Lens evolution... please tell me your story [Archive]

Aylwin

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 00:42

Well, let's have a beginner's story before we hear from the real photographers. :)

The 28-135 IS was the first lens I got for my 10D. I was very happy with it. I got decent shots. I thought focus and colors were good. But it was my first time with a DSLR. I guess I was just too excited. Not that the 28-135 IS is bad though. More on that later.

Then I got the 50 1.8 because of all the rave reviews. I thought why not? Anyway, it's ridiculously cheap compared to any of the other lenses. I was even happier. I could take lots of indoor without having to use a flash (I hate using a flash but that's mainly because I don't know how to use it properly). The 50 1.8 more than paid for itself. I got great portrait shots and it was my main lens around the home.

Then I got the 75-300 IS. It was either that or the 17-40 4L. It was cheaper so I got it. :oops: My initial reaction was "It's loose!" but apparently that's normal. I guess it's a good lens though and I've taken a few good photos with it but mainly it gathers dust. It's the one lens I regret buying. It's not the lens' fault though. I just don't have much opportunity to use it. I guess it doesn't go along with my shooting habits.

Because of my disappointment with the 75-300 IS, I eventually got the 17-40 4L. I realised immediately that this was the lens I should've bought instead. It has now over took my 50 1.8 as my most used lens. It has also replaced my 28-135 IS as my main walk around lens. So now I have 2 lenses gathering dust.

Not too long ago, the upgrade bug bit me again and I was itching to upgrade. I sometimes felt I needed a faster lens. I considered getting another prime but wider would distort portraits and longer would require me to be too far from the subject. In the end, I decided to replace the 50 1.8 with the 1.4 version. The impact was noticed immediately and it wasn't the lower f-stop. Focus and colors were simply better.

Very recently, I came across a thread where Rad described taking a heldheld photo at 1/6 shutter speed with the 28-135 IS. I had never tried it because I simply assumed it was impossible to produce decent results. Anyway, I did try it and it's true. It can be done! So now I'm dusting off my 28-135 IS and starting to use it again. I've also noticed that it produces sharper/clearer photos than my 17-40 which is an "L". I have trouble accepting this but then the problem may actually be the photographer. :oops:

So that's my story and those are my lenses. My trusty ol' 28-135 IS is getting used again. I have a 50 1.4 which, imho, is my best lens. I have the 17-40 4L which will continue to be the most used.

And then there's the 75-300 IS which I wouldn't mind getting rid of. It still in the bag though in case I need it but I never do. I'm very interested in the new 70-300 DO IS but there seems to be some issues with it so I'll have to wait. And besides, I'll probably never use it anyway so why bother? :roll:

Steveo31

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 01:37

Good story Aylwin.

I loooove L lenses, only cause they are a lot more solid. A lot. I too have the 28-135 IS and what can I say? It's loose. I'm not really confident that it would survive a hike somewhere.

One of these days I'm going to get L lenses up the yin yang.

Andy_T

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 03:13

And then there's the 75-300 IS which I wouldn't mind getting rid of. It still in the bag though in case I need it but I never do. I'm very interested in the new 70-300 DO IS but there seems to be some issues with it so I'll have to wait. And besides, I'll probably never use it anyway so why bother? :roll:

Aylwin,

just two things

- the 75-300 IS should - like the 28-135 IS - be capable of taking decent pictures at pretty long exposures. Have you tried that out?

- the 75-300 DO will optically not be that much of an improvement over the 75-300 IS as the increase in price suggests. Take a look atthis review of the EF 70-300 DO IS USM (http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml). It compares the new lens to your 2 IS lenses and the 70-200/2.8L. The 70-200/4.0L, will - like the 2.8 version, but cheaper - provide a lot sharper pictures, and you could use the 1.4 converter to get to 280 mm on the 10D.

Best regards,
Andy

Aylwin

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 05:53

Thanks, Steve. :)

Andy,
No, I haven't tried but I have thought about it. I found a comparison between the 75-300 IS and the 70-200 non-IS L. I wish I could find the link again but anyway it was a comparison about how both perform handheld at low shutter speeds. Of course, I expected the 75-300 IS to win but if I remember correctly, it was okay even as slow as 1/30 at 300mm. One of these days I'll do my own tests.

As for the 70-300 DO IS, thanks for the link. Actually, I'm only interested in it for 2 reasons. First, the 75-300 IS is so loose that it bugs me. I'm assuming/hoping the 70-300 DO IS doesn't have this problem. Secondly, I like the smaller size (and weight?). However, for just those two reasons, whether or not it's worth the price is another story.

Regards,
Aylwin

RikWriter

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 06:37

I haven't been in the hobby for that long, but here's how it went for me.
I bought the DRebel with the kit lens at Circuit City, and while I was there I picked up a cheap Canon 80-200 lens. A few weeks later, I bought a Phoenix 100-400 lens at a camera shop...I figured, hey, $300 for a 100-400, what could go wrong? :roll:
Anyway, then I went on vacation out west and after several missed shots because the Phoenix wouldn't focus fast enough and several more shots ruined because it wouldn't focus WELL in low light, I found out what could go wrong.
So, while I was in Vegas near the end of our vacation, I bought a Sigma 12-24 wide angle lens (which I love) and a Sigma 28-200 (because I thought, "Hey, I can use that sort of versatility walking around"). Problem was, the 28-200 was incredibly NOT sharp, and was a stark contrast to the 12-24.
I came back from my trip and divested myself of the 28-200, the 80-200 AND the piece o' crap Phoenix and bought a Canon 70-200L f4, a Canon 28-105 USM and a Canon 50mm prime (the cheap but beautiful one). Those three, the Sigma 12-24 and the kit lens make up my current arsenal.
I hope, sometime in the near future, to pick up a Sigma 50-500 or maybe (dare I dream) a Canon 100-400L lens. I wish I hadn't wasted the money I did though.

bertelm

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 08:14

I first upgraded from a kit lens to a Tameron 28-200 on my film slr. I loved the versitility of the lens.

However, when I upgraded to the 10D, I really noticed how soft the lens was. On a 4x6, the softness isn't as apparent as when you view the picture on a big monitor... So, my next lenses where a Canon 75-300IS and a Canon 24-80. Although they are not known for their sharpness, they were much sharper than the Tameron. For the 1st year, I enjoyed both lenses - the 24-80 is a nice lighweight lens that gives me a great focal range for everyday pictures. The 75-300 was still a bit soft, but I loved the IS and that alone produced some great pictures for me.

To compliment my collection I added a sigma 12-24 - that gives my digital SLR a true wide angle capability. I call this my fun lens - as it produces lots of interesting pictures.

I'm sure it must be the same for others in this forum, as you get better at photography, you get much more critical of your equipment/pictures. The weak link in my lens collection was the 75-300, so I replaced this with a 100-400L lens - what a difference! I'll probably be looking at replacing the 24-80 lens next year, but I haven't decided on what to replace it with yet. I'll also likely add a 50mm lens to my collection. And hopefully, that will be it for the next few years...

Several people have asked me if I would have done things differently had I know what I know now - ie, go for the quality lens up front. I'm not sure I would have. I think 10 years ago, an "L" lens would have been wasted on my. At that time, the cheap equipment wasn't the limitting factor - it was the photographer.

EoSD30fReAk

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 10:53

my lens changing went very quick!

i bought the D30 and a Canon EF 24-85usm, some days later i bought the Canon 28-105usm.
i wasn't satisfied with the range so i bought a 28-135IS wich i still love!
also some one gave me a cheap canon 35-80 wich i've never used :oops:
than i went for the big guy! the 100 - 400L IS and a couple of months on this forum later i was convinced in buying the 17-40L and i don't regret buying it!

i now only use the 28-135IS and the 17-40L and the 100-400L IS

i sold the 28-105 and gave away the 35-80 but i still own the 24-85 but it's only getting dust! i just can't let go of my first lens i guess :wink:

blinking8s

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 11:03

i had only the 18-55 for 2 months, then got the 50mm f1.8 then the 70-200 f4 L two weeks ago...i went and looked at the 28-135 IS and did not like it, so i got online the 2nd i asked about it on there, then bought it the next day

arumdevil

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 11:56

I'm starting to think I could take pictures of turds, and people would tell me how great the turds look.

how's this for a turd?

http://www.arumdevil.com/galleries/imgs/wld/IMG_2138.jpg

taken with a friends 70-200 f/4 L of course!

