Gear
usage experiences
| Gear
usage experiences
|
|
|
|
|
Updated 15-May-2005 (few comments adjusted). The links on the top of the Canon camera and lens names and photos point to the Canon Camera Museum. |
|
Finally in 2004 I was able to step in the digital era. I was hoping to get something that requires no updates to my current lens setup, but after couple of years waiting, there was still no good choice available. I'm talking about the cropping factor of the digital bodies. 10D has a cropping factor 1.6 (I use 1.5 for the calculations) due to the smaller image censor size compared to traditional 35mm cameras. The cropping factor means bad news for any wide angle lenses. For example 28-70mm turns to be 42-105mm lens with 10D. For me, 42mm is not wide enough. To get cropping factor of 1.3, you need to obtain Canon EOS 1D Mark II — unfortunately that beauty is far behind my budget! To go around the cropping factor problem, I purchased a 17-40mm lens. That turns to 26-60mm lens, that is quite good all-around lens. However, EF16-35mm lens could be a good choice for the 10D also. Actually I have no much to say about 10D. It is a step down from EOS3 what comes to the robustness and handling, but it has all the advantages of a digital body. No more hassling with the film change, possibility to change ISO all the time, no more hated scanning phase and so on. It is simply the modern way of working in photography. I was surprised about the high ISO quality. I'm not afraid of use ISO800 or even ISO1600 if it is required. In fact, I rather use higher ISO than use the lens wide open! Generally the image quality is OK. I would like to have more resolution, as six megapixels are not enough for big prints. I have learnt that it is really worthwhile to use RAW capturing all the time. RAW simply offers superior post-processing options compared to JPEG. For example, you don't need to care about the white balance while shooting, as it can be later adjusted without affecting to the image quality. So, I need to get some image data banks for the trips, as one image takes about seven megabytes. As a conclusion, I can recommend this camera. You won't be disappointed. For accessories, get battery grip and couple of half gig memory cards. Naturally, nowadays you get 20D, not 10D from stores. I believe that one is in very same quality category, if not better. I have no experiences of Canon 300D or 350D. I've been a pleased user of EOS 5 bodies now for many years. Nowadays I don't use EOS5 at all. EOS5 is an old model, but it performs rather well. Back to the old days, EOS 5 had the perfect price-quality ratio and it was a great secondary body for EOS3. EOS 5 lacks of few features compared to the new models, like fast auto focus and number of AF sensors. The body is rather small and light, and without any grips and with small lenses EOS 5 is a good "point-and-shoot" SLR. I have a vertical grip for the EOS 5, but I don't use it any more, mainly because usually I just place the body on tripod with a short wide-angle lens. It's widely known that the command dial of EOS5 breaks quite easily. This happened to me also, and believe or not, twice and with two different bodies! The repair expenses are very high and luckily I had two weeks of warranty left with the another camera, but the second one I have still have is broken (but can be used). So be careful if you are gonna get EOS5. Nowadays I do not switch camera off, command dial is in AV mode all the time. It seems to be that no extra battery drain happens. If you can get a used EOS 5 with a low prize, don't buy it :-). Consider a used EOS 1V or a new digital SLRs like Canon 350D or 20D. After several years of being a happy EOS5 user, I finally decided to upgrade to EOS 3 (summer 2001). Personally I liked more EOS 1V after handling it in a camera store, but that beauty was way too much expensive for me. Other new models like EOS 30 or EOS 300 were not any interesting choices for me, mainly because of some little dislikes (too light, too small, too few AF points, "poor" user interfaces and so on). There was, of course, the digital choice, Canon D30 in that time. I had used the D30 now and then, so I knew what the body was all about. D30 is a great beginning of the digital SLR time, but nothing more. The digital bodies are more like good choices nowadays, but I'm still waiting something similar to the EOS3 in the digital line, when talking about the usability issues. I think Canon 20D still can't beat EOS 3 what comes to the handling and robustness. The EOS3 camera body feels quite same in the hand as the EOS 5 does, but you get a better hold of it. EOS 3 requires also a vertical grip just like EOS 5 for supporting little finger in the normal horizontal shooting position. EOS 3 doesn't feel as plastic as the EOS 5. There are actually two choices for the vertical grip, PB-E1 (battery grip) and PB-E2 (booster). I bought a used PB-E1, which have places for four rechargeable AA-batteries