# First time SLR buyer - Canon + Lenses?



## K8-90 (Mar 18, 2008)

Hey

I am planning on taking my photography to a new level by investing in a digital SLR, but need some help making the right choices on gear!

I have been looking at the Canon Rebel XTi or now the XSi. They seem to offer a good foundation at a reasonable price. I considered the 40D, but I think that is more than I am looking for. I also need to consider cost.

However, the whole point of SLRs is interchangeable lenses, and I don't know where to start! I am budgeting $1000 towards 2 lenses and a tripod - is that reasonable? I would like an 'all-purpose' zoom with some kind of image stablization (preferably slightly wide angle) and a telephoto, reaching arround 200mm.

I tend to photograph nature and landscapes, as well as a considerable amount of animal/equine photography.

Any lens suggestions, or other comments? I'm new to this, so please take it easy on me 

Thanks!


----------



## 68Whiskey (Mar 18, 2008)

If you are big into landscapes I would invest in a fisheye or wide angle lens, I personally do not do much landscape so I would feel wrong suggesting for something I do not even do.

You can find a 30D with a Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM on B and H for $999.95, which is a good deal. The lens is nice and the body is a grate body. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/484818-REG/Canon_1234B105_EOS_30D_Digital_Camera.html

I would, and also recommend to everyone I know, that they invest in a 70-200mm 2.8L, with or without IS. I have one without IS because I am a cheapo. They run around $1,140.99 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/91680-USA/Canon_2569A004_70_200mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus.html

I got mine for $975 used on eBay, which was a AMAZING deal. You get a nice body and two very good lenses with that setup. Once again, I am not into landscapes and all, I am just giving you a idea of what you can get and such. I do more sports pictures.


----------



## K8-90 (Mar 19, 2008)

OK, thanks!

What do you use for the sport pictures? I do equine photography, sometimes within indoor arenas, which are often dark. How well would the 70-200mm 2.8L lens handle that? Seeing as it is an L lens and espensive, it would have to be able to handle that well before I could justify paying that!


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 19, 2008)

For a general 'walk around' lens that can also handle typical landscape type shots...I would recommend something that starts at around 17mm.  That might be the typical kit lens (18-55mm) or the newer version of that lens with IS.  Another good option would be the 17-85mm IS.

If you shoot sports/equine indoors...then I would suggest a 'fast' prime lens like the 50mm F1.8, 50mm F1.4, 85mm F1.8 etc.  If you shoot outdoors, then I'd look at one of the 70-200mm lenses.  As mentioned, the 70-200 F2.8 L IS, is the king of this range and is spectacular (but big & heavy).  The 70-200 F4 L (with or without IS) is smaller, lighter and cheaper, but is still a fantastic lens.


----------



## K8-90 (Mar 20, 2008)

*Thanks for the feedback!*

*I see your point with getting a fast prime lens for indoors, but I think I need the ability to zoom   Often I won't be able to change my physical distance to the subject. *

*I found a used Canon  70 - 200 L F4 for **$600.00, available locally so I can pick it up rather than pay shipping. What I am wondering is if I need the IS capabilities? Would this lens work well hand-held with lowish light? Or is it better to pay more for a lens with IS, possibly faster too?*

*Thanks again!*


----------



## 68Whiskey (Mar 20, 2008)

K8-90 said:


> *Thanks for the feedback!*
> 
> *I see your point with getting a fast prime lens for indoors, but I think I need the ability to zoom   Often I won't be able to change my physical distance to the subject. *
> 
> ...



It depends on the light, a F4 is good for outdoors when there is sun light, it will not do you any good inside unless you have amazing lights. It is a good outdoor lens, and thats about all I could see using it for. I have used a F/4 in a gym before at the University of Illinois, but that is only because it had a million dollar lighting setup.


----------



## atp_design (Mar 20, 2008)

K8-90, im in the same position as you.

I want a 5D - but its a bit too pricy.
A 40D is perfect and if i saw one i would get it asap.
However yesterday i spotted a 400D / Rebel XTi with EFS 17-55mm lense used in a second hand shop. They wanted about $500 USD for it and im still deciding if its worth it. Secondly im assuming its just the camera and lense and nothing else.

However, the thing that im asking myself is that even though the 400D is inferior to the 40D in many ways, its the EFS lense thats attracting me to it. 

I will go back there again today and see if they can do a better deal as im about to embark on a European roadtrip next week and i NEED a new DSLR asap.