Jmurman

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 12:16

Canuck

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 12:43

I'm with you guys and add one thing...looks like crap! :lol:

Ok in a nutshell, I had the Sigma 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 and Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 lenses from film days. I slapped that on the 10D and was getting Err 99 all the flipping time. I was about getting frustrated and found this forum. The world has never been the same since! :) So after some time and saving some dosh, I flogged (sold) the 70-300 to finance the last bit of the money needed for the beast. In Aug, 2003 I ordered the Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX/HSM/APO/IF and took it to Wales for its first use. This was a monumental change! Now I was shooing with a lens that was about 15x mon expensive as the 70-300 and it showed. I had what looked like the beginning of Nirvana! So some time went on and I got the Canon 16-35mm F2.8L followed by the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L. The 16-35 first saw action in England and the 24-70mm in Ireland. I am not going back to consumer lenses, save for the 50 mm and a very select few others. I am in the process of editing some pics that compare the Sigma 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 (about $80) and the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L (about $1380). I know this isn't really fair, but maybe by showing them side by side it will start to click why some of us push the L lenses/Sigma EX line. So there you have the transition from consumer to pro glass.

arumdevil

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 12:49

I dont know....that turd looks soft to me :) :) :lol: :lol:

no, by the time I found it it was already quite old, and therefore quite crusty and hard. It may have had a soft core but the part you can see was definitely hard ;)

I did lie though, it wasn't taken with any kind of L lens, just my humble 75-300

samdring

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 13:05

you don't need to ask - you can see the settings on that one!

Jmurman

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 14:04

I started freash with no prior relationship with Canon. I bought the 300D in March and added the 70-200 Sigma 2.8, 1.4 tele convertor, extension tube....etc I then added the Tamron 28-75 2.8.

I havent used my Sigma very much, but I use my Tamron as my walk around lens, and really love it.

I am thinking that my next purchase will be the Canon 17-40L.

drisley

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 14:22

Got the kit lens with the 300D.
Next... 50mm F1.8II (LOVE IT)
Next... 70-200mm F4L (LOVE IT)
Next... 85mm F1.8 USM (Probably my fav!)

Now, I am selling (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36753) my beloved 70-200 F4L to get the F2.8 version, maybe with Image $tabilization, since I shoot ALOT of low light.
I think many people go the F4L to the F2.8L route with this zoom.

I'm possibly thinking about getting either the 17-40L, but I dont shoot much wide angle. So, I may actually "upgrage" my 50mm F1.8II to the more solid, USM F1.4 version.

I'm keeping my 85mm F1.8 for a LONG time however! :D

Jmurman

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 14:29

drisley

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 14:47

Absolutely I love it!
And you will find most people who own one will say the exact same thing!
It's as sharp as the 50mm F1.8, has better contrast and bokeh, and is built SOLID like an L lens, and includes USM. It's amazing!
Check this thread too:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36388&highlight=85mm+f1+8

This was taken in a low light theatre at ISO1600 from row 4.

85mm F1.8USM ISO1600, F2.8, 1/200s
http://www.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/mabba062004/CRW_1747.jpg

drisley

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 15:12

BTW, if you want to see a full resolution of this image click here (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso1600crop2.jpg).

This was straight out of C1 Pro, default settings (noise suppression was set 1 notch BELOW default).
Also, take note how little noise there is at ISO1600. I was impressed.

rick barclay

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 15:37

My entry into photography began with the 300D and kit lens.
I wanted as much reach as I could get, so I bought a 100-400mm IS.
Next I got caught up in the 50mm 1.8 hoopla and bought one of those.
My latest purchase was last week, a 24 mm 2.8, which I found on ebay
for $177. I'm still waiting for it, though.
Today I got word that my bid for a 2X extender on FM was accepted, so
I'll be getting that shortly, too.

Don't know what I'll buy next.

tacos3

5th of July 2004 (Mon), 17:26

Been in photgraphy for 25 years. Made the switch to a 3mp PS Olympus in '98 and the camera cost about $800. I used the rationale that a DSLR for $1000 was not much more than I spent on my original digital camera.

Bought the rebel in October.

1. Hated the 17-55mm kit lens. Not sharp or fast enough for my tastes.
2. Made the big mistake of buying a sigma 28-80 and 75-300 set for about $279. Lenses were ok, but not fast enough.
3. Bought a Tokina 28-70 2.8 ATX Pro. I like this lense, a little soft at wide open, but sufficient.
4. Bought a 50mm 1.8 used for $40. I bought it for low light and short DOF shots.
5. Bought a 70-200 2.8 L. Love it.
6. Sold the sigma lens set.

Moral of the story....when buying lenses, don't buy something to get you by. Save your $$ and make the purchase once to get what you want. Next on the list is a 1.4x teleconverter, then a 17-40 4.0 L.

aeroshots2003

6th of July 2004 (Tue), 13:11

Bought my first EOS system back in 1995. Bought/sold following lenses :

buy....28-105 3.5-4.5
buy....75-300 4-5.6
buy....400 5.6 Sigma
buy....100-300 4.0-5.6
buy....50 1.8 MkII (now kaputt)
buy....70-200 4.0
sell....100-300
buy....20-35 3.5
buy....15 fisheye
buy....70-200 2.8
sell....70-200 4.0
sell....400 5.6 sigma
sell....75-300
buy....300 2.8

So I now still have the blue-marked equipment. Looking back, I realise that I should have bought Q material in the very beginning. On the other hand, you never know how long a new hobby will last...

Now I would like to replace the 20-35 with a 17-40 4.0. I suppose the list will never end :wink:

Aero

DocFrankenstein

6th of July 2004 (Tue), 14:17

daaaam

I was kinda ready to get 70-200 f/4, but then I found out there's such a thing as 70-200 f/2.8, which is one stop better and one stop more expensive

It's gonna be some time till I jump to 70-200 f/2.8....

Canuck

6th of July 2004 (Tue), 14:39

just in case you are interested in what a difference a lens can make, I have a thread that compares two lenses...one real cheapie and one Canon L lens. Here's the link: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36757

Yes, you pay dearly for better lenses from Canon. The difference in price between the aforementioned lenses is about $1300. The test in that thread tells all. I know it really isn't a fair contest but it was kinda fun doing it.

Jmurman

6th of July 2004 (Tue), 15:17

velvetjones

6th of July 2004 (Tue), 17:18

I went from the Rebel 2000 to the Elan 7....
Sold kit lens 28-90 f/4-5.6 USM...Bought Canon 50mm f/1.8

Bought Canon 75-300 f/4.5.6 USM...Sold for Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM

Bought Tamron 28-75 f.2.8 DI, Canon 17-40L f/4, Sigma 15mm fisheye, Sigma 2x teleconverter and now am broke.

I have still yet to go digital, but plan to within six months. I will never give up my film totally.

BearSummer

6th of July 2004 (Tue), 18:10

Been taking photos since i was a teen, sold my old kit about 6 years ago so that my gf could get another lens for her new camera. She loved photography and all she wanted to do was take pictures, trouble was that I couldn't cos i had no kit, so did the following, all is canon equip

Buy EOS5, 28-105, 75-300
give the 75-300 to wife and buy the 75-300 IS
buy 50mm 1.4
Give the 75-300 IS to wife buy 100-400 IS L
Buy EOS3
buy 100mm f2.8 macro
buy 85mm 1.8
buy second eos3
buy TSE 24+45+90
buy 17-35 f2.8L
buy 15mm fisheye
buy 28-70 f2.8L
buy 70-200 2.8 IS L
give 17-35 f2.8 to wife buy 16-35 f2.8L
give 28-70 f2.8 to wife buy 24-70 f2.8L
give 85mm f1.8 to wife buy 85mm f1.2L
buy 14mm f2.8L
buy 65mm mpe macro
buy D60
Sell both Eos3's and 28-105
buy 1ds
buy 200 mm f1.8L

Or something like that, anyway as someone else said save up and buy the best you can get away with, wish I had gone for the 100-400 rather than the 75-300 and the IS version before, was just a waste of time and money. Easy way to get new kit and not have the wife complain is to give her your old kit, can be nice as early birthday presents etc. Expensive but saves on arguments and means you dont have to buy nasty handbags or take her shopping afterwards. All the L's have been very good, the 28-105 is a star when it comes to a good cheap lens. The 50 1.4 is lovely and a good price, prefered it to the 1.8 as its a metal mount, ftm and just feels more solid. Remember to check the mtf's for the lens before you buy it, check the reviews and look at the test shots you cant go wrong.

