, little buddy ?!
OK, leave it with me, see what I can come up instead. Unfortunately, I do not have a 300 f/2.8 in my collection any longer.:(

I'd say that Californians own hockey the same way Jamaicans own bobsledding......besides, not trying to hurt your feelings or anything, but there is something convulsively funny about a hockey club called "Mighty Ducks".:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, what a splendid avatar !

[condyk]

Hey JoJo when y'all gonna sell me that Sigma 120-300 or 100-300? Now you an L man through and through an all y'all :-)

And Papa ... here a couple of recent shots from an ol' timer ultra cheapster Zeiss - cheaper than a tripod mountie for that L. This is a lovely, natural lens that works very nicely wide open indoors as the following shots show. Taken under reasonable (at best!) mixed indoor lighting in enclosed room, no flash or natural light. I had dark skin tones, new and old florescents, downlighters and projector bulb to contend with!

http://www.buzzdns.com/zeiss1.jpg
http://www.buzzdns.com/zeiss5.jpg

[PetKal]

Nice, Connie.
A used $40 EF 50 f/1.8 could do a comparable job, I suppose.

[condyk]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[airfrogusmc]

No I have no flourite in my 85, 35 or 24 L lenses. It wouldn't help any of those focal lengths. The do have an asperical element which would be more appropriate for there focal lengths.

A flourite element helps focus the different wave lengths of light on the same plane. Long lenses without flourite have a tendency for some of the wave lengths to focus beyond where the are suppose to. I think its in the red spectrum ( I forget now and I'm to lazy to look it up). The 200 1.8L had a flourite element I think and it was considered one of Canons finest efforts. I know the 300 2.8L is one really nice piece of glass.

[kitacanon]

18-55 + 35/2.0 + 50/1.8 + 24-85 + 55-200 = $525 and I'm getting pretty good results so far on my $375 10D, thank you very much.

[airfrogusmc]

I'm a believer in what ever you find that works for you and you get the results your looking for then thats whats important.
You certainly are not going to be able to see much of difference at 75 or 96 dpi on a computer monitor in the expensive glass but check it out a 30 X 40. Thats where the big dogs shine.

This is in no way meant to slight Mamiya but I worked in a studio years ago and the owner had a RB67 and I asked why he didn't use his Blads instead. He said the negs on the 67 were larger. I replied that the lenses on the Blad were allot sharper. Well we did a test with charts and with subjects and he sold the RB. I think the Mamiya lens was a 180 and I know the Zeiss lens was a 180.

[Apollo11]

I don't know if the original 200mm f2.8L MK 1 has flourite or not, but I do know it has this keeping it cozy! This is in the day long before the L pouches. It was my first L lens, bought new from B&H for $759, circa 1996. Heck, it was my only L until a couple months ago! Its date code says it was made in 1995. This has been used very sparingly, but I love it when I use it. In fact, I just recently added the mounting ring A to it, purchased used off of POTN's "for sale" section.

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/6795/20028l2yd1.jpg

Here is another shot, with its built-in hood raised:
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/7439/20028l1ir6.jpg

[PetKal]

The "LH" lens case design was very nice, bulky but nice and protective of the lens.

[Tee Why]

I'm sure as not into getting super expensive lenses either. There are many lenses that are simple, cheap (relatively), and just as good in real world use.

[liquefied]

I'm a big fan of my recently purchased 28mm f/2.8. I got it refurbed from Adorama for $140 a month ago and I've been using it a lot more than my other lenses. Going back to the normal focal length (equivalent on the 20D) has helped me think a lot more about composition and perspective in my shots than I'm used to when using a zoom lens. Instead of simply zooming in from wherever I am, I'm running around my subject trying to find the best angle. In general I'm just having a lot more fun with this simple, cheap lens than I've had with more expensive ones. I've also stopped being such a freak for sharpness and other not-so-important image qualities. Sure, the lens is pretty soft wide open but for fine art photography and/or the small size images for posting on the web it's plenty sharp.

[PetKal]

I'm a big fan of my recently purchased 28mm f/2.8. I got it refurbed from Adorama for $140 a month ago and I've been using it a lot more than my other lenses. Going back to the normal focal length (equivalent on the 20D) has helped me think a lot more about composition and perspective in my shots than I'm used to when using a zoom lens. Instead of simply zooming in from wherever I am, I'm running around my subject trying to find the best angle. In general I'm just having a lot more fun with this simple, cheap lens than I've had with more expensive ones. I've also stopped being such a freak for sharpness and other not-so-important image qualities. Sure, the lens is pretty soft wide open but for fine art photography and/or the small size images for posting on the web it's plenty sharp.

Sounds good to me. Lens quality does help. However its contrinbution to the overall photographic effect is miniscule compared to other things.

In order to continue with the thread theme, here is another unprocessed JPG taken with the lens today, where I like the colours rendered, although the image is not very sharp.

[kolok]

Yessir, that 200mm f/2.8 Mk2 is a sweet lens alright. It was my first L, used it extensively and I'll never, ever sell it. It's sharp, light and relatively compact, so it's easy to travel with as well!

