Need Help Beginning my Canon System

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

This is the right forum for this question, right?

I have borrowed an EOS A2 for the last month from a local newspaper (great guys!) and I feel it is the camera for me, so I am going to liquidate my Nikon system for a canon system.

Now for the disclaimers: 1.No, Canon equipment will not make my pictures any better, only I can do that. 2. Yes, I know Canon's flash system is (way) behind "D" technology, but that is okay, as the only flash I have ever used is a 283 3. The Canon "feels" right, if you know what I mean, everything is where it belongs, in my opinion 4. I almost broke a 6006 by focussing manually while the camera was in autofocus mode...FTM is something i long for 5. My N90s cannot use silent-wave technology, but the A2 can use all EOS lenses 6. I love CF4! Finally, 7. I will make the final decision myself, but input is always appreciated

I have approximately $3000 to use.

My Ideas: 1) 2 EOS 5 w/ VG-10 24 2.8 with hood 70-200 2.8L

2) EOS 3 (how is the handling comparable to the A2?) w/ PBE2 24 2.8 w/ hood 70-200 2.8L

3) EOS 5 w/VG-10 24 2.8 w/ hood 70-200 2.8L 1.4X EF (this is the matched teleconvertor for the 70-200 2.8L, correct?)

4) EOS 5 w/VG-10 17-35 2.8L 70-200 2.8L

The system I borrowed was: A2 w/VG-10 28 2.8 70-200 2.8L

I have never used a lens wider than 24 on a regular basis, but I think this is because I have never had the opportunity to use a lens wider than 24mm

I shoot for the high school newspaper, local newspaper, receptions at weddings (and 35mm back-up during ceremony and formals), Personal vision stuff, and I have just started doing some 35mm portraits (and 120mm on my Rolleicord III)

What do you think? All help is useful and appreciative,

jeremy moore

-- Jeremy Moore (moore_photography@yahoo.com), August 09, 2000

Answers

I'll start with saying how well thought out and worded your question is.

Don't be so quick to relegate Canon flash technology far behind Nikon. People do wonders with E-TTL and thorough testing. The A2 is "old" technology as far as flash is concerned. Do you need the features that the A2 offers more than the added bonus of E-TTL the Elan IIe (or EOS-3) offers? That's a big question for you. Also, just as I was beginning to type this, a message was posted and it reads:

A bit off subject perhaps, but I have heard that the 540EZ might be a bit heavy for the shoe on the EOS 5. Anybody have any problems with that? I think part of the issue was causing the pop-up flash contacts to stick. I'm in the market too.

The EOS 5/A2/A2E are all subject to the internal flash getting stuck in the down position. It has to do with the switches (2) under the hot shoe rails, not the size of the speedlite. In fact, the "official" speedlite for the camera is the 430EZ, not much lighter than the 540EZ.

So there ya go. An Elan IIe with a BP-50 is a very comfortable camera for me. I tried Nikon too and it didn't feel comfortable in my hands. So I went with a Canon product that did fit. Plus the BP-50 lets you use AA's for power instead of a 2CR5 and it includes a vertical shutter release (like the VG-10 I assume).

The EOS-3 adds the E-TTL functions. It is a bad mother-trucker. Very heavy and feeling nearly indestructible. I think you should weigh the expected use of the fps (5) the A2 has w/ the Elan (2.5 fps) and it's E-TTL flash technology. Of course the 3 combines both in a really nice body. The Elan IIe has CF4 also. I loved it until I got the BP-50. Now I focus normally.

For sure get the 17-35mm, 70-200 and toss in a 50mm. For any newspaper work you need the wide angle capabilities. I can't tell you how many times I have wished for something wider than 24mm. I end up kicking myself over and over. Hell, with a 17-35mm, you wouldn't even have to focus stopped down to anything past f/4.

Again, weigh your need for faster motor drive against new flash technology. The Elan IIe feels really good with the BP-50, too. Try to pick one up and see for yourself.

-- Colin Miller (ckmiller@pond.net), August 09, 2000.