Basically what I have left is whats in my sig file

All the best

BearSummer

DocFrankenstein

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 00:20

Can I marry you? I'll be good, I swear!

ejwebb

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 05:28

Over the last 5 years or so I accumulated the following lenses in this order:

28-80mm kit lens with Elan IIe
28-105mm USM (sold kit lens soon after purchase)
50mm MKII - $37 steal used - not used much with film
70-210mm (the better one) - used

Basically, after the first year or so of ownership these lenses and the Elan II sat in a bag in the closet and were brougth out for Birthdays, Holidays and vacation. Then I discovered digital and how much fun I could really have with photography. After buying/selling a Canon A40 and G3 I have finally ended up with the DRebel and my lenses are having the time of their life.

I also picked up the 18-55mm kit lens for a wide angle option. I will say that I thought I had all the lenses I needed until I started lurking in this forum and seeing all the great "L" pic's. Now I know where my extra money is going and there is no end in sight! :shock: Have to wait a while, though, especially since the wife has been very good about the previous purchases. :roll:

Honestly, I still have a lot to learn and am very happy with my current combination - for now :D

BearSummer

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 07:10

Can I marry you? I'll be good, I swear!

A very kind offer I am sure, but I dont think my wife would be to happy about me taking on a second wife. The one I already have is pretty damn good as it is and if I took you on then I'd never be sure who was borrowing my gear. Then you have the problems of digging through camera bags, dragging out lenses and pointing to the serial number on the insurance schedule whilst one of you goes "Oh is it, really, I dont know how that got in there...."

All the best

BearSummer

ron chappel

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 07:41

Started with kodak plastic 120(?) film thing i bought 2nd hand for au$2 in 1976 then pestered my parents for more film all the time :)
No good pics at all
Sometime in eighties got a konica pop then played with a tiny 110 brownie
One very good pic!
Soon after ,inspired by an article on photography in a dirt bike magazine(!) i bought a pentax sp1000 and a few lenses 2nd hand.
Started getting very good pics.Tried kodachrome
In the early nineties i wanted something that did more things automatically as i was mostly taking pics of fast moving race bikes.I did my homework really well and it was a choice between the nikon 401 and canon EF-M.The canon came up in my price range 2nd hand first so i grabbed it.
The camera was everything i thought it would be (and still one of my favorite all time bodies for sensible design) but the std 35-80 zoom lens was an absolute shocker!!!! These lenses are pretty crap normally but this one was a particularly bad example
Probably only 3 good photos over the next seven years.Sad,very sad-
pretty much gave up any serious photography from then on.Had no $ for better lenses

Around 2000 i got my first computer and connected to the internerd.I had been dreaming of getting a better camera/lenses but now i had some serious research tools!
Started looking in 2nd hand shops for bargains and the first of many i found was an EF100 macro
Bloody hell-what a difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D

Since then i have actually made a hobby business out of searching for good bargains and reselling them on ebay....and i made enough out of it in two years to buy the 300D and a bunch of lenses.Not to mention getting to try out heaps of different lenses along the way :D

adamsti

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 10:32

Well my whole EOS odyssey start in June 2000.
Bought Elan IIe
bought Canon 28-105 (dropped it first month, bought another one :evil: )
bought cheap Canon 70-300
bought Canon 20-35
sold cheap 70-300
bought 70-200 f/4L
bought 300 f/4L (used)
sold 28-105
bought 28-70 f2.8L (used)
bought EOS 3 (used)
sold 70-200 f/4L
bought 70-200 f/2.8 L IS
bought 1.4XII and 2XII
sold EOS 3
sold Elan IIe
sold 20-35
sold 28-70 f/2.8L
sold 300 f/4L
bought EOS 10D
bought 24-70 f/2.8L
bought 100-400L IS

I think I'm done for awhile. :D

roanjohn

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 11:14

WOW!! An interesting read!!!

For me, it all started with the s400. It was my first digital camera.

Then I upgraded to the G3.

After three months with the G3, I upgraded to the Rebel with the kit lens.

...........WOW!!!..............I'm hooked.

My first lens purchase was the 35 f2 and 50 f1.8. Both sharp lenses. Because the focal length were very similar, I decided to keep the 50 f1.8 and return the 35 f2. Not only did it save me some cash but I was able to use the money I saved to purchase the 70-200 f4 L.

.............WOW again!!!........my first L...........I'm hooked!!!

Then I was looking for a walk around lens. Decided on the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. A good lens for the money. It's not "L" quality but its close. Stopped down, this lens in nice and sharp.

Then I saw some shots of the 85 f1.2.....WOW!!! Looked at the price..YIKES!!! too expensive. Decided on a compromise and bought the 85 f1.8. Again, primes are unbeatable. For the money, it is sharp sharp sharp!!! Most def. sharper than an L zoom.

Then I started to itch again. I realized that I want a quality wide angle. I was so happy with the 70-200 f4 L that I went ahead and bought the 17-40 f4 L. It never ceased to disappoint. This lens is nicely built and takes excellent pics. Sharp from right to left.

So now I always have my 17-40, 70-200 and a prime (either 50 or 85) on my bag. My Tamron is in a shelf collecting dust.

Ro1

Canuck

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 11:19

Well my whole EOS odyssey start in June 2000.
Bought Elan IIe
bought Canon 28-105 (dropped it first month, bought another one :evil: )
bought cheap Canon 70-300
bought Canon 20-35
sold cheap 70-300
bought 70-200 f/4L
bought 300 f/4L (used)
sold 28-105
bought 28-70 f2.8L (used)
bought EOS 3 (used)
sold 70-200 f/4L
bought 70-200 f/2.8 L IS
bought 1.4XII and 2XII
sold EOS 3
sold Elan IIe
sold 20-35
sold 28-70 f/2.8L
bought EOS 10D
bought 24-70 f/2.8L
bought 100-400L IS

I think I'm done for awhile. :D

Just out of interest, on the Canon L lenses, other than the 4mm you gain on the 24-70 vs 28-70mm, did you notice any diference between them? I have only shot with the 24-70. I really like it!

adamsti

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 11:54

Canuck, no I have not really noticed any difference, but I'm shooting race cars and airplanes most of the time. It is not like I'm trying to see the fine feather detail of a bird.

I also have not had a chance to use it too much yet. I have only had it since April. Been using both zooms mainly.

mourningshadow

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 12:47

My Tamron is in a shelf collecting dust.

Ro1

Well sell it to me, cause that's the next lens I'm lookin at

who10

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 14:59

January 2003 Bought a D60:
24-85f3.5 EF USM(great starter, but found it a bit disappointing wide open)

Rented 70-200Lf2.8 IS ( Fell in love with it, but…)
70-200Lf4 (alas settled for it’s cousin…comfortable, absolutely tack sharp – no regrets)
1.4x converter for the 70-200mm

Sold all my NikonF stuff… went 100% Canon digital :D

Summer 2003 Bought a 10D to replace D60 (wanted extra low light capability):
24-70Lf2.8 (upgrade standard walk-about lens from 24-85 USM)

January 2004
16-35Lf2.8 (revised standard walk-about lens, perfect normal zoom for all seasons)
24-70Lf2.8 (on camera 25% of the time, alternate walk-about)

March 2004

70-200Lf2.8 IS (Finally :D :D … what an amazing lens!)

