• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

My New Gear

J

jimnms

Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Messages
882
The 10D, 28-135 IS, 75-300 IS and 420EX I've had, but the 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L are new.

original.jpg


Camera:
Canon EOS 10D with 420EX Speedlite

Lenses from left to right:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS

Storage:
Sandisk Extreme 1GB
Trascent 512MB
Lexar 256MB
​
 
How much did the lenses cost you?? i'm looking at buying a Canon 20D sometime, and it would useful to know how expensive lenses are. Also, is one of those the one that comes with the kit for the 10D?
 
Dagatech said:
How much did the lenses cost you?? i'm looking at buying a Canon 20D sometime, and it would useful to know how expensive lenses are. Also, is one of those the one that comes with the kit for the 10D?
Click to expand...

The 10D doesn't come with a lens. The 20D can be bough in a kit with the 18-55 (same lens that comes with the Rebel), or with the new 17-85. The kit prices I've seen for the 17-85 are about $2000, but I don't think that kit is available yet. Both of those lenses are an EF-S mount and will only fit the 20D or 300 Rebel.

Here's what I paid for the lenses:

$410 - 28-135 IS
$415 - 75-300 IS
I bought those two new with the camera:

I bought the 17-40 f/4L for $625 and 70-200 f/4L for $525 from a guy at the FM forums. New the 17-40 f/4L will run about $700, and the 70-200 f/4L about $580.
 
Okay, so we have pictures of the lenses... When do we get pictures through them? :)

Seriously, though, if you have the time and motivation, I'd be curious to see some comparisons between the L series lenses and the lower-grade ones. It looks like both of the Ls you have overlap in focal length with both of the other lenses.
 
I took some comparison shots with all 4 lenses, I just have to sort them out. I'm probably going to sell the 75-300 IS. I sold two other lenses and a camera to buy the two new ones. I'm going to keep the 28-135, it's a good lens to take if I can only take one. If it turns out I'm not using it much anymore, I'll sell it too.
 
HorsePunchKid said:
Okay, so we have pictures of the lenses... When do we get pictures through them? :)
Click to expand...

Here's one pic using the 70-200 at an airshow yesterday. It really wasn't a good day for pictures because it was overcast and most of the pics came out dark because the clouds made the planes backlit. I was using partial metering, damn it Canon give us a spot meter. I didn't even think about dialing in a little bit of overexposure to compensate. I did get a few good shots though.

I bought the 1GB card the week before the airshow, and it was a good thing I did. I got down to where it was estimating 25 pictures left and switched to the 512MB. I filled the 512MB card up and put the 1GB for a few more pictures after the show.

The only thing I did to the pic was reduce it to 1152x768, other than that it's right out of the camera.
original.jpg
 
Looks quite nice, considering the lighting. I particularly like the hilights on the smoke trails. It looks a bit soft, for example, around the frames in the cockpit glass and the various labels on the fuselages, but I imagine that's something some more light and correspondingly shorter exposures could clear up.
 
you need to pick up a 50mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.4USM
 
I always shoot RAW so some post-processing is always required. Since your background was already a "wash", I adjusted the curves to lighten it up some (this looks a bit blown out though). I cropped to give the planes "somewhere to go" and despeckled to remove the high ISO noise. Finally, I applied an USM:

planes.jpg


Just playing around. It is a nice shot
 
MattsOnlyHope said:
Ack, everything is great but you got cheap on the flash. :D
Click to expand...

The 550EX doesn't have anything I need to justify spending almost 2x the cost.
 
PS-RagE said:
I always shoot RAW so some post-processing is always required. Since your background was already a "wash", I adjusted the curves to lighten it up some (this looks a bit blown out though). I cropped to give the planes "somewhere to go" and despeckled to remove the high ISO noise. Finally, I applied an USM:
Click to expand...

I considered shooting raw, but I'm glad I didn't. I barely had enough storage shooting JPEG, I never would have made it shooting raw.