[LightRules]

Oh, what a splendid avatar !

:D

when y'all gonna sell me that Sigma 120-300 or 100-300? Now you an L man through and through an all y'all :-)

:rolleyes:

[Glenn NK]

I'm still waiting for your 18-55 versus 300f2.8IS shoot-out :evil: You promised this a while back and still haven't delivered.

BTW, Peter, we Californians own hockey :lol: Is that first photo in celebration and honor of the Mighty Ducks? :)

Interesting news on TV tonight:

1) The Anaheim Ducks have more Canadians on their team than do the Ottawa Senators.

2) Two of the Ducks are from the Ottawa area, none of the Senators members are though.

3) All the Ducks coaches are Canadians, three from Ontario, while the goalie coach from Quebec.

I hope the Ducks have a better future than the two previous cup champions; Tampa Bay didn't go anywhere the year following their cup win, the Hurricanes didn't even make the playoffs this year.

[cjm]

True enough Glenn and never mind the fact that all three of the Canadian teams that made the finals in the last three seasons have entire Cities supporting them, where as all three of the "american" teams rate Hockey behind college sports :(

They may have lost (yet again) but I am still proud to wear my Oilers Jersey as others are to wear their flames and senators. And no one has to ask what football team that is on the street. Because everyone knows what it is.

[Lani Kai]

By the way, the Ducks are no longer officially "Mighty." They're just the Ducks.
And speaking of Californians owning hockey, I've yet to see anyone born and raised in California make it in the NHL, have you?

[LightRules]

By the way, the Ducks are no longer officially "Mighty." They're just the Ducks.
And speaking of Californians owning hockey, I've yet to see anyone born and raised in California make it in the NHL, have you?

Ducks win, Ducks win. Celebration at the Honda Center tomorrow night. Be there or be square! :D

[We are the champions, my friends...] :lol:

[Lani Kai]

I'm still bitter about the interference call on Pavel Datsyuk in Game 5 of the Western Conference Finals. I swear the referees are getting more inconsistent each year.
Is this the official hockey discussion thread now? :D

Okay, about the 200mm f/2.8... It doesn't have a Fluorite element but it does have two large UD elements (when Canon puts special glass inside a lens it isn't a tiny rear element like some of N*k*n's "ED" lenses).
I never was a fan of the MkI hood... It was so shallow that it barely did anything. It didn't even protect the lens from damage because it wouldn't lock in place...

[cjm]

The "LH" lens case design was very nice, bulky but nice and protective of the lens.I got a spare one from my first BAD 300mm f4 IS L. When Canon replaced that lens for me I got the new cheapo one. The old ones are what one would expect with such an expensive lens but alas I don't even use it. I guess I should try to sell it but meh, no one wants these things.

[cjm]

By the way, the Ducks are no longer officially "Mighty." They're just the Ducks.
And speaking of Californians owning hockey, I've yet to see anyone born and raised in California make it in the NHL, have you?I can not think of one. Not one, but I guess it is coming soon enough as Wayne Gretzky sure did a lot there to make Hockey (some what) known in CA.

Hockey is still very much a Canada game. And second being a Former Soviet Block game, which interestingly enough a lot of those countries had players from Canada go over there and teach the game.

Only Canadians are crazy enough I think to start playing a game in the frosty cold at minus -30c and make a "sport" of it.

Any US Hockey fan should track down a copy of "Hockey: A peoples history" made by the CBC. That show is simply amazing.

And is it any wonder the Ducks won the cup after dumping the Mighty? I as a fan of the NHL was so embarrassed that Disney decided to name their team Mighty Ducks after that third rate movie. And then to use the lame Goalie mask logo and weird green and purple jerseys? That team name has been keeping them down their entire existence. Oh yeah and even though it would have been nice for Canada to finally win a cup since the Canadians in 1993, I am glad the Ducks won, not because of that traitor Chris Pronger who ditched the Oilers, but because Teemu Selanne finnally won a cup and he's always been one of my favorites, also including long time Oiler Todd Marchant.

[condyk]

:D :rolleyes:

Pullin' yer plonker son ... really, I might be interested if yer sufferin' with 'overlap' and wanna throw some charity my way.

[PetKal]

Back to the topic.
The 200 f/2.8 is a superb BIF lens....when coupled with an AF capable camera, that is.
Just that the 20D AF falls apart on birds like this small/agile tern.....these two shots are from a very frustrating shooting session yestarday which reminded me why I really got my 1DMkIIN for BIF photography.

[condyk]

What is the secret to BIF shots Pete? What technique and settings and gears do you favour?

[PetKal]

What is the secret to BIF shots Pete? What technique and settings and gears do you favour?

Settings vary...most of the time I don't know what I am doing anyway.:(
However, when it comes to gear, here is my list, from the best downward.