and one slot for 2CR5. Having these two different type batteries is a great feature, because when the rechargeable batteries run out of power in the field, you just easily switch to the backup 2CR5. Unfortunately there are no focus point selectors or any other control buttons for vertical shooting in PB-E1, so this grip is really just a battery back and a support for the little finger. PB-E2 was then way too large and heavy for my taste, although that grip have those controls for vertical shooting. Also I don't need the extra frame rate that the PB-E2 provides. Using EOS 3 is quite pleasant. Auto focus is much more faster in all circumstances compared to the EOS 5. Forty five AF points are great to have, and the algorithm which selects the AF points works well. You can select AF points rather fast manually, although there is no AF selection restore button as the EOS 1V have. On the other hand, I use the center focus point 85% of the time. The eye focus thing has no use for me. There's no fear of broken command-dial with EOS3, because there is no one. All control buttons and switches are carefully placed. One bad design I noticed is the mirror lock feature that must be activated through the clumsy CF interface. The mirror itself makes a heavy noise when it flips up and down -- I was so frighten of that noise in the first time that I almost drop the camera! :-) I use the EOS 3 as the main body for action photography and it's usually loaded with ISO100 or ISO400 films. Well, the EOS5 has been lately in the bag all the time, so I also do landscape and similar with the EOS3. I use EF1.4 and EF2x teleconverters with telelenses more often, because the center focus point works (surprisingly fast) with F8 combos. This is a good combo for a low budget bird photography, for example. Don't buy EOS 3. Get a digital one. Well, not much to say about this point-and-shoot digital one. Owned and used by my wife, who claims to be happy with this one. I think if you like an IXUS, you like'em all. Personally, I don't carry point and shoot cameras and have very little experiences of those. Point-and-shoot pocket camera. Has a fixed 28mm Carl Zeiss lens, performs quite well. Good choice when can't/want to carry big SLRs. Actually this camera is owned and mainly used by my wife, but I'm privileged to use it whenever I need to... :-) If you are considering of buying a film point-and-shoot, forget it! Get a digital one. Fully manual SLR from 80's. Center weighted exposure metering, indicates "+" if overexposing and "-" if the picture is going to be underexposed. Has a very, very large viewfinder which makes the photographing quite fun. Original lens, 35-70mm f3.5-4.5, has a descent performance. I used this mainly as a "moody" body and it was usually loaded with fast b/w film. Nowadays the body is ... hopefully somewhere in a safe place. :) Read a review by Edwin Leonq. |
|
I got this thing for a all-round lens for Canon EOS 10D. The price is descent compared to the EF16-25 f/2.8, although this is slower and more plastic feel-like lens. But with digital body you can easily use higher ISOs to go around the slow speed and the 10D itself is plastic, too.
I don't know about vignetting, since I haven't tested with full frame body. Generally I have been quite happy this one, and I'm not considering of update to other wide angle L lenses. However, this is a wide angle lens and thus does leave a room for another general purpose zoom.
|
|
Because I use wide angle lenses mainly for landscape photography, I decided that EF20-35 f/3.5-4.5 is good enough for my purposes out of more expensive Canon L lenses.
Distortions are bad especially in the wide end. The worst thing is that there is no pure barrel or pincushion, but some kind of nonlinear distortion (wave) which sucks especially in some circumstances (for example with plain horizons at a lake or a seaside). At 35mm the distortions are acceptable, and some where between there is a point where the distortions are almost absent. If you want to shoot more action (people, happenings, etc.) I'd recommend for example EF16-35mm f/2.8 due to it's better performance wide open (judgment based on short testing session). Of course that lens is much more expensive. Also primes like EF24 f/2.8 are probably worth of consideration for landscape photographers. I sold the lens mainly because after purchasing the 28-70mm I almost never carried the 20-35mm with me.
|
|
I'd say THE zoom lens for wide/normal angles. Quite big and heavy (huge!), but balances very well with EOS3. Many time I wish the zoom would go over the 70mm, but hey, can't have it all in a one lens. There is a visible distortion when shooting wide open, and also noticeable vignetting. You could obtain better results with primes, but the zoom is always a compromise of usability and quality. Still, sharp enough for me. There is also EF24-70 f/2.8 L version available nowadays. Don't know about that, but I'm seriously considering to update.