I uploaded one that I did some adjustments too. I just brightened it up a little, adjusted the contrast and boosted the saturation a little. This looks more natural to me. I also applied an unsharp mask before shrinking it. When you shrink images they lose a little bit of the original sharpness and I find this helps keep the original sharpness when shrinking images.

original.jpg


I'm suprised nobody noticed that Canon is a sponsor of this aerobatic team.
 
Here's one from the 17-40 f/4L:
original.jpg


I think I like the 17-40 f/4L the best out of my two new lenses. This thing is wiiiiiiide. People would walk up and stop, thinking they were out of the view of my camera, but they were practically right in the middle of my shot. Since the 10D's viewfinder only shows about 95% of the frame, when I reviewed my pictures I had several shots with people standing in the corner that I couldn't see in the viewfinder. :(
 
I think a better way to put it is that it is your favorite, which is fine and all. But to say that it is better then the 70-200 is foolish ;)
 
[TQ] said:
I think a better way to put it is that it is your favorite, which is fine and all. But to say that it is better then the 70-200 is foolish ;)
Click to expand...

Read what I said again, I didn't say that the 17-40 was better.

"I think I like the 17-40 f/4L the best out of my two new lenses."
 
I love the sky in that pic. Pity about the stupid cones. The bright orange really takes away from the capture distracting the eye
 
[TQ] said:
I think a better way to put it is that it is your favorite, which is fine and all. But to say that it is better then the 70-200 is foolish ;)
Click to expand...

well the 70-200 f4L has a lot of issues with the 10D when it comes to focus'ing my 70-200 was terrible on my 10D, every shot was out of focus... now on the 1D every shot is in focus

the 17-40 is a great lens for the 1.6x crop of the 10D... on the 1D its a bit too wide for normal use...

still an awesome lens...
 
FLECOM said:
well the 70-200 f4L has a lot of issues with the 10D when it comes to focus'ing my 70-200 was terrible on my 10D, every shot was out of focus...
Click to expand...

I think it's the 10D. I think the 10D has trouble focusing on things near infinity. I still have the 75-300 IS and the 70-200 is better at focusing, but still misses at times. A friend of mine got a 20D, and it doesn't seem to suffer from this when he uses my 75-300 IS.
 
jimnms said:
I was using partial metering, damn it Canon give us a spot meter.
Click to expand...
Actually the camera does have a spot meter, its called center weighted metering, or u can use the meter button (the asterick symbol), and that uses spot metering. Canon just names it diffrent. :] (only thing is u can only use the center focus point for center weighted, its in the name :p)
 
Hooker said:
Actually the camera does have a spot meter, its called center weighted metering, or u can use the meter button (the asterick symbol), and that uses spot metering. Canon just names it diffrent. :] (only thing is u can only use the center focus point for center weighted, its in the name :p)
Click to expand...

Thats incorrect.

Center weighted metering is metering based off a percentage of the center of the frame (i dont recall which).

Spot metering is spot metering and it is found on their 1 series digital bodies, i'm not sure if it shows up on any of the other film bodies, i'd presume the 3 series has it as well.
 
[TQ] said:
Thats incorrect.

Center weighted metering is metering based off a percentage of the center of the frame (i dont recall which).

Spot metering is spot metering and it is found on their 1 series digital bodies, i'm not sure if it shows up on any of the other film bodies, i'd presume the 3 series has it as well.
Click to expand...


thats correct, on the 1 series spot metering is 3% of the frame i think (could be off but that sounds right), its linked to one af point on the 45 point grid, and can be linked to any of the 45 points

it is also on the eos-3 as it uses the same 45 point af
 
oic, but the meter button marked by the asterik, is spot metering i know, its just u have to press the button to get it :/
 
Hooker said:
oic, but the meter button marked by the asterik, is spot metering i know, its just u have to press the button to get it :/
Click to expand...
no, that button is not spot metering you can change what that button does in custom functions, i have mine set up to do AF on that button
 
Mr_Bucket said:
no, that button is not spot metering you can change what that button does in custom functions, i have mine set up to do AF on that button
Click to expand...
hmm i know u can change it, bleh whatever it works for me lol. oh well, learn someting every day.
 
By default I think the button just locks the exposure. It still uses whatever your current metering mode is set to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top