Next Year (70-300mm DO to replace 70-200f4 – seeking more candid opportunities, hard to be subtle with a 70-200f2.8+1.4xII+Hood – must be that red ring…surely a green ring will be more stealthy 8) )

In hind-sight the 24-85 USM was my only regret (too many good pics that might have been great ones.. :x )

Notes: If I didn’t need f2.8 would have purchased 17-40L

David

CyberDyneSystems

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 15:12

My first good lens was permanantly miunted to an Olympus 2100UZ... with an "equivelent" zoom range of 38-380mm with built in image stabilization! 8)

All that did was leave me wanting more as I realized that wildlife.. particularly birds, was my "thing"

I watched for a few years dreaming of D30s, and D60s... untill finally the 10D came along! (thank god it did when it did.. I was very close to a D100 :shock: :? )

Yes.. I definately ran the full gamut

Winter 2003, 1st lens, Quantaray 28-200mm (rebranded Sigma)
I was in fact quite happy with this lens at first.. but I knew I needed more distance. Quality had not entered into it yet.. as this was still btter than the Olympus or anything else I had use.. (that would be the 10D... not the lens)

2nd lens Sigma 50-500mm
Obviously still looking for more "zoom" but by now I allready knew it was the long end that mattered. The "Bigma" was my choice.. and still is for the best compromise of price Vs. performance in ANY 500mm lens. I loved this lens and still thinks it's awesome.. but eventually we would part..

3rd lens Sigma 28-300mm
Simply put,. I was able to trade my 28-200mm for the 28-300mm for LESS.. long story not worth telling. Bottom line.. the 28-300mm was never as accurate at focus as the 28-200mm. :( The additional range was an additional compromise across the entire range... not a good choice. Took me a while to realize this though.

Spring 2003 4th lens Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX
In addition to my wildlife pics. I work in a theatre which offers oportunity to take some great performance pics. I knew from the 28-200mm that 200mm was the absolute longest I would need to get great close up shots of performaers on stage from the palces that a backstage techy would be able to take such photos (ie: NOT in the audience)

So the obvious choice was a fast 200mm zoom. The Sigma was the obvious price performer. Again,. I love this lens. It is quick, sharp and light compared to others. The black finish does not attract attention.
I would DEFINATELY still own this lens of it weren't for a vertain mistake made by a certain PC builder in the months that followed

Spring 2003 5th lens EF 50mm f/1.8
Simply put.. this lens was IMPOSSIBLE to get last winter early Spring.. I waited a few months before it ever was stocked again by B&H... I'm pretty sure this forum had a lot to do with that lenses Demand!

June 2003 1st L EF 17-40mm f/4L
I did my research.. held a few of the other manufacturers and this was the first lens where the equivelent L was within a reasonable proximity pricewise to the more affordable Sigma Alternative. I lookes at th 17-35mm Sigma and was not at all happy,. the 15-30mm was a close call but the ergonomics really bothered me. The L was only $200.00 more than the 15-30mm... I was ready.
Also.. I don't shoot wide a lot.. so I decided I only wanted to buy this range ONCE.
It was a choice I will most certainly live with happily :)

September 2003, 7th lens, 1st BIG PRIME! Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX HSM
This was the lens that I had done the most worrying over. In spite of loving the 50-500mm for what it was I knew in my heart and soul that birding is the realm of the big primes. I had seen the cost of new and used Canon's and knew it would never be. The Used Siga however.. when available was a real bargain. For well under half the cost of the Canon I finally found a used one in perfect condition.

To this day.. this lens is by far the best I own... performing in EVERY way better than three L lenses I have.

December 30th 2003, 8th lens, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
I NEVER would have considered actually owning this super pricey lens... unless a bargain came along. Well .. thanks to Dell... :roll: at about $600.00 off of the going price... i was not going to argue.
Needless to say,. this is an amazing lens.. it took me while to warm up to it though. I had grown attached to the Sigma version.. and I knew full well that once things blew over I could seel the Canon at a large profit.. but in the end I kept the Canon. I still miss the Sigma.. bit the Canon has IS better AF and crisper images at f/2.8 which is how I use it most.

May 2004, 9th lens EF100-400mm L IS
Havig sold the 50-500mm a few short months after getting "The Big Prime".. I fianlly decided I missed having a long range zoom. This is a wonder lens.. both long range, amazing image quality, and after the "Bigma" the "Prime" and the f/2.8 IS... the lens is amazingly light!

...... this is the end of the trip thus far..... more to come.

Chako

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 16:01

Hmmm.....

Ok, here goes.

Started in the late 70s when I would borrow my fathers Kodak Retina. I learned off of that camera for many years.

1983, Got an Olympus 35 SP rangefinder.

1986, bought an Olympus OM10 with 50mm Zuiko f1.8. Later that year, got a Optex Macro 28mm f2.8 for wider angled shots.

1987, got a zoom lens for the Olympus. a 70-210mm f4 push pull Carsen.

1988, took a High School photography course. Found out that my Olympus OM10 couldn't be used because it lacked manual shutter speeds. Had to buy shutter speed adaptor for it. Once in course, saw another student show off flashy new Minolta 7000 with auto focus. All students drooled over this technological wonder. I started to save up my pennies. It took me several months, but I was able to buy a Pentax SF10 with a Magnicon 28-70mm f2.8-4.5, and a Magnicon 70-210mm f4.5 zoom. This was soon followed with a dedicated Black's flash.

1990, built darkroom in basement. Did that for about 10 years until developing mild allergic reaction to developers. During this time, bought a used Ricoh XR-20P that used the Pentax K Mount. This camera came with a rikenon 50mm f2 lens. I use this camera mainly with a T mount for use on a Discoverer 15-60 telescope. During this time frame, also got a used Pentax P3 with 50mm Pentax lens as a second body to the SF10.

1999, bought an Olympus D360 1 megapixel camera.

2000, bought a Nikon 990 because all of the reviews raved about it. Darn good camera, and has never let me down.

2004, bought a Canon Digital Rebel after finding out it was $400 cheaper then my Nikon 990! I got the kit lens with it. Then bought a Canon 100-300mm USM lens, Samyang elcheapo f8 500mm mirror lens along with other goodies that don't quite fit into the lens history.

Sorry if I also made this a "body" history as well.

johneo

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 16:53

A New Years Eve resolution for 2003 was that I enjoyed my new found hobby so much that for '03 I was going to start taking it more seriously. As much as I enjoy my Sony Mavicas, it was time to step up.

July '03 I took the plunge and was ready to order the 10D. I would have had it sooner but "which lens?"

Seeing I'm out around the water much of the time a zoom was a must ... bought the 75-300 IS. Now, which for my 2nd lens? Reading a few reviews one said the 28-135 IS was a must if you only have a lens or two ... Bought the 28-135 IS

It took me all of two weeks to realize that 28mm (with the 1.6 factor) just didn't cut it and by the end of August had the 17-40 L. That hooked me on "L".

November decided to get the 50mm f/1.8 because everyone raved about it and it was inexpensive. Very pleased with it, though I seldom use it. Still nice to have.

Decided to step up again and this spring I bought the 100-400 IS L (sold the 75-300 IS) which I have noticed stays on my 10D most of the time.

Bought the Elan 7ne a few months back and it's great being able to use the 17-40 L as a wide angle as it is supposed to be. The 17-40 spends most of its time on the 7ne and the 100-400 on the 10D and 28-135 swaps back and forth, as needed.

As much as I'd like MORE "L" glass, I've decided it's time to stop and do what I was going to do before the 10D, 17-40L, 100-400L and all these accessories that go with those ... that's to build that new computer that was supposed to go BEFORE any new camera. This old 300mhz w/ 20gb HD, 192 of RAM, almost 7 year old computer just can't handle the 10D anymore :roll:

Just started ordering all the computer parts today ... WHOOPIE! :lol:

DocFrankenstein

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 20:30

I should've noted this earlier, but didn't formulate it in my head until now.

I'd like to point out that the more "personal" replies are much more helpful. It's one thing to just list the order you bought the lens in. And quite another list your expectations and goals, and then point out why you weren't satisfied.

The latter would make a much more meaningful reply

The universal moral I see in every reply is not to mind the intermediate options, and go for the best L to suit your needs from the start. You're gonna "save" your money that way :shock: :lol: :(

You guys are very very BAAAAD influence. :lol: :lol: :wink: :P

Chako

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 20:49

Not exactly.

It all depends on what you want to do with photography. Frankly, if you are a professional, then yes, buy the most expensive lens etc., because it is part of business, and over time, will pay off nicely. Might even be a tax write off so to speak.