|
|
This was my first lens with the EOS5, sold away many years ago. I guess a pretty good basic lens, but I really did not like it. The quality was mediocre (not bad) but still, it felt somewhat plastic. There is Mark II version available, I guess? Anyway, nowadays there are much more better choices available, for example EF28-135 IS. Now that could be a good travel photography lens.
|
|
For some unknown reason I like the 50mm focal length. That's the main reason of having this piece of optic. 50mm is a nice to carry as a point-and-shoot lens. Fixed focal length teaches more about framing than zooms, in my opinion. EF50 f/1.4 is also great for low light photography and my choice for an all purpose lens. I think that despite the reputation of this lens, the performance is more like normal than any superior. There are just a little distortion visible. Many people say that there is no any logical reason to get fixed 50mm lens -- EF28-135 IS is far more versatile choice. Perhaps, but this is a question of personal taste and "feelings". I think it is still a good thing to have one fast prime in the carrying case. Nowadays I rarely use the lens due to the cropping factor of 10D. Although with 10D this could be excellent portrait lens! I'm considering to change this to a 35mm fixed focal length lens (although, never sell your primes!).
|
|
I bought this zoom for travel and for general photography, and I have photographed also many of my landscape photos with this lens. I didn't get the f/2.8 version because of the weight and price issues. F/4 is far more lighter to carry than f/2.8. In some situations there would be a great need for that missing extra stop, but I can live without it because the lens is so really easy to carry around and handle. An IS feature would be very nice for this lens because it is slow already. The "L" quality feeling is present, although it is quite "slim" and the focusing ring has a some kind of mechanical stiffness which I didn't like. EF70-200 f/4 has very vivid colors and sharp image even with teleconverters. But there is distortion visible in the tele-end, and vignetting is can be clearly seen for example in blue sky photos when shot wide open. And many times I was missing the IS. Consider these facts when thinking of getting this lens. However, I think this lens is VERY suitable for general purpose shooting with digital SLRs having 1.6x cropping factor. The lens is very sharp, and has a great color re-production. Vignetting is not so big issue. And if you can do ISO400 without considerably quality loss, there is no problems with f/4. I sold the lens when I got the f/2.8 IS version. After comparing the f/4 to the f/2.8, I honestly can say that the f/4 is small and handy. |
|
This is the monster (in its category). VERY heavy (even heavier than EF300 f/4). There is IS... it's f/2.8... the weight is the trade off. The quality is OK. Not any astonishing, just what I was expecting. The teleconverters are much more usable with the lens than with the f/4 version, even 2x produces acceptable results. Comparison between f/4 and f/2.8 versions is not fair, because the lenses have so different use cases. If you are not a pro making your living out of photography, the question is how much you want to invest to your hobby. However, this is the most beautiful lens I have owned or used, and I would not go back to F/4 or any other version.
|
|
Just an excellent lens. Sharp, very usable, robust and versatile -- simply a great performer. Had it couple of months before updating to the IS version many years ago.
|
|
Originally I had the non-IS version of this lens, which was excellent in all areas. Then I switched to the IS version, although I had first some doubts with the need of IS feature. The IS version of this lens performs as well as non-IS version, I think. When shooting plain wild life with 300mm, usually you could cope without IS. But if you stack teleconverters, for example 2x, the IS helps you lot with this shaky 600mm combination. I have been thinking to change to EF300/2.8 lens, because the one stop counts when using teleconverters. But on other hand, 300/2.8 is quite heavy and has no IS (No way I could afford the EF300/2.8 IS). So far I'll stick with the f/4 version. Generally I could say that you won't disappoint if purchasing EF300 f/4 IS. But if you seriously focus to the wild life photography, you should consider other pro lenses, for example EF 500 f/4 IS or EF 300 /2.8 IS. Still, the f/4 is light weight and excellent in all areas. |
|
 tilhi.com/PhotoStories
© Juha Lehtomäki. Copying
and using any photos & stories without a permission
prohibited. |
Yashica
FX-3 Super 2000
EF28-70
f/2.8 L USM
EF28-105
f/3.5-4.5 USM