Colin, Your right, after I posted this question, I have read up on E-TTL and I am quite suprised...Canon's flash technology is more advanced than I had first thought...though TTL is quite a step forward to me. I have considered the Elan II(E) as an option, but haven't purchased a TTL flash, even when I had the opportunity to buy an SB-28 for my Nikon, I am much more an available light man, and when I do need a flash, I just use my 283, which I have grown well accustomed to...thereofre, E-TTL isn't that big of a selling point. Back to the Elan II(E), it just didn't seem to draw me, with only 2.5 frames/sec (though the A2 only does 3 in AF servo mode) compared to my 4.5-5 with my N90s , i am also not drawn to the chrome (I guess I'm shallow), finally, am I correct that the grip for the elan II only does vertical shutter...I have that on my N90s, but ahve always wished for more options, like the A2's VG-10 gives on the grip...$-wise, I believe that the EOS 5 (imported A2E with better manual exposure gauge) is only $50-60 more expensive than an Elan IIE

much food for thought though... jeremy moore

-- Jeremy Moore (moore_photography@yahoo.com), August 09, 2000.


You can be shallow all you want. But when Rebecca Romijn-Stamos wants a date, be sure to tell her you're shallow and don't like all her big white teeth. Then promptly send her over to my house. :)

Kidding aside, if flash is truly secondary, then the A2 is your best bet. Of course if you bought the 3, you wouldn't ever need to upgrade. The 3 covers all your needs and some you probably don't even know about. At a cost of course. It's double (and change $.03) what the A2 is. Priorities I guess.

-- Colin Miller (ckmiller@pond.net), August 09, 2000.


Wow Colin, you must be online right now too!

I have another question:

I saw a Dallas Morning News Photographer with a Canon, but his did not have a camera strap, it had a "grip," by which I mean a loop on the right side of the camera through which the hand slides thourh...is this specific to any canon grip, camera, or accessory...i didn't have time to ask, agh!

Also, I believe that I have crossed the first option off of my list...Reason: The high school I attend has canon's (granted they are Rebels) and I ahve free access to one as a back-up and extra lens body...also the college I am going to be attending (Texas Tech...or RIT, if I get the $$$!) uses Canon's for its newspaper staff, and I would have the opportunity to borrow expensive glass (300 2.8) which, I guess also knocks out option #3,. That leaves me with EOS 3 w/ 24 and 70-200 or EOS 5 with 17-35 and 70-200

jeremy moore

p.s. Colin, I love my QB 1+., and never had any problems with it, but if I had the choice I would go with a Turbo or a Jackrabbit

-- Jeremy Moore (moore_photography@yahoo.com), August 09, 2000.


Jeremy: I'm a fellow amateur photographer, as well as a devout Canonite. I switched from Nikon to Canon in '94, beginning with an Elan. I eventually progressed to the A2, and currently use a 1n along with a 1V HS. My suggestions are as follows.-->

First, it sounds like you're well on your way to developing considerable photographic interests and skills, so you may want to carefully consider the EOS 3 rather than the A2, since the former offers more advanced technology and possibilities than the latter. For example, the EOS 3 will allow you to fully exploit the distinct advantages of the outstanding EOS 550EX flash system (such as E-TTL and FP flash mode), and it will allow (limited) autofocus with lenses as slow as f8 (this can be important when combining teleconvertors with certain lenses). In addition, the EOS 3 allows you the option of adding the PB-E2.

Second, I would suggest deferring on the early purchase of the PB-E2 ($450.00), and instead use that money to invest in lenses which you initially deem to be most important for your needs.

Third, it seems clear that you've wisely decided on the exquisitely sharp 70-200/2.8L, and I applaud this choice, as mine is among my most cherished lenses (I can't wait until Canon releases an IS version...). Among Canon's L series zoom lenses, there is trio of three highly regarded lenses: 17-35/2.8L; 28-70/2.8L; and of course, the 70-200/2.8L. I've not yet had the pleasure to use the 17-35, but I do own the 28-70, and while my first copy of this lens was a lemon, my replacement copy is very sweet indeed. Among Canon's less expensive but superb prime lenses, I'm quite fond of the 28/1.8, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8.