If your an amateur (anyone who does not sell photos, etc), and have lots of money and want the best...not need the best..there is a difference, then by all means, buy the best.

If your an amateur on a tight budget...you have to ask yourself, is spending on super expensive lenses worth it..just to keep up with the Jones. Besides, you can sharpen to your hearts content in Photoshop, and if you do your workflow well enough, it would be hard to tell the difference between photos taken from L and photos taken from consumer lenses.

I have lurked on many photography forums in recent years, and I have to shake my head at the mania that seems to gravitate to these forums. You have people in here who are professionals, persuading non professionals to spend thousands of dollars on expensive glass.

Likewise, I hear people wanting to look "pro", like its some cachet. They will even go so far as to whish for black cameras if they can only afford silver ones, or cry at how much better a much more expensive camera feels. Bha!

Pardon me, but it’s not the equipment that makes the photographer, it’s the photographer that makes the photographer. I have seen some people with real talent; take awesome photos with the cheapest lens and camera sans the bells and whistles. In fact, people probably took better photos when all there existed was manual mode! I do believe people have lost sight of this. Interesting to see, I am not the only one who feels like this.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/digital-class.shtml

Readies his flak helmet.

roanjohn

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 21:13

My Tamron is in a shelf collecting dust.

Ro1

Well sell it to me, cause that's the next lens I'm lookin at

PM me if you're interested ;-)

Ro1

DocFrankenstein

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 21:25

But it doesn't seem like the EF lenses are gonna just die off anytime soon...

From my experience with S1, I don't need anything bigger than 200 mm. What bothers me is that I shoot quite a lot of low light images and could really use that extra stop. So once I shell out for 70-200 I would have it with the rebel for the next 3-4 years and then buy off a 1Ds body for 20-30 bucks ;) and still have it functioning nicely.

I don't know anymore...

CyberDyneSystems

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 21:26

I see Chako hasn't gotten an L lens yet... :lol: :lol: :lol:

KIDDING! 8) :D :lol:

Aylwin

7th of July 2004 (Wed), 22:21

I'd like to point out that the more "personal" replies are much more helpful.

I agree. This is turning into a very interesting thread. And the more personal ones are informative and fun to read. Still, it's also useful to go through lists, to see the progression of lens changes. More posts please!
:)

Likewise, I hear people wanting to look "pro", like its some cachet.

That would probably be me. :oops: Actually, I don't really care how I look. I'd rather be able to take photos like a pro than look like one. Unfortunately though it's neither. What can I say? I'm as amateur as they come! :D

topeju

8th of July 2004 (Thu), 00:23

For me, it all began back in 1993 when I got my EOS 5 and the kit 28-80 as a graduation gift. A month later I bought the 100-300 f/5.6 non-L, which was all the long lens I could afford at the time. The push-pull mechanism was awkward even then, although back then I didn't really notice the otherwise rather poor quality of the lens - nor would I have been able to afford a better one.

A couple of years later I got my monopod, which I'm rather fond of even if I don't use it nearly often enough. A little while later, a 2x extender (cheapo brand, but I got it as a gift so can't complain), which I've never really used. My next photographic acquisition was the 380EX flash I bought in 1998 to help shoot a friend's wedding.

After that I gradually shot less and less and didn't buy any equipment for almost five years, until in late 2002 I decided to go digital and first bought a Canon S45. By this time, I'd gotten so used to SLRs that using the point-and-shoot was a pain - it'd never focus where I wanted, it was way too awkward to do exposure compensation, etc.

In a sense I'm glad I didn't buy the G3 I had also considered, because then I might not have gotten the 10D almost as soon as I heard about it. I bought the 10D in April last year (and got some flak for it at home, because while I'd discussed that I might want to buy one, the actual purchase was rather sudden from the wife's perspective), along with the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX. I've not gotten the latter to properly work with the 10D yet, but it works ok with the EOS 5, and I've noticed I don't really need the focal length range of the lens so I haven't bothered sending the lens over to Sigma to fix.

Acquisition of the 10D was really a turning point for me in regards to photography. I started shooting more and more, and soon I got the 28-135 IS which has seen a lot of use lately. Last fall I got the 50/1.8 mainly for low light photography and to get a really short DOF, and I really like the sharpness of the lens.

Finally, on Monday I got my 17-40L which has seriously caused me to want to buy more L glass. I don't think I'll be able to, however, because we have a house to buy which will completely deplete our funds for a while. :-( I still have all of the lenses I've mentioned, so I could possibly be able to fund some more lens purchases by selling the lenses I don't use (although the 28-80, the 100-300, and the 2x extender will probably not fetch much more money than shipping the lenses will cost :P ). And I could sell the bags I don't use too. :-)

Chako

8th of July 2004 (Thu), 07:11

You are right cyberdyneSystems, I don't own them, although I have tried them out at a camera stores a few times.

But I don't need the best to enjoy my craft.

Besides, it is an "investment" providing it pays off for you. If you make a living, then its a business aquisition. I have to shake my head at the amateurs who are so easily pursuaded to spend $$$ on heavy glass just to take photos of their kids.

But what the hey, if it make em happy, who am I to say nay!
:D

johneo

8th of July 2004 (Thu), 10:13

Pardon me, but it’s not the equipment that makes the photographer, it’s the photographer that makes the photographer

I'd like to make a comment or two about this, if I may.

I agree that there are many people that overbuy and do so to look like a pro (I remember a guy on another forum bragging about the $20,000 he spent for his Nikon digital gear and it was his 1st camera! :shock: His 1st photos were sooooo bad most people didn't comment because they didn't want to hurt the guys feelings)

There are also those that want to be pro and go with better equipment hoping that step will lead them in that direction. Some will, some won't!

In my case, I like digital because I can practice on a given subject and no matter how much I shoot, it costs nothing. It was always the problem I had with film and spending (wasting) the money on film, developing and printing. I'm kicking myself now but I doubt I would have done anything way back when anyway.

My 1st digital was a Sony Mavica FD-91 with that 16X zoom and had a lot of controls to help you out. It was only a .9 mp camera but you could get decent 4x6 prints even with the large compression Sony used for jpeg (8-12 shots on a floppy) You could get a decent shot with it but it was very limited what you could do with the results. An 8x10 hanging on the wall is fine until you get near it.

http://members.cox.net/johnori/fd91/

After upgrading a couple times I have the Sony Mavica FD-97. It's a 2.1mp and can use floppies or Memory Stick (MS with a lot less compression). I have a number of great shots from this camera, shots that I'm very happy with. 8x10's are very good (with some exceptions)

http://members.cox.net/johneo/page1a.html

So my point is that there is a limit, usually set by our camera equopment and how much we spend on it, that makes the photographer. I could have gone for that $99 digital (offered on AOL) that convinced me to try a digital camera back in '99 and I could have had just as much fun but I wanted to try more than a basic P&S. Same as I do now with buying the better Canon gear.

I call my digital photography my "new found hobby" because it is something that I really enjoy. At times I even feel like I'm getting somewhere with it and have even been encouraged to "do something" with it. (I plan on applying to a number of art festivals next year ... that doesn't seem to strenuous :roll: and I'll still be able to make a living at my 'real' job)

To get the results I now desire, I have to spend the extra on equipment, including "L" lenses. As far as I'm concerned, I've hit the ceiling as far as equipment goes for the most part and until (and IF) I make any money with my photography, with few exceptions, I'm done buying and upgrading.

So yes, it is the photographer that makes the photographer but the quality of the photographers equipment does have a good deal to do with the quality of the work produced or the limit to which you can take that work.

Some people enjoy mixing paints and putting them on canvas. some enjoy working on cars. Still others enjoy training dogs (my wife :roll: ) as a fulfilling hobby. To me, photography is fun, relaxing and getting the best results I can makes it a passion.

DocFrankenstein

8th of July 2004 (Thu), 11:16

But I don't need the best to enjoy my craft.
You may not have the absolute best, but you'd probably want some decent equipment.

It's harder to get decent image quality in low light if all you have is f/5.6 lens instead of 1.4, don't you agree?