The camera.....1DMkII(N).
(How much better MkIII is, if any, that remains to be seen)

The lenses. That's a tough one because it obviously depends on the size and proximity to birds, their flight pattern, etc. Personal preference factor is big too....

But, I will attempt to rank lenses according to three factors combined: AF speed/ease of handholding/IQ, all based on my first hand experience:

(1) EF 300 f/4 IS
(2) EF 300 f/2.8 IS
(3) EF 300 f/4
(4) EF 400 f/5.6

Naturally, this assumes that the bird is in the 300/400mm range.

However, for proximity BIF shots I always use either the 135L or the 200 f/2.8.

[LightRules]

But, I will attempt to rank lenses according to three factors combined: AF speed/ease of handholding/IQ, all based on my first hand experience:

(1) EF 300 f/4 IS
(2) EF 300 f/2.8 IS
(3) EF 300 f/4
(4) EF 400 f/5.6

Naturally, this assumes that the bird is in the 300/400mm range.

However, for proximity BIF shots I always use either the 135L or the 200 f/2.8.

LIAR :evil: I've always fancied your 180 f3.5 Macro BIFs! Now those were untouchable.

[condyk]

But, I will attempt to rank lenses according to three factors combined: AF speed/ease of handholding/IQ, all based on my first hand experience:

(1) EF 300 f/4 IS
(2) EF 300 f/2.8 IS
(3) EF 300 f/4
(4) EF 400 f/5.6


300mm IS L as top gun ... man, that is a controversial choice over the 2.8. Maybe you left value out as a factor? Anyway, sounds like it's a 'more dumb luck than anything' kinda talent? Is that correct? Maybe there is some elektrickery in them 'more cash than sense' bodies as makes a difference? I am too much a simpleton for that stuff tho'. Well outta my depth i reckon :confused:

[PetKal]

LIAR :evil: I've always fancied your 180 f3.5 Macro BIFs! Now those were untouchable.

I spoke in rather general terms before. For me though, the 180L is totally in a league of its own, even as a birding/BIF lens. Granted, not the fastest AF of them all, however the IQ and handling more than makes up for it. ;)

[LightRules]

Now that's more like it, Pete. Now we're talking the apex, the ultimate, the climax of birding in flight. I am inspired, once again...

I spoke in rather general terms before. For me though, the 180L is totally in a league of its own, even as a birding/BIF lens. Granted, not the fastest AF of them all, however the IQ and handling more than makes up for it. ;)

[condyk]

You got any Jo? How are those sweet Sigma zoomers at BIF? Or you got any samples from them? I feel a need to reconnect with some super Sigma EX glass :-)

[PetKal]

300mm IS L as top gun ... man, that is a controversial choice over the 2.8. Maybe you left value out as a factor? Anyway, sounds like it's a 'more dumb luck than anything' kinda talent? Is that correct? Maybe there is some elektrickery in them 'more cash than sense' bodies as makes a difference? I am too much a simpleton for that stuff tho'. Well outta my depth i reckon :confused:


Many of those "fantastric" shots are "lucky" shots indeed. Especially with the fast frame rate cameras like 1DII's.

The 300 f/2.8 IS is a very fine lens but it is also exceedingly expensive compared to its f/4 sibling.

Besides, it takes a very special kinda physique for swinging that lens to and fro, and keeping it poised in your hands for an hour or so.
Most photogs simply do not have that sorta physique, all youthful boasting and similar bravados aside.

[PetKal]

Connie and little buddy....do you realize that your latest avatars are totally ridiculous ?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Eh ?

[condyk]

Connie and little buddy....do you realize that your latest avatars are totally ridiculous ?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Eh ?


Excellent ... thank you :-)

What about you lad ... achieved world domination yet or still waiting for Fred Engels to get back from the pub?

[LightRules]

Connie and little buddy....do you realize that your latest avatars are totally ridiculous ?:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Eh ?


I'm currently very busy, especially as we prepare to release our new 28-300 VC lens that has our proprietory optical stabilization mechanism. Please do not mock my self-portrait. :evil:

Dave, sorry I have no BIF captures with any EX lenses as our professional grade are SP.

[condyk]

Pete ... Jo has flipped his lid. I think he musta banged his conk watching that thar girly hockey game (sic!) recently. We must humour him even more than usual and hope it wears off ... tho' I actually find his 'new' Ono personality much improved. More manly and direct rather than all that helpful and objective BS he usually comes out with :-)

[PetKal]

I'm currently very busy, especially as we prepare to release our new 28-300 VC lens that has our proprietory optical stabilization mechanism. Please do not mock my self-portrait. :evil:

Dave, sorry I have no BIF captures with any EX lenses as our professional grade are SP.


Yes, that thing is going to be big, I can sense it. The VC technology will increase Tamron's lens market share from 3.14% at present to an estimated 3.15%.

[PetKal]

Excellent ... thank you :-)

What about you lad ... achieved world domination yet or still waiting for Fred Engels to get back from the pub?

If it was not for our teachings, the America's proletariat of today wouldn't have had the wages to afford Canon gears.:cool: