Canon XTi 10.2 Glass

I finally got it. But now I need a 300mm lens. Sigma, Tamron, or save for the Canon ($550) with IS. Are there any generic lenses with IS? I couldnt find any yet?

Go with the Canon 70-200L F/4 or 2.8 if you have the coin.

what do you need a 300mm lens for?

to have it.

holycrap Walt those things cost more than the camera!

this is the one i'm eyein.

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11093546&whse=BC&Ne=5000001+40 00000&N=4001355%204294967258&Mo=19&No=6&Nr=P_Catal ogName:BC&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&Sp=C&topnav=

If I dont like guess where it goes, back. Sir, would you like cash or store credit. This one has IS and it is quality from what I gather, am I correct?

I have found one for $449 as well.

544.00 and it's a better lens IMO. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=183198&is=USA&added TroughType=search

It's true there's no beating Costcos return policy though !

thanks Walt, much appreciated.

The image quality on that new 70-300 is very good, IS is newest generation and is excellent.

Build quality is marginal and not very "L" like. AF is OK (not USM though if I recall)

If you need 300mm and IS that probably is your best bet given it's cost.

Slipknot -

Probably sure you already know this but the sensor in your camera is a 1.6 crop, meaning you should multiply your focal lengths by 1.6 to figure out what "35mm equivalent" lens length you are looking at... for example..

the 70-200 = 112-320 and it has one more stop that is much more useful than IS for that focal length!!! (IMHO, of course)

That other lens from Costco is 70-300 = 112-480 which is VERY long, and hard to handhold, so the IS becomes more of a factor.

Maybe just buy both and return the one you don't want.

Seriously though, my vote goes to the 70-200 F4L.

and a set of filters.

:-)

Eric,

I think you're just arguing semantics here.

Slipknot owns an XTi, he says he needs 300mm.

I think a presumption can be made that 200mm isn't long enough for him. The 1.6X crop has no bearing because he's evaluated his needs based on the same body (only the focal length relationship is relates.)

Besides 300mm is 300mm on any body, only the pixel density on the sensor comes into play.

to elaborate:

The 5D and 1Dmk2 both have 8.2 micron (large) photosites on their sensors. The 5D is a full frame 13mp sensor and the 1D2 is an 8mp sensor, they both have the same pixel density.

If you have images taken with these 2 different bodies with the same lens from the same spot and you "crop" an 8mp sized image out of the 5D image. You will have an identical image. So what happened to the 1.3X "crop" advantage? It doesn't really exist when you compare these two.

The 20/30D/XT/XTi all have smaller photosites (around 6 microns I believe on the 20/30D) and thus have more pixel density then the 5D / 1D2's sensors. If the same test is performed with a 20/30D and 5D, the 30D will out resolve the 5D when a 30D sized image is cropped from the 5D image. Why? more pixels given same physical sized areas. So you are getting incresed resolution (an 8mp 30D image is about the same physical size as a 5mp image from either the 1D2 or 5D so obviously it's going to look better then a 5mp image expanded to the comparable 8mp size.

However in the case of the other FF canon body: the 1Dsmk2 (same size FF sensor as 5D but 16mp) the 20/30D photosites are the same size.

So If you crop a 1/1.6X section out of a 1Dsmk2 image you'll see an identical image to the 20D/30D image (again if taken with the same lens from the same spot.)

In all cases 200mm is 200mm, 300 is 300 etc etc the only difference is the smaller 1.6X sensor captures a smaller portion of the true FOV of the 200mm or whatever sized lens we're talking and due to it's normally higher pixel density appears to give one more reach. But more reach only in comparison to a body with less pixel density.

So when you tell slipknot he has the equivalent of a 300mm lens with an XTi / 200mm lens on board because of the smaller sensor I'd have to question in relation to what????

Rich,

I bow to your wealth of knowledge!!!!

I was just suggesting that if he were to think of it in a wierd way, the 70-200 F4L ( which all of us think is a better lens, btw ) would give him a lot of reach.

As it is I have a sigma 70-200 2.8 and it gives me lots or reach, and for wakeboarding I don't think I'd want much more, plus I REALLY like the internal focusing a lot. Plus, he'll have a constant F$ aperature, which I would take over the aperature of the other lens any day.

If there's one thing I've learned about photography/cameras is that glass (as long as it's taken care of) dosen't lose much value.

Invest in your glass!

Rich, btw, love your work. Wish I was anywhere near your talent with the cameras as well as the post processing (where I lack quite a bit!)

Sometimes I think there is more photography knowledge here than there is wakeboarding. Thanks for the info, I think I will spring for the Canon 200mm thanks guys. It seems to be the favorite among many. I dont really need the 300 anyway, it was an idea because of the deal at Costco anyway.

(Message edited by slipknot on January 24, 2007)

Sorry if I got a bit longwinded!

Funny part is the ultimate "crop factor" camera is a normal point and shoot. Tiny little sensor with 3 micron or less photosites. Ever wonder how they can give you all that telephoto range with that little tiny lens? If you think about what I talked about above it starts to make sense.

A 1/4" sensor with about a 3mm to 15mm lens (35mm equivalent) but because of the "crop" factor you end up with a 20 (or so ) mm on up to well over a hundred in equivalent FOV.

Good decision on the 70-200mm, a solid choice and really the one lens everyone should own.