Canon 24-70L f/4..

David J. Littleboy wrote:
Just a ring. It comes with a lens cap that's easier to get on/off with the
hood in place and an overly complex rear cap that won't fit on an EF-S lens.

Thanks David,

Martin

David J. Littleboy wrote:
Just a ring. It comes with a lens cap that's easier to get on/off with the
hood in place and an overly complex rear cap that won't fit on an EF-S lens.

Thanks David,

Martin

David J. Littleboy wrote:
Just a ring. It comes with a lens cap that's easier to get on/off with the
hood in place and an overly complex rear cap that won't fit on an EF-S lens.

Thanks David,

Martin

Hi David,

David Hardin wrote:
If this is for a Canon Digital SLR, check out the Sigma 18-125.

Thanks. Yes it is most likely going to be used only with a DSLR, but I
would somehow hate to put my money into a digital *only* lense.

Martin

"Martin Djernæs" wrote in message
...
Hi Dallas,


I know, I know .. BUT .. I neither can nor will pay $1100 for a lense.
My photo budget is a lot less, so I have to learn to do more with less.
Therfore I was looking for "a good lense covering the 24-70 (aprox)
range" and not what lense is almost as good as the 24-70L f/2.8, though
I know my mail sounded like that.


Martin
Have you looked at the Sigma 24~70 f2.8 'EX' series? This is a relatively
new lens.
One of my cameras (20D) uses this lens and the pictures it takes are
indistinguishable from those taken with an identical Canon brand lens. The
focus motor is noisier than Canon motors and sometimes cannot find focus
until you hit a high contrast area when indoors with natural light but in my
opinion, this lens is as good as it gets outside of a genuine Canon one. At
1/3 rd the price of Canon, it has much more than 1/3 rd performance.

Doug

Ryadia wrote:

Have you looked at the Sigma 24~70 f2.8 'EX' series? This is a relatively
new lens.
One of my cameras (20D) uses this lens and the pictures it takes are
indistinguishable from those taken with an identical Canon brand lens. The
focus motor is noisier than Canon motors and sometimes cannot find focus
until you hit a high contrast area when indoors with natural light but in my
opinion, this lens is as good as it gets outside of a genuine Canon one. At
1/3 rd the price of Canon, it has much more than 1/3 rd performance.

You do not buy high grade lenses for picture quality only. Third part
lenses cut costs by making the build quality lower. Whereas a high
grade lens may cost three times as much and not be three times better
in terms of optical performance, it is build to last. No matter how
careful you treat your equipment, there is much to be said in favor of
durability. Whether or not you think it is important for you is your
choice, but there is no question that you get more mechanical quality
with the 24-70 L.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Martin Djernæs wrote:

.. does not exist. Since I can not afford a 24-70L f/2.8 what would yu
suggest with a similar focal length (and range) for *about* half the price?

Prime lenses.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Martin Djernæs wrote:

.. does not exist. Since I can not afford a 24-70L f/2.8 what would yu
suggest with a similar focal length (and range) for *about* half the price?

Prime lenses.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Martin Djernæs wrote:

So it seems like canon offers the following options. Rather "cheap" (and
often bundeled with a body), the 28-135IS and the 24-70L lense. I know
that the 28-135IS is often "sold" as a good alround lense and offers
good value for the money. I could probably get that one, but was
currious as to what other options would be avalible to me - I'm happy
that I was told about the 28-75Di lense.

David has given you very good advice, but I might add: The 28-135 is
NOT a very good lens. I have tested it, and it is visibly behind both
the 24-70 2.8 L and good primes.

Primes like the 24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, 35mm 2.0 and 50mm 1.4 are all
equal to or better than any zoom. If you start with these affordable
primes, you can gradually build up your lens collection, and the
performance will be at least equal to that you can get from L-zooms
and more importantly: Way above consumer zooms.

There is no way around it: Either you must buy the most expensive
zooms, or prime lenses. "Affordable zooms" will never give you the
same quality.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Martin Djernæs wrote:

So it seems like canon offers the following options. Rather "cheap" (and
often bundeled with a body), the 28-135IS and the 24-70L lense. I know
that the 28-135IS is often "sold" as a good alround lense and offers
good value for the money. I could probably get that one, but was
currious as to what other options would be avalible to me - I'm happy
that I was told about the 28-75Di lense.

David has given you very good advice, but I might add: The 28-135 is
NOT a very good lens. I have tested it, and it is visibly behind both
the 24-70 2.8 L and good primes.

Primes like the 24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, 35mm 2.0 and 50mm 1.4 are all
equal to or better than any zoom. If you start with these affordable
primes, you can gradually build up your lens collection, and the
performance will be at least equal to that you can get from L-zooms
and more importantly: Way above consumer zooms.

There is no way around it: Either you must buy the most expensive
zooms, or prime lenses. "Affordable zooms" will never give you the
same quality.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway