recently took joe umali's advice and checked out the canon forum at fredmiranda.com (THANKS JOE !!!!!).. <BR> <BR>circuit city has the xti for $710 shipped plus tax (depends on where you live) with the coupon code FHARQFNAMY <BR> <BR>pretty good deal.. <BR> <BR>how about a lense ???

Mike ~ For wakeboarding get the 70-200 f4 lens (Walt uses this lens) it will cost you about $600. If you want to spend more get the f2.8 (The one I have) at $1200 or the f2.8 IS at $1600. For a walk around lens pick up the 17-40 f4 (I also have this one, really fun lens). This lens will cost you about $600 too. What are you going to be doing with it?

antbug, <BR> <BR>the wife wanted a digital slr with a big lcd <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/lol.gif" border=0>....we will be using it for walking around, wakeboarding, and wakesurfing... <BR> <BR>what do you think of 28-105 for a general purpose ? <BR> <BR>thanks !!

The new 70-200 f4L IS will be available soon at around $1200. Even at 1000th of a second if you wave a lens at 200mm around enough you'll get some blur so the IS is nice to have.

One thing that you may not know about those L series with the ultrasonic motors is that the AI Servo autofocus works REALLY well. <BR> <BR>Running chase boat, I've been using it lately and I like it. It's also good for shooting sliders from the side. <BR> <BR>My old Sigma 70-300mm on the other hand, the AF was so slow, AI Servo was useless. <BR> <BR> <BR>I shoot the 70-200 F2.8 IS, and I love it. Favorite lens! <BR> <BR>Here are some shots from last weekend: <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.swamistudios.com/photoshoots/061007-Swami" target="_blank">http://www.swamistudios.com/photoshoots/061007-Swami</a> <BR> <BR>Press the "I" key on each photo to toggle the EXIF info on and off. <BR> <BR>In particular the shots from the chase boat of the blonde rider. <BR> <BR>-S

Swami ~ some of your setting are crazy! <BR> <BR>FILE NAME: IMG_0319.jpg | DATE: 10/7/06 9:59 AM | CAMERA: Canon (Canon EOS 20D) | RESOLUTION: 2556 x 1884 | NATIVE FOCAL LENGTH: 145.0mm (35mm FOCAL LENGTH: 232mm) | FLASH: Flash did not fire, auto | EXPOSURE TIME: 1/4000 sec | METERING MODE: Multi-segment | EXPOSURE MODE: Manual exposure | APERTURE: F2.8 | ISO SETTING: 200 <BR> <BR>Also a lot of your shots show you are shooting in AUTO? Why is that?

Mike ~ I checked it out and it seams like it's the lens you are looking for. Check this out <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=206&amp;sort=7&amp;cat=27& amp;page=1" target="_blank">http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=206&amp;sort=7&amp;cat=27& amp;page=1</a>

yep...that's it....I was thinking of starting off with that before jumping into a 70-200fr or the 17-40l....what do you think?

Yeah it looks pretty good and gets good reviews. I'd say pick it up for starters and go from there. I can't wait to see some pics!

Swami, <BR> <BR>No disrespect intended but several of those shots look soft IMO.

The bokeh looks like an f2.8 setting. It looks like the levels were pushed hard in some of those.

i wasn't going to say anything since i'm no photo expert, but i thought a lot of 'em looked soft, too. glad it wasn't just my old eyes! but then again, walt's old, too! <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/lol.gif" border=0>

I can't argue. <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/uhoh.gif" border=0>

I've got a 28-105 3.5-4.5 that I would probably sell if your interested. I don't use it anymore since I've gotten my 17-55 2.8 IS.

jeremy, <BR> <BR>which 28-105 do you have? <BR> <BR>thanks, <BR> <BR>mike

Mike- For your purposes you don't need IS. I'd save the $700 and get the normal 70-200 F4 plus it's going to be one of the lenses on Canon's rebate program that begins in 3 days so you'll save even more. I've beat the heck out of mine over the last 3 years and it still works great, best $550 I've ever spent. I'll bring it to the lake tomorrow. The 17-40 is what I use for wakesurfing and it also works great (I'm actually selling it but want to bundle it with either my 10D or 20D. You should have bought my 10D with 17-40 for $950) <BR> <BR>(Message edited by CAskimmer on October 12, 2006) <BR> <BR>(Message edited by CAskimmer on October 12, 2006)

Canon USA EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 II USM. <BR>It's the exact one in that link. <BR>I paid 229.95 plus shipping for it from B&amp;H on 10/14/05. I would sell it for $175. I'd pay shipping. <BR>It's a great lens and I could post some pics taken with it. I could even take a credit card # over the phone. (I have a card machine for my construction business.)