----------



## K8-90 (Mar 20, 2008)

Too bad - For some reason I was hoping F4 on an L lens would somehow be capable of handling low-light situations! Wishful thinking, I guess 

Big Mike suggested a prime, which I initially thought wouldn't work - but now I'm starting to see the light! I could invest in a fast prime for the few indoor situations, and the 70-200 F4 for outdoors. It just means I wouldn't be able to get all the shots from one lens - but the I could actually invest in two primes (one for closer subjects, one more telephoto) for a much more reasonable cost!

atp_design From what I hear, there are quite a few of us in the same boat! So many options - just have to see where your piggy-bank will take you! However, the lens that comes with the XTi you mention is the kit lens, I believe, and is actually not very expensive (as far as lenses go!) if you wanted to add that to the 40D... Just a thought! Also, not to burst your bubble, you may want to do some quick research on it... Unfortunately, I've heard it is not the best - that's why I am look at lenses seperately, rather than investing in a kit.


----------



## Mystwalker (Mar 20, 2008)

Was that $600 for an IS version of the 70-200mm f/4L?

The non-IS version you can buy new for about $550 - B&H URL upper right 

If it is the IS version - GRAB IT!  AND double check seller carefully because those go for about $1000 new.  Do not think they depreciate that much especially when some pros think that one has better IQ then the f/2.8L IS.

The 50mm f/1.8 is perfect for indoor stuff.  f/1.4 is better but costs significantly more - I could not justify spending couple hundreds more for ability to shoot with a third (half?) less light.


----------



## K8-90 (Mar 21, 2008)

No, it was a non-IS. I'm in Canada though, and the price for that lens at Vistek is over $700. I looked at the B&H store, but from what I saw, please correct me if I'm wrong, it's only in the states.

Vistek has a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens for $390, but you're right, 50mm f/1.8 for less than half that at $120.

Since I'll probably be mounting it to a XTi or XSi, I would multiply 50mm by 1.6 to get a field of view arround 80mm, right? Confusing stuff! Just trying to figure out the focal length I'd need...


----------



## Village Idiot (Mar 21, 2008)

If you want the telephoto lens for indoor sports, I'd say the 70-200 2.8 IS is going to be the prime canidate...and the expensive one. Because even with a 2.8 non is at 200mm, your reccomended shooting speed would still be too fast for most bad ambient lights a 1/200. You'd be shooting at 1600 or 3200 iso all the time (which is one reason the 30D trumps the rebel line for sport photography, 5fps vs. 3.5).


----------



## K8-90 (Mar 21, 2008)

Yeah, the 70-200 2.8 IS sounds as close to perfect as I could get - but I do not have that kind of money right now! 

thanks for pointing out about the shootig speed - just a nother variable to keep in mind! 

I think the idea of a prime lens is my best bet for indoors. The sacrifice being losing zoom but gaing picture quality. I'll just limit my indoor shots. I can live with that - for now :mrgreen:


----------



## K8-90 (Mar 23, 2008)

Any ideas on this lens: *Tamron SP AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II XR LD ASL IF Lens* ? I'm drawn to it because of its zoom, which also leaves me worried. I don't see it being effective at both ends. But it is also a good price... So, as a walk-arround, start-up lens, what do you think?

While we're at it, what are your thoughts on *Canon **EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM* ?


----------



## Village Idiot (Mar 24, 2008)

K8-90 said:


> Any ideas on this lens: *Tamron SP AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II XR LD ASL IF Lens* ? I'm drawn to it because of its zoom, which also leaves me worried. I don't see it being effective at both ends. But it is also a good price... So, as a walk-arround, start-up lens, what do you think?
> 
> While we're at it, what are your thoughts on *Canon **EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM* ?


 
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 may be an option. It's a good lens and fast. the 18-200's usually have poor IQ at one end of the focal range or the other. Plus if you're still planning on shooting in doors, you'll want at least f/2.8


----------



## K8-90 (Mar 25, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 may be an option. It's a good lens and fast. the 18-200's usually have poor IQ at one end of the focal range or the other. Plus if you're still planning on shooting in doors, you'll want at least f/2.8


 
Yeah, but it is considerably more expensive! And I don't think I'll use the tele indoors... I'll try and manage with a 50mm f/1.8 prime. Do you know just how bad 'poor' IQ is? Would a litte PS fix things up, or is it unsalvageable? 




joytime360 said:


> Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is very nice choice.


 
 Yeah? have you used one? If so, do you have any photos I could see? (Especially at the ends)


Thanks!