Fourth, if you decide that lenses are the more important initial investment (FWIW, I chose this initial approach when I began building my EOS system), then you will certainly do quite well by choosing an Elan II or A2, and then using the resulting savings to invest in the 70-200/2.8L, along with whatever else you initially select among lenses, such as the 17-35, 28-70, or EOS prime lenses. [Although it is a bit slow, the 28-105/3.5-4.5 is a very respectable zoom lens, and with the advent of the amazingly fine-grained and wonderfully "pushable" Provia 100F (not to mention the soon-to-be-introduced Provia 400F), lens speed considerations may not be as initially important as previously thought or "taught"].

Finally, I'm sure you are well aware that "cost over-run" is an all- too-common obstacle in the building of a great 35mm system, and that our initial allocation of discretionary spending funds may not stretch as far as we would like them to. In general, I've found that in the long run, it often makes more financial sense to strive for strategic buying practices, in which one may seek to minimize or avoid buying their second or third choices, in favor of patient saving in order to opt for one's first choices. Let's face it, the resale value on many used camera gear items is not very strong, and one can really take a financial beating in this area. If you opt for shifting the majority of your current funds into lenses, then it may make more sense to buy a used A2 or Elan, thus minimizing your losses on resale (or by holding on to the used camera) if you later choose to upgrade or add-on with an EOS 3, 1n, or 1V. The same applies for certain lenses: if you know you'll likely replace certain less expensive lenses in the near future for better ones, then it may make more sense to buy such temporary lenses from the used market. Best Regards.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), August 09, 2000.



Just a minor correction to Jeremy's post. All Nikon AF cameras since N2020 can use silent wave lenses. The earlier ones, and N60, doesn't have the circuitry to drive the focus motor, But Jeremy's Nikon N90s should drive all the functions of silent-wave lenses, if his didn't, it was broken.

-- Chuck Fan (chaohui@msn.com), August 09, 2000.

You are right Chuck, I meant the new VR lenses as opposed to IS...I may have skipped over a couple of lines of thought, because I also meant to say that the 70-200 2.8 will focus much faster than my 80-200 2.8 because I use a Tokina 80-200 2.8, which, while very fast for a Third Party (great lens if bought cheap >$500, if not buy the Nikon D)...thank you for pointing out my mistake jeremy moore

-- Jeremy Moore (moore_photography@yahoo.com), August 09, 2000.

Jeremy,

I own an Elan II and EOS-3+PB-E2 booster. I've never owned an A-TTL body (like the EOS-5 or 1n), so I won't comment on them.

Ergonomically, the EOS-3 and booster fit my hand well. Yes, it's hefty, but hey, it's not a problem.

My suggestion is to buy the EOS-3 and booster. Good deals can be had on used EOS-3s. It seems a lot of former EOS-3 users have sold them in favor of the 1v. I've seen EOS-3s sell for the low $800s. PB- E2s, however, are still relatively expensive used.

The EOS-3+PB-E2+550ex flash and the lenses of your choice = a killer outfit.

Good luck with your decision.

-- Jim Hicks (jhicks992@aol.com), August 09, 2000.


Well, just in case anyone would like to know, I have gone with invisible option 5:

I am going to buy an EOS 3, 50 1.8, and 70-200 2.8L. I will then use the meager leftovers to save up for the 17-35 2.8L, a PB-E2, and a 550ez, in that order...thanks for the help!

jeremy moore

-- Jeremy Moore (moore_photography@yahoo.com), August 10, 2000.


I have to agree with most of the posters above, that Canon's E-TTL flash system is great. However, I never, ever, got a badly exposed flash picture with either my A2 or My EOS 1N with the 540EZ flash. If all you've ever used is a Vivitar 283, the A2's flash capabilities won't disappoint you.

With regard to lenses, if you're in the market for a 17-35 f2.8L, be sure you can test the lens before you buy it. Individual lenses I've tried (four of them) ranged from okay to very poor. The 28-70 f2.8L, on the other hand, is incredibly sharp - possibly better than some of Canon's prime lenses.