PS. don't feel obligated at all. I don't really care if I sell it. I like having it for backup, but if you wanted it I'd sell it.

thanks jermey..i am really up i the air since with the nikon double rebate i might be able to get the 17-40l f4 and the 70-200 f4 for $1000 new (not a bad place to start)...

No, sounds like a very good place to start...or finish. <BR> <BR>You mean Canon rebate right.

yep..... canon rebate.. add kicked in.

Jeremy- <BR> <BR>How is that lens shooting indoors. I would like to avoid a flash if possible and was looking for bigger glass to help with that. Any photos of that lens indoors without a flash?

guys, <BR> <BR>is the IS really worth the extra $$$$ on the 70/200 f4 ? (much to my surprise the wife is up for it...just want to make sure) <BR> <BR>thanks !!

if you're using it for wakeboarding, you don't need the IS so no, it's not worth the money.

not in my opinion and I rely on my equipment to make money.

I don't think IS is a must have either for wake shots.

thanks for the info..... <BR> <BR>mind educating a newbie ? <BR> <BR>where would the IS come into play with the 70-200 f4 ?

With slower shutter speeds or possibly max zoom.

The latest Canon IS is good for 3-4 stops which can be handy in low light when you don't want to use a flash or for extreme telephoto. Canon get's a premium for it and their IS lenses sell very well. I know this will sound arrogant but if you don't know what it's good for then you probably don't know what you're doing. Do a search on FM or DPR for an IS or not IS thread and watchs the PRO's basically ridcule anyone who says it's no good for anything. I have found uses for it many times and have seen how effective it is when used at any shutter speed on both the 300 f2.8 IS and 500 f4 IS L's. If you can afford it get it.

thanks for the comeback... the real question is to get the F2 or the IS($1100 budget)...the F2 would be good for low light while the IS would be a bit more useful at both... <BR> <BR>from what I have read the f4 may offer better iq than the f2(and lighter too)....

<i>I know this will sound arrogant but if you don't know what it's good for then you probably don't know what you're doing.</i> <BR> <BR>Your right, that was arrogant. Are you saying I don't know what I'm doing? I beg your pardon but I've been a professional photographer for close to 20 years and know a thing or 2 about photography. I am fully aware of the added benefits of IS and when it is useful or not. I also happen to know Mike personally.(and have a good idea of how the camera will be used) I stand by my statement of IS not being worth the extra $700 for him. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by CAskimmer on October 14, 2006) <BR> <BR>(Message edited by CAskimmer on October 14, 2006)

I'll agree that at 300mm and above IS can really be a real savior but IMO it's not worth a 150% price markup in a mid-range zoom where the benefits are marginal at best. I'm guessing I've shot about 300,000 images with my 70-200 and figure that IS would have helped about 100 of those. <BR> <BR>It should also be noted that the present 70-200 F4 L is hands down the best lens for the buck while reviews haven't really come back yet from the new lens and whether the IS is worth the added price tag <BR> <BR>(Message edited by CAskimmer on October 14, 2006)

Geez aren't we touchy . . . I said it was going to be arrogant didn't I but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Sorry but when somebody says I don't know what I'm doing I do tend to get offended. and no being arrogant doesn't neccessarily mean you are wrong nor does it make you right. <BR> <BR> In Mike's situation he would be much better off taking that extra money and putting it towards something like a 17-40 or a 28-75 and a 580EX flash. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by CAskimmer on October 15, 2006)

IMO Sean Joe and Walt are correct, for just wakeboarding, the IS isn't worth the extra $$.

I realize it was an inflammatory statement so I apologize. <BR>Some guys shoot off tripods most of the time or are so steady at handholding that the benefits are much less. For a handholding, hate the flash, fool like me it's come in very handy. I should have left it at "if money is no object IS is nice to have". I agree with you on one thing, for as much as Canon is asking for that new f4 IS it better have IQ as good as the current f4. And Mike needs lenses more then IS as well at this point.

thanks to everyone for their help.. i really appreciate it (no offense take on any counts)..got some really good advice on locating the best bang for the canon lenses. (17-40,70-200,50f1.8 and the 28-105 non l) <BR> <BR>we'll will be starting off with a 17-40 L and try a 70-200 f4... let see what the wife wants... <BR> <BR>thanks !!!! <BR> <BR>(Message edited by clubmyke on October 15, 2006)

Good choice Mike. I can't wait to see some pics. Now get out there and start shooting your ass off. You will have the hang of it in no time.

antbug.. thanks !! really appreciate the help..this is for the wife so i hope she appreciates it.. <BR> <BR>btw, was looking at buying the lenses from buy-dig..any other place i should look at ? <BR> <BR>i can get the 17-40 &amp; the 70-200 for $1232 (with rebate - $1070..)

that sounds like a good price from a reputable dealer. Snatch it up. The more popular lenses become scarce fast at the beginning of a rebate cycles.