Oh. Here is what I'm looking at, in case you have any suggestions:
Canon XSi
Tamron SP AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II XR LD ASL IF
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Telephoto Zoom​


----------



## Village Idiot (Mar 25, 2008)

Well, the 50mm f/1.8 is sharper at f/2.8 than the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 when both are @ 2.8

I wouldn't use f/1.8 unless you're doing something specific.


----------



## K8-90 (Mar 25, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> I wouldn't use f/1.8 unless you're doing something specific.


 

 

Sorry, you lost me! What do you mean by specific? I intended to use it for low-light, indoor stuff (ie. inside a barn) - is that what you mean? Thanks!


----------



## Village Idiot (Mar 26, 2008)

K8-90 said:


> Sorry, you lost me! What do you mean by specific? I intended to use it for low-light, indoor stuff (ie. inside a barn) - is that what you mean? Thanks!


 
I mean the aperture @ f/1.8. Is a little soft and the DOF is tiny. Take a picture of a face with the focus point on the nose and you'll get the tip of the nose in focus and nothing else because of the shallow DOF. shoot at at least f/2.8-f/4 if you're shooting people in doors.

If you're getting creatvie and have an idea, then go for it; f/1.8 can create some unique pictures, just don't buy the lens thinking that since you can shoot at such a wide aperture and take pictures with less light that you'll be using f/1.8 all the time.

Wide apertures can allow you to get a picture in lighting conditions that a smaller aperture would not, but just keep in mind that like balancing ISO, shutter speed, and aperture normally, that aperture has more of a trade off besides letting in light, specifically when you start getting into the extremely wide ones.


----------



## K8-90 (Mar 26, 2008)

Oh, I see. I'm glad you pointed that out, because you caught me making a big mistake! I forgot to consider the DOF... 

I was planning on using it for capturing subjects at least 20 feet away, in low light...


----------



## K8-90 (Apr 27, 2008)

I dug this thread up instead of starting a new one...

Alright. So I went to the camera store to day, and finally got a knowledgeable and friendly associate. But he was a good salesman. So I just wanted to verify some f what he said, to make sure he wasn't just cashing out on my inexperience...

This is my 'starter' lineup...

Canon XSi
Canon 50mm f1.8
Sigma 18-200mm DC OS
Filter's for both lenses
Slingshot 200
sandisk Ultra SD card
extra battery

So. It seams reasonable. I had planned to get the Tamron 18-250mm (macro capable) rather than the Sigma. But he made a good point, that the Tamron has IS, where as the Tamron doesn't. 

He made it seem mandatory that I get filters for my lenses, for protection. Is this true? I know many people do, but even so. Also, he said that I should get the good quality ones (read: expensive). He never mentioned what kind of filter. I was thinking polarizing. Can you keep those on all the time? Does this have any negative effects?

The other thing he was adament about was that I get a Ultra/Pro'highend SD memory card, because a lower end one cannot write as fast, which means I could lose shots. I know it is true, but it significant?

Lastly, he "advises" getting a warranty. I probably would on the body. Should I do so for the lenses?

Thanks in advance!

_PS. I was looking at Henry's, if that makes a difference. The other store arround here is Vistek. It looks real nice, but when I went in, the customer service sucked. Totally over staffed, and yet no one offered any help :S_


----------



## uplander (Apr 27, 2008)

K8-90 said:


> Any ideas on this lens: *Tamron SP AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II XR LD ASL IF Lens* ? I'm drawn to it because of its zoom, which also leaves me worried. I don't see it being effective at both ends. But it is also a good price... So, as a walk-arround, start-up lens, what do you think?
> 
> While we're at it, what are your thoughts on *Canon **EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM* ?


 


I'll sell you my Tamron 18-200 I never really use it much.

The Canon 70-300 is a decent lens but not for an indoor riding arena.


----------



## JustAnEngineer (Apr 27, 2008)

K8-90 said:


> This is my 'starter' lineup...
> Canon XSi
> Canon 50mm f1.8
> Sigma 18-200mm DC OS
> ...


 I found this review of the Sigma 18-200 lens:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/321-sigma-af-18-200mm-f35-63-dc-os-canon-test-report--review

Are you certain that you need to cover the whole 18-200 range in one lens?  There are higher-quality combinations of two lenses that would cover this range.  Of course, for the same $379 price, you're probably limited to the EF-S 18-55 IS kit lens (comes with the Rebel XSi) and the $270 EF-S 55-250 IS telephoto.