OviV

8th of July 2004 (Thu), 11:41

Well I feel that you have to make due with what you can afford. I also think that buying cheaper lens is not necessarily a waste of money. I have noticed that you can get a decent price for the cheaper lens as you upgrade since there are always people looking to buy. I have been taking pictures since I was a kid. Most of my film equipment was Pentax. My wife is also a photo buff and she had a film rebel so when the Digital Rebel came out we decided to buy one since we could use her film rebel lenses.

October 2003: Bought DRebel and began using it with Canon 35-80 and Sigma 100-300. Soon learned that 35-80 was not wide enough.
October 2003: Sold Sigma 100-300 and Bought Canon 75-300
December 2003: Got 50 1.8 as xmas present
January 2004: Bought 18-55 kit lens on ebay for too much money.
April 2004: Bought Canon 100-300 USM from a member here.
June 2004: Sold Canon 75-300
July 2004: Bought Sigma 170-500 from member here to use as an interim long lens until I can afford 100-400 L
July 2004: Bought 28-135 IS from member here to have a useful walk around lens since the kit lens tends to be to short for my needs.

So, I currently own: 18-55, 50 1.8, 35-80 (Mostly stays on film body), 100-300 (light zoom), 28-135 (waiting for arrival), 170-500 (waiting for arrival)

I would like to own all L glass since I have used it and know how great it is, but my other hobby (boating and fishing) eats into the budget too.

Ovi

G2Jim

9th of July 2004 (Fri), 16:31

Well, thanks to the info provided by many on this site more experienced than I, I've decided to bypass lenses that I know I'll eventually be unsatisfied with, and ordered the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lenses (along with a few BW filters) from B&H.

I started with the G2, graduated to the 300D last Christmas, and have been saving up until now for lenses to accompany the kit lens. I'm sure I'll be happy with these lenses, and eventually be wanting additional ones.

Thanks to you all for valuable information!

DocFrankenstein

9th of July 2004 (Fri), 16:43

I've decided to bypass lenses that I know I'll eventually be unsatisfied with, and ordered the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
Yeah. I'm gonna do the same thing also.

drisley

9th of July 2004 (Fri), 18:39

I put my 70-200 F4L and 85 F1.8 into my closet for a while.
Apparently they were too close together, because when I checked on them a couple weeks later, those lenses were gone, and in their place was a 135 F2.0L ! :shock:
Talk about evolution!

Rebel

9th of August 2004 (Mon), 21:16

I started out with a 2.0mp Sony Cybershot - thought that was the bomb! Obviously I had never held a decent camera before. Moved up to the 3.3mp Cybershot - thought that had incredible sharpness for what it was, as long as the subject remained perfectly still. Tremendous shutter lag.

Got the Sony 707 and used that for over a year. It was my favorite camera by far! 5mp and a zeiss lens. Life was good back then.

Then I got a 300D...

All of a sudden, I needed to carry a bag. Not just that, I also saw the difference between various lenses. I had been bitten by the shutterbug.

I was disappointed with the results in the beginning. My photos were not as vibrant and sharp as what I was getting out of the Sony. This was my first SLR. I realized that the expensive point and shoots were very forgiving and worked outstandingly in low light. The SLR had a much steeper learning curve and put more of the control back in your hands.
I was very depressed because I had really, really wanted to step into SLR territory, yet during my first shoots, my images had deteriorated.

I started reading up on stuff. In the beginning it was all about focal length. I swapped a Fuji Finepix S602 with a shattered LCD display (God awful camera) for a 75-300 4-5.6 III USM lens.

Then I got a Tamron 28-200 3.8-5-6 lens. I thought that was all I would ever need because I had the entire range from 18- 300mm covered. Then I learned about aperture. Damn. Another thing nobody warned me about.

I actually thought a friend of mine got ripped off because he paid more for a 70-200 Canon lens than I did for my 75-300! I was like, “I got an extra 100mm for a fraction of what he paid. And he calls himself a pro. Huh!” (His was a 2.8L)

I only started realizing the value of fast lenses when another friend convinced me to pick up the 50mm 1.8 lens. It took a lot of convincing because I kept insisting that I already had the kit lens which covered the 50mm range. Am I glad I listened.

Ever since then, I have wasted far too many hours in front of my PC scouring through forums and websites reading up on L lenses and stuff. Now a guy has lent me his 100-400L IS lens in the hope that I buy it from him.

It got me thinking, "College is over rated. I think I'd be doing my children a favor by using their college fund on this beauty. At least we would have nice pictures."

Last Question: Everyone here raves about the 17-40L lens. It is an f/4, right? That is not exactly fast. What makes it so great?

DocFrankenstein

9th of August 2004 (Mon), 21:36

FrenchAmateur

10th of August 2004 (Tue), 05:15

Last Question: Everyone here raves about the 17-40L lens. It is an f/4, right? That is not exactly fast. What makes it so great?
:D

It's very fast for a wide angle zoom. The wider the lens, the harder it is to make them as fast as 50 mm ones.

And the quality is very good even wide open, and constant at all apertures and from 17 to 40, that is why it is so appreciated. And it is also a "cheap" L serie, compared to other comparable lens in the Canon catalog...

FrenchAmateur

10th of August 2004 (Tue), 05:52

My story... :

I started in the 80s when I was a student...

I knew all the Nikon catalog, dreaming in front of what was then considered as the best brand for SLRs.

I bought a used FM2, and a used 2,8 55 mm micro Nikkor, for the optical quality, and then a FE2 and... a 2,8 180 mm Nikkor IF ED.
It was two of the best Canon lenses.
I started to discover that only wildlife picture where interesting to me... I was nul for general photography (and I am still nul...).
I bought a second hand 801, and a F4, and then the very good 75-300 Nikkor AF.
300 mm was something for animals, but not enough. Nevertheless, I bought a second hand 2,8 300 mm Nikkor, sold for the excellent 3,5 400 mm Nikkor. It was starting to be interesting for general wildlife photography.
In the same time, I sold the 75-300 and bought the 2,8 80-200 mm.
I am not that good in wildlife photography, but I love it as a hobby...
But I was not satisfied with the result, I needed a big tele lens with a fast autofocus.
At this period, Canon was clearly ahead of Nikon, my 400 was not autofocus, but the speed and the noise of my AF 2,8 80-200 was desastrous.
I do not mention various lenses like the basic 1,8 50, a 2 of 35 mm, a 3,5 of 28 mm and others minors ones.
Thats here that the Eos story begins, in 1989 I think...

I sold my F4, my 3,5 400, my 80-200, and a couple of other things... I kept the other camera bodies, and my 55 and 180 for sentimental reasons...

I bought then an Eos RT, the fixed mirror version of the Eos 600 (or 620), which was sold here in France at very low price, with its fantastic stability and 5fps motodrive for a very light body.
It was sold for something like 300 euros or 400 euros new with a very good 28-70 (they were supposed to be at the end of their commercial life...).
And I bought together a second hand 2,8 400 mm ED autofocus, and the 1,4 converter.
It was a fantastic lens, but I was not so satisified with it, 400 mm was a little bit too short, and the lens was so heavy !
After a few weeks, I came back to my shop and changes it for a brand new 4,5 500 mm ED.
This has been the ideal lens for me, not too heavy, still maniable, excellent optical quality, a delight to use with the RT.
After, I bought a second hand RT again (a great camera, I see that it is still sold in some US shops... I recommand it for non digital photography, it makes low speeds picture possible handheld like a Leica M, if you can try it...).
After that, the story is more simple :
- Eos 1 second hand
- Eos 5 second hand
- both sold for an Eos 1n second hand
- A new Eos 3
- A second hand f:4 300 mm to complement the 500 mm, sold later for a second hand (in perfect condition) IS version.
- A second hand 2,8 80-200 mm, in addition, sold later for a second hand 2,8 70-200 (non IS) in perfect condition
- it was too much to travel with, so I bought the 100-400 and sold the 300 IS f:4 and the 70-200, 2,8...
- in addition, more recently the 28-105 second hand, sold for the 28-135 second hand for the IS...
- it was not wide enough in digital, so then the 17-40 mm
- in parallel, the 105 micro Sigma, that did not work with my Eos 10D so I sold it... and just recently bought the 100 mm macro Canon (I did not know that it was possible to ask an update from Sigma to solve this problem of compatibilty).
Last year I sold Eos 1 N and Eos 3 for two Eos 10D, recently sold for the Eos 1D Mark II (I had autofocus problems with both Eos10 D).
I kept my two RTs...
Recently, I had the opportunity to buy a 200 mm Canon, 2,8 II as new, second hand... and I did not resist... You always need a small tele at 2,8 as you all know... and it is light and excellent (the 70-200 2,8 is so heavy...).
When came the stabilised 500 mm f:4, I started dreaming about it. And I realized it was too much for an amateur, too expensive, and, with the experience, too heavy... 700 g more than the 4,5, even if the quality is slightly better. And I use it mainly when traveling abroad (and taking a plane with all the equipement is a problem now...).
The teleconverter 1,4 (rarely used) and 2 (never used) were bought used.
I have the 540 EZ flash, sold for the 550 EX, MR 14 EX and a second hand 420 EX, + ST2 (that's too much I do not really use them properly...).
I certainly forget some lenses here and there... but not "big ones".
That's it...