A UV filter doesn't do much for a DSLR, but it provides something cheaper to scratch than your favorite lens.  A multi-coated filter will have less flare than the single-coated Canon filter.  Tiffen is an inexpensive brand.  B&W is a premium brand.


----------



## PhotoDudeMS (Apr 27, 2008)

DO you have your heart set on a Canon Xti?  I know several people who have the cannon and either don't know how to work it and find it confusing, or say that they paid way too much for what it will do.  

Personally I shoot with a Nikon D40. I prefer Nikon for several reasons. First, Nikon holds over 200 individual patents on their _glass alone_.  Think about that.  JUST THE GLASS.  I have compared images of the same resolution, and comparable lenses, and same subject and settings, but one was shot with a canon and the other with a Nikon. The nikon's focus was crisper and the color was brighter.  

Another argument for Nikon, and no I don't work for them. It is generally recognized that National Geographic has some of the best photographers in the biz, right?  Those guys have free reign. They can shoot whatever equipment the darn well please, and the shoot _NIKON_. Go out, make some calls, pull some strings and see if you can find me 1 - just 1- NatGeo Photographer who shoots with a Canon.  

My suggestion is that you would at least look into the D40x.  It is small, and light much like the Xti, but is cheaper and more durable than the canon. I personally know a guy who dropped a D40x with the kit lens from a 3rd floor balcony onto pavement and he only cracked his UV Filter.  That's one tough little camera. 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...al+Cameras-_-Nikon+Inc-_-30113086]New Egg.com  That comes with an 18-55mm nikon lens.
You can also get a 55-200 nikon lens for about $200 .

As for a tripod I reccomend that you get the Tiltall Classic.  They run around $100 and are great for everything.

That kit should put you right around $1k.  Check it out, you may be a nikon fan yet.


----------



## K8-90 (Apr 27, 2008)

uplander said:


> I'll sell you my Tamron 18-200 I never really use it much.


I'll keep that in mind, but unless you are willing to cut me a great deal, I'd rather not pay shipping from the States to Canada... But thanks for the offer!



JustAnEngineer said:


> I found this review of the Sigma 18-200 lens:xxxAre you certain that you need to cover the whole 18-200 range in one lens? There are higher-quality combinations of two lenses that would cover this range. Of course, for the same $379 price, you're probably limited to the EF-S 18-55 IS kit lens (comes with the Rebel XSi) and the $270 EF-S 55-250 IS telephoto.


Hmm. Good review, thanks! I'm quite disappointed about the quality of the bokeh! From the examples, it's down right ugly! Hmm... 
No, i don't need to cover the whole range in one, though it would be conveniant. I just thought that this was a better value for my money than the kit lens. What do you think? I guess I look for a eview of the the 18-55mm now. 



PhotoDudeMS said:


> DO you have your heart set on a Canon Xti? I know several people who have the cannon and either don't know how to work it and find it confusing, or say that they paid way too much for what it will do.
> 
> Personally I shoot with a Nikon D40. I prefer Nikon for several reasons. First, Nikon holds over 200 individual patents on their _glass alone_. Think ... I have compared images of the same resolution, and comparable lenses, and same subject and settings, but one was shot with a canon and the other with a Nikon. The nikon's focus was crisper and the color was brighter.
> 
> ...


 
Nope, I'm not dead set, I'm open for suggestions :mrgreen:
I considered the D40 at the beginning, but have since ruled it out. I've used one at school, and I was kind of disappointed by it... However, I have never tried an XSi otside of the camera store. I would possibly go Nikon, but it wouldn't be for the D40...
And thanks for the tripod recomendation - I'll check it out


----------



## JustAnEngineer (Apr 27, 2008)

K8-90 said:


> What do you think? I guess I look for a eview of the the 18-55mm now.


 I think that your list was okay.  Don't let me dissuade you.  As a noob, I find on-line lens reviews helpful for my learning, but hard on my pocketbook. :lmao:


The Rebel XSi's kit lens is better than the XTi's and adds only about $100 over the $800 price of the camera body alone.
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review

This is the new cheap ($270) telephoto zoom:
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Can...on-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-56-is-test-report--review

You had the $85 "nifty fifty" EF 50mm f/1.8 II on your list already:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-II-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Can.../160-canon-ef-50mm-f18-ii-test-report--review

What you spend on lenses can only go up and up from those three low-end possibilities.


Many folks recommend the $580 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM as a better choice than a cheap telephoto zoom lens:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Can...anon-ef-70-200mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review


P.S.: Both www.adorama.com and www.bhphotovideo.com take international orders.  I don't know what the import duties might be.


----------



## K8-90 (Apr 27, 2008)

JustAnEngineer said:


> I think that your list was okay. Don't let me dissuade you. As a noob, I find on-line lens reviews helpful for my learning, but hard on my pocketbook. :lmao:
> 
> 
> P.S.: Both www.adorama.com and www.bhphotovideo.com take international orders. I don't know what the import duties might be.


 
Haha! No kidding! I was totally set on the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L...
Then I checked the price :shock: 

Yeah I checked both their sites, and they look great! But I just feel safer sticking locally, incase their are issues, questions, whatever.


----------



## JustAnEngineer (Apr 27, 2008)

K8-90 said:


> joytime360 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is very nice choice.
> ...


 I got the 70-300 IS a few months ago.  It is not as well-constructed as my other two lenses (17-55 2.8 IS and 100 2.8 macro).  It also focuses a bit more slowly and noisily than those two, and it's not as sharp.  However, at $540, it was a lot less expensive than the $1700 70-200 2.8 IS and a $280 1.4x teleconverter.

These are all small JPEGs (1/4 of full resolution) direct from the EOS 40D without retouching:
Bradford pear tree at 70mm
Hibiscus at 300mm
Bougainvillea at 300mm
Squirrel at 300mm
Cardinal  at 300mm
Egrets at 300mm
Yellow-bellied flycatcher? at 300mm
Here is a 1:1: crop of the same bird:
Flycatcher at 300mm


----------



## PhotoDudeMS (Apr 28, 2008)

If you don't like the D40, look into the new D60.  They sell for $599 US with an 18-55mm nikon lens.  Great Lens.  I have one. I love it. 

Something that I should mention about the tiltall is that it is tall.  I don't know how tall you are, but I am 6'3'' and need a tall tripod.  Just extending the legs, and not the shank at all, it is about 5' 3'' tall. Add a camera body onto that and your viewfinder is about 5'7'' in the air.  It will raise to about 7'.  Great for me, not so great for a shorter person.  It is heavy too.  About 8 lbs.  If you lug it around alot, you'll want something lighter.  As I said I'm rather large, but for someone smaller It could cause a problem.
  I got my tiltall classic from B&H for $110USD

I have friends and know professionals that shoot cannon and I'm not trying to make up your mind for you, but I see an obvious technical superiority in the Nikon products over the Canon Equivalent.


----------



## PhotoDudeMS (Apr 28, 2008)

PS: You mentioned wanting to stay at about $1000.  Is that Canadian?


----------



## K8-90 (Apr 28, 2008)

Ok, I'll take a look at the D60. Great price, and if the quality is like you say it is, sounds awesome!

Haha, yeah. I'm short. Pushing it to reach 5'3.5". That half inch is very important, lol. So the camera would clear my head, haha! But I suppose I don't have to extend the legs all the way...

And yes, I'm talking Canadian dollars.

Thanks!


----------



## PhotoDudeMS (May 3, 2008)

After looking at it again, it isn't quite as tall as I remembered.  Just the leg extensions make it at 5 feet. Add the height of a camera onto that and it should come to about 5'3".  You could look into something shorter, though I would recommend that you avoid "light-weight" tripods. As good as that sounds, with a SLR camera you need the stability of a heavier tripod, especially with longer and/or faster lenses.  Remember, Vibration Compensation, or Image Stabilization are only equivalent to a shutter speed 3 stops faster.

If you hike or do a lot of walking and want to carry a tripod with you without the weight, I would recommend a monopod which can double as a walking stick (good sporting goods stores like Cabela's have these), or a shoulder mount.  Shoulder mounts generally range in price from $50-$200 US and are shaped like a gun stock with a camera mount on the end.

All of the prices above are in US Dollars.  Nothing against Canada...Just a habit.


----------



## K8-90 (May 4, 2008)

PhotoDudeMS said:


> You could look into something shorter, though I would recommend that you avoid "light-weight" tripods. ... If you hike or do a lot of walking and want to carry a tripod with you without the weight, I would recommend a monopod which can double as a walking stick (good sporting goods stores like Cabela's have these), or a shoulder mount. Shoulder mounts generally range in price from $50-$200 US and are shaped like a gun stock with a camera mount on the end.
> 
> All of the prices above are in US Dollars. Nothing against Canada...Just a habit.