So in practice, I travel as often as possible and make wildlife photography.
My pictures are made one half with the 100-400 (even better now that we have a factor of 1,6 or 1,3 with the digital format), one half with the 500 mm. I am also making some macro with the 100 mm, but not that much.
During my last trips (Africa and Central America), because of the weight, I have renounced in fact to make other things that wildlife with tele lenses, so I just did not take the wide angles... My wife uses her Ixus 400...
Once, I even renounced to carry my 500 mm, but I regretted it.
For the same reasons of weight, I rarely use tripod (unfortunately) but rather a carbon fiber monopod.

Here it is, you know everything.
I do not want anything else, except may be a DO version of the 500 mm at f:4 of 2,5 kg only, with the same quality than mine, that would partly solve the problem of carrying everything...
I just need a second digital camera as back up, and am waiting for a possible Eos 3D...

As I always say, the equipment is far better than the one using it... But I like it...

Jmurman

10th of August 2004 (Tue), 12:09

Wow...thats quite the story! Lots buying and selling! Cool.

wintoid

10th of August 2004 (Tue), 12:37

My story is quite simple and short. Having started out with an Olympus Trip 35 as a child and then inheriting my dad's Canon FTb, I got a Canon G1 a few years ago, and absolutely loved it.

In September 2003, my first and only child was born, and the one thing I forgot to take with me to the birth was my camera. About 2 days after she was born, I was finally in a position to take some shots with my G1, but as they were largely indoors, I became very dissatisfied. I bought a flashgun, and found that the G1 completely overexposed my images. So, about a week or two into my daughter's life I stumped up for a 300d with kit lens. Very nice indeed, and the flash worked much better too.

Since that time, I've taken thousands of portraits (well perhaps more like snapshops if I'm honest :D ) of my daughter, and gradually became dissatisfied with the kit lens. I bought a 50mm 1.4 prime, and suddenly I was getting the pictures I wanted to take. This combo is the most amazing thing I've ever taken pictures with.

As my daughter's speed increased, I started to think a zoom would be useful, so I bought a Canon 24-85 USM. The lens is fine, and much better than the kit lens, but the sad truth is that I can rarely bear to take the 50mm 1.4 off the camera.

I like to travel light, which has been the deciding factor behind both of my lens choices. Whilst I'm really pleased with both lenses, I am starting to think I should just sell the kit lens and the 24-85 and survive with just the 50mm 1.4. It's all I use, and I absolutely love it.

That's not to say I'm not tempted by the 17-40 L :D

Boudreaux

10th of August 2004 (Tue), 13:48

Here's my story...

1999 - Sony Mavica FD-88 (1.3 megapixel, floppy drive medium), sold to upgrade
2001 - Nikon Coolpix 990 (3.34 megapixel, CF), sold to upgrade
2002 - Nikon Coolpix 5700 - (5 megapixel, CF), still have

---------------------- Enter the SLR -------------------------------------
Nov. 2003 - D Rebel Kit
Feb. 2004 - 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
50mm f/1.8 II
Mar. 2004 - 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Jun. 2004 - 85mm f/1.8 USM
Jul. 2004 - 17-40mm f/4L USM
Canon EF 1.4x II Extender
Aug. 2004 ??

So as my experience has improved so has my spending. Or maybe it's as belmondo said in another post.

... and so it has been with my camera/lens purchases. Just as I always believed an expensive pen would improve my handwriting, so too have I succumbed to the temptation to buy more expensive photo gear in hopes that it will improve my photography skills.

I hope/think that my skills have improved but I still keep chasing the elusive better equipment. Based on my pattern, I should be upgrading in the next
6-9 months. Canon, it's your move. :)

JoeTampa

10th of August 2004 (Tue), 18:01

Here's my story...

Started with the 28-200 3.5-5.6. Still my workhorse, all around, anywhere lens.

Bought a Tamaron 19-35. Not horrible, not great.

Picked up a Quantaray 50mm macro. Don't ask.

Got the Nifty Fifty (50mm 1.8). Why not?

Got the 100-400L IS -- uh oh, here it goes....

Got the 100mm macro and tossed the Quantaray

Got the 16-35L and tossed the Tamaron.

ALMOST got the 28-300L IS, but couldn't ultimately spend $2500 on it.

And that's where I am today....

16-35L - 28-200 - 100-400L for focal length

50mm 1.8 for very low light or high DOF stuff

100mm macro for, well, macro work. :)

- Joe

Tom W

10th of August 2004 (Tue), 18:06

Well, no exact dates, but it all happened so fast.....

Bought Elan II
Bought 28-105 f/3.5-4.5
Bought 50 f/1.8 Mk I Used
Bought 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 used
Bought 10D
Bought 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma Used
Sold 70-210 f/3.5-4.5
Bought 50 f/1.4
Sold 50/1.8 Mk I
Bought 17-40 f/4.0
Bought 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 Used
Sold 24-85 f/3.5-4.5
Bought 24-70 f/2.8
Bought 1.4X Sigma TC Used
Bought 85 f/1.8
Bought 100-400 f/4.5-5.6
Bought 20 f/1.8 Sigma Used
Bought 135 f/2

BearSummer

11th of August 2004 (Wed), 03:37

Hi Folks,

One of the isses raied by this thread is "will buying L glass make me a better photographer?". The answer depends on why your bought it. If you bought it because the money was burning a hole in your pocket, you wanted to look more like a pro or you wanted to have the best kit to show of with when out photographing your kids playing football/socker/hockey then its probably not going to make you a better photographer. However if you buy it because "You want to be limited by your ability not your equipment" then you have something to live up to. Will you be able to take better pictures than the guy next to you with his P&S, well if you aren't standing correctly set the wrong shutter speed or a host of other mistakes then no you probably wont see a huge difference. Will you see a difference between the 28-105 3.5-4.5 and the 24-70 2.8 L, with poor technique you probably wont. The 28-105 is a very good lens, one of the best consumer lenses, poor technique will hide the benefits of the L. So when you are thinking of upgrading from something old to something new, think about what benefit you would get from your new toy/workhorse. Will your technique/style of photography/working habits mask the gains that the new lens brings? If so then you either need to become a better photographer to make use of those gains or save yourself some money and spend it on the husband/wife/kids/yourself knowing that you wouldn't see any difference between the old and paid for and the new and expensive. When asked "why did you buy that" my answer has often been " I only want to be limited by my ability not my equipment", but it does mean that I have to become a better photographer just to live up the the quality of the equipment. When I pull an L from my bag it reminds me that I will only see the benefit if I use it right, should I have set mirror lockup, did I bring the tripod from the car, should I be calming my breathing etc etc. For each photograph there is a "best way" to take it and then there is everything else, when using an L you are 50% of the way there, you have the best equipment, the rest is up to you.