 
OK, thanks! Weight shouldn't be an issue... Unless they're really beastly, lol. I think I'd prefer a tripod to a monopod. I'm looking to eliminate any shake I could cause - same goes for the shoulder mount. But thanks for the idea!

Haha, no problem about the American prices, I pretty much take it for granted that they'll be USD.


----------



## PhotoDudeMS (May 5, 2008)

I make the comment about weight, because a friend of mine who is a professional wildlife photographer, lugs a 24 pound monster everywhere.  The Tiltall is 8 pounds, but can still get heavy.  Think about having a gallon of milk hanging from your shoulder.

The general idea behind the shoulder mount is to be able to move the camera quickly for action shots and the like.


----------



## K8-90 (May 7, 2008)

PhotoDudeMS said:


> I make the comment about weight, because a friend of mine who is a professional wildlife photographer, lugs a 24 pound monster everywhere. The Tiltall is 8 pounds, but can still get heavy. Think about having a gallon of milk hanging from your shoulder.
> 
> The general idea behind the shoulder mount is to be able to move the camera quickly for action shots and the like.


 
OK, so a 24lber would be beastly in my books! I just weighed my school bag to get an idea of it, and it is 27lbs, holding just the basics. I'm pretty used to it, I carry it for hours, walk to school, etc. But i also have one shoulder about 2 inches lower now, lol! I would not want to have a tripod that heavy, though! But I should be fine with aomething arround 10lbs. Thanks for the consideration, though. I never considered weight a factor!

I was looking at it on adorama, and I couldn't tell if it had a quick release...?

Yeah, the should-mount sounds good, but I don't think that's what I need at this point. My budget is already stretched, and I think a tripod is a 'necessity'. But I'll kee it in mind, for later shopping splurges


----------



## K8-90 (May 7, 2008)

JustAnEngineer said:


> I got the 70-300 IS a few months ago. It is not as well-constructed as my other two lenses (17-55 2.8 IS and 100 2.8 macro). It also focuses a bit more slowly and noisily than those two, and it's not as sharp. However, at $540, it was a lot less expensive than the $1700 70-200 2.8 IS and a $280 1.4x teleconverter.
> 
> *images*


 
Sorry, I must have missed your post earlier!
Thanks for all the example images, you've got some nice ones there! You're right though, they are not quite sharp... Were they all hand-held? How is it throughout the rest of the range (all those posted were 300mm)? Would you say it is worth buying?


----------



## JustAnEngineer (May 8, 2008)

Yes, all of the shots were hand-held, even at relatively long exposures.  Image stabilization works great in that regard.  It doesn't stop a moving animal from looking like a blur, though.

I noticed that I have rarely used the 70-300 zoom at less than 300mm.  Perhaps if I were patient enough to wait for the small critters to be closer, I wouldn't be zooming in so much, but I doubt it.


----------



## PhotoDudeMS (May 8, 2008)

It does not have a quick release, but I see that as a goody.  My old tripod a a QR and it tended to pop out at the slightest provocation.  I dropped $900 worth of gear multiple times because of the QR.  When you think about it it really doesn't take that long to simply tighten a thumbscrew, so I find the lack of a QR not to be a big deal.

Another gimmick that might seem tempting for your next vacation is the tripod mount on top of a water or soda bottle.  It looks like a bottle cap with a tripod screw sticking out of it.  AVOID THIS!  
Unless you just want to use it for a point-and-shoot, the mount is much too top heavy to be worth the space it takes up in your bag.  It is impossible, even with a P-&-S to leave it mounted and unattended, say for a self portrait.  It will fall over at the slightest provocation.

If you want something small, consider a stiff-legged tabletop tripod.  I have one that extends to about 15". It's great for taking shots from a really low perspective, or for the aforementioned self portrait.

If I overload you with information let me know. I like to be helpful without being annoying.


----------



## K8-90 (May 8, 2008)

Thanks both!

PhotoDudeMS, no where near annoying! I really appreciate you giving me so much honest opinion, especially on one if those repetative 'what should I buy' beginner posts. I can't get that anywhere else 

Back to tripods... I think I need to go try them out in person. I dont remember seeing/noticing the thumbscrew before, and I'd like to try mounting a camera and seeing how easy/fast it is to remove it.


----------



## PhotoDudeMS (May 11, 2008)

For me, it takes about 20 seconds.  That with a little practice, though.  You can't mount and un-mount for one shot after another.  Take all the shots you can on the Tripod, and then take some off the tripod.


----------