Best regards

BearSummer

Longwatcher

11th of August 2004 (Wed), 16:13

Felt like adding my version,
- (Mar 00) Bought Kodak DC4800 and (Jun 00) lens kit
add on lenses did not have range, but did do cool wide angle stuff
- Looked for solution to telephoto problem
- Found Canon D60
- (Jul 02) Bought it with Canon 75-300 IS and Tamron 28-85mm
At first like Tamron at beach and then I tried it indoors...
- (Aug 02)Bought Canon 28-135 IS
Couldn't do wide angle shots like I could on Kodak.
- (Nov 02)Bought 16-35L (as 17-40 not available yet)
Realised L glass much better, but still can't take wide angle shots like I can with my Kodak P&S.
- (Dec 02)Bought 2x extender
- (Nov 02)Bought 50/1.4L for the aperture (focused even faster)
Decided to go to "L"
- (Mar 03)Bought 10D
- (Mar 03)Bought 100-400L as it was on sale Liked it better then 75-300, but keep 75-300 for travel and backup lens
- (Jul 03)Bought 1.4x extender
- (Aug 03)Bought 28-70/2.8L (keep 28-135 as backup and travel lens)
- (Aug 03) Bought 70-200/2.8L IS
- Bought EF 25 II extension tube
- (Sep 03) Ran out of money.

Currently on list
tilt-shift
Fisheye
85/1.8 or 85/1.2
10D upgrade, 1Ds upgrade, or Kodak SLR/C Just waiting on Photokina or earlier announcement before spending money.

And that is how I have the lenses I do today.

Transfix

11th of August 2004 (Wed), 18:19

short and sweet.

given Canon Elan IIeQD w/ grip
given Tamron 28-200 4.5-5.6

bought Tamron 1.4TC

bought Canon 300 f/4 IS USM L
bought Canon 1.4TC Type2
bought Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM L
bought Canon 100 f/2.8 Macro USM L 1:1
bought Canon 24-70 f/2.8 USM L
bought Canon 550Ex Speedlite
bought Canon 1D Mark II

Lots of bags, parts, tripods, and monopods between all that.

Andy_T

13th of April 2005 (Wed), 05:55

Hehe, this thread requires a bump :D

So here it goes:

January 2005

- Canon 20D

- EF-S 18-55
... not stellar, but certainly good enough for wide angle at f/5.6

- Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI
... this is a great lens, it was my 'walk-around' 90% of the time before I bought the 50/1.8.
I normally use it at f/4.0 where it is tack sharp.

February 2005

- Adapter for M42 manual lenses
... the idea was to be able to use the incredibly cheap manual focus lenses that are on the market, especially on eBay.
Main reason is that price is an issue as I didn't succeed to explain to my wife why I consider camera gear as more important than paying the mortgage on the house and providing food for the kids :wink:

- Russian Jupiter 9 85/2.0 M42 lens for 30$
... mixed feelings, as it is very difficult to get correctly focused pictures with this lens on a 20D.
So although I like the lens a lot, I hardly use it. It sucks if you have to take 10 images to get a really sharp one.
Most likely it'll end up on eBay and I go for the Canon 85/1.8

- East German CZJ 135/3.5 M42 lens for 20$
This lens is incredible.
On one hand, it's the old non-multicoated version that looks&feels like a coke can. Even more, unfortunately it is broken (which the seller did not know) and can not be stopped down.
But... it takes tack sharp images wide open, so I decided to keep it, especially as the price I got it for on eBay was ridiculously low. My maximum offer was $75, and at that price I surely would have minded that the lens is not working correctly.

March 2005
- EF 50/1.8 MKI for 100$
... wonderful lens, used in mint condition from a reputable secondhand camera shop. This lens has been more and more on my camera instead of the Tamron 28-75/2.8 because of the fastness and bokeh (not great, but decent).
I normally use it at f/2.8 where it is tack sharp.
When my wife saw the invoice, she asked incredulously 'What? That lens cost 100$ :shock: ? (hadn't discussed lens prices so far)
I replied 'Well, that's because ... it's one of Canon's CHEAPEST lenses :lol:'
She got the picture, and I got a moratorium on further lens purchases. But it was worth the punch line :wink:

- Russian TAIR-3 300/4.5 M42 lens for 60$
... the famous 'Foto-sniper'. With the shoulder stock and the rather weird lens hood it resembles some crossover between a rocket launcher and a 1942 machine gun - not your first choice as portrait lens :lol:
It came with a crappy M42 full manual camera and 2.8/55 mm lens (unfortunately not the original camera and lens, but then it would have been more expensive). I have to get some kind of adapter so that I can mount the 20D on the shoulder stock, but maybe I just let that be and use the 300 mm lens.

More to come...hopefully :twisted:

Best regards,
Andy

PS: CDS, complete the story!

<edit: OK, had a bit more time to add some information on the lenses >

PatrickZ

13th of April 2005 (Wed), 07:15

from the start:

From my first paycheck 1997:
- Canon 50E / Canon 24 -85

For trip to Thailand 1999
- Canon 100 - 300mm

Enter the digital era 2001
- Canon IXUS v2

Birth of my son 2004
- Canon 20d

After discovering this forum 2005:
- sold the 24-85, 100-300 and the 50E
- got the 17-40L, 50f/1.8, 70-200 f/4

Ferdinand

13th of April 2005 (Wed), 10:58

I always do my research prior to buying lenses.
Only non L lenses I start with was the 18-55mm EF-S and the 50mm f/1.8 II which everyone say is a must get.

And from there, I have gone in the order of 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 16-35 f/2.8L and 180 f/3.5L macro

The only regret I have is getting the 50mm f/1.8 II with the lens hood. So always do your own research and learn what your own shooting style is and what lens best fits your needs, beware the Niffty Fifty song!!! hehe

<Removed all the other non relevant stuff since topic is about Lens :P and not who has the most gear>

MadTony

13th of April 2005 (Wed), 12:14

I started with a rebel and had

28-80 kit lens.
Added a 75-300 USM III after about 1 month
6 months later, got a 24-85, which I loved.

Kept the film setup the same for years.

Eventually transitioned to digital. With my 20D (body only) I bought a 17-40 f/4L and a 70-200 f/4L

I am hours away from buying a nifty 50 and a 1.4x teleconverter.

I hope to pick up a 15mm fisheye fairly soon (Sigma or canon)
on my drool list:
100-400 IS
24-70 f/2.8L
70-200 f/2.8L IS

After those, who knows? Probably a 1-series body. (This is a LONG way off)

intechpcx

13th of April 2005 (Wed), 12:59

I am wondering what your experience is regarding lenses. What did you start with? What did you sell? What did you regred bying?

I don't regret buying any lenses (at least yet). To me it is a process. You learn what features are important to you and what items you can live with to save a few bucks as you go along and purchase different glass. I personally started with the Digital Rebel (300D) 18-55 EF-S kit. Soon thereafter I had to take some pictures of my daughter's dance team at the half time of a local H.S. Basketball game. I went out and bought the best value Telephoto I could find (the Tamron 70-300 LD Macro 1:2). I looked at a number of lenses in that range but chose the Tamron for value and the psuedo Macro ability. Taking the pictures at that event, I quickly found that the limited Max Aperture of 5.6 would be an issue for me down the road.

I went with these lenses for a number of months but with my kids' little leagues starting now I wanted to get a better telephoto low-light performer (i.e. an f/2.8 lens). I decided on the Sigma APO 70-200mm after going through multiple reviews and finding that almost everyone agreed there was little difference between it and the 70-200L USM that I was also considering. Given the cost savings (especially on the used market) I went with the Sigma. I don't make money off my work, so for me it is always a consideration.

Last week, in addition to the Sigma, I also went out an bought the Nifty Fifty (Canon 50mm f/1.8 ). I bought it mostly because of the low-light ability and it also seemed like it would make a good portrait lens. This was the first lens I bought that I didn't have a specific need for. I bought it because it is pretty well talked about here and is so cheap that I figured why not get it and see what it can do. It finally gives me that "standard" lens that I've been missing with my digital setup over my previous 35mm SLR.

Along the way I've discovered the good and bad of each lens. While I don't use the Tamron for anything other than still photos now, I don't regret having bought it or any other. As I said, to me I look at it as a process. I'll slowly build my collection, upgrading with each purchase and finding those lenses that match the qualities that are most improtant to me. Part of it has been discovering just what it is that is important to me. I'm not a heavily experienced photographer so I'm still learning what I like and don't like. My lens purchases have been done in a manner that suppports that learning curve.