-- Cliff LeSergent (cliff_l@telusplanet.net), August 10, 2000.



A month late ... hopefully helpfull all the same.

I have built a similar system, mainly through trial and error, My current swag, EOS5 with PB, EOS50 with BP, Sigma 17-35, Canon EF50 1.4, EF100 F2.0 and 70-200 F4.0.

The Sigma is a holdover from my previous collection of assorted Tamron and Sigma "investments", in the future I'd like to add the EF28.

From your post, I would personally have stayed with the 70-200 F4.0, in the UK it is currently close to half the price as the 2.8 (#579 vs #1099) The EOS5 body goes for #429, while the EOS3 is around #900, Meaning with the F4.0 the EOS3 is basically a free upgrade, The extra stop in aperture is fairly neglegable when the wight difference is considered (handholding)

The ergonomics of the EOS 3 are fairly similar to the EOS 5 (in store "wish I could have one" use only), but it has the added advantages as listed above plus its added weatherproofness, strength and lack of main dial problems compared to the EOS 5,

hmmm ... maybe I can afford one hehehehehehehe ...

-- tony (tony@army.com), September 20, 2000.


I have been reading up and lens ratings recently because I too am considering upgrading next year to the Canon EOS system with top quality lenses.
This is what I've come up with so far:
WIDE ANGLE:
1. The 17-35/f2.8 lens is no good because of the distortions below 24mm. So it is really a 24-35/F2.8 lens. In addition there are many reports from people purchasing it that their individual lens was not sharp.
2. The 28/f1.8 and 28/f2.8 lenses are also no good due to significant distortions.
3. The choice for a top quality 28mm focal length is either the 17- 35/f2.8 used only as a 24-35/f2.8 (and pray you get one of the sharp ones) or the 28-70/f2.8 lens. So I suppose its best to just get the 28-70/f2.8 lens. As a tourist I most often use 50mm and 28mm, so this lens will stay on the camera almost all of the time. The addition of the 20/f2.8 should handle all other wide angle needs I will likely encounter. I do not think it is worthwhile to also buy the 24/f2.8 (though it is also an excellent rated lens).
NORMAL ANGLE:
1. The 28-70/f2.8 lens is great at all focal lengths and all f- stops. It is just as good as any fixed focal length lens in its range.
2. The 50/1.4 lens is great when you need more light and are forbidden to use a flash. For example when visiting a scilactite cave.
TELEPHOTO:
1. The 70-200/f2.8 lens is also great at all focal lengths and all f- stops. Quality goes down a bit with the 1.4 teleconverter. With the 2x teleconverter it goes down even more, but it is still vastly superior to any consumer grade lens - still with little distortion and little vignetting - only the sharpness/contrast goes down.

So, I am a little pissed reading about the 17-35/f2.8, 28/f1.8, and 28/f2.8 lenses. It looks like Canon wants to force professionals and serious amateurs to pay dearly for a top 28mm lens. But in general Canon lenses look good.

I have not decided on which Canon camera to purchase, but as for lenses, I'd buy them in the following order:
1. 28-70/f2.8 (will get used the most)
2. 70-200/f2.8 with 2x teleconverter
3. 20/f2.8
4. 50/f1.4 - only if really really needed because lenses 1 through 3 already cost a bundle.
An alternative is:
1. 24/f2.8
2. 50/f1.4
3. 70-200/f2.8 with 2x teleconverter
4. 20/f2.8
This alternative will cost less and includes the low light 50f1.4 lens. I don't know if I'd miss having a 28mm lens. On the down side, with this alternative set of lenses I will be changing lenses often between 24mm and 50mm.


-- Howard Z (howard@howardz.com), November 07, 2000.

Just a comment on Howard's impressions above. I have ACTUALLY used (not read about) the 28 1.8 and it is a superb lens, so I find it strange the note on distortion. That said, I would suggest Jeremy to think about the following: do you feel more comfortable photographing with zooms or with primes? I prefer primes to zooms for the following reasons: 1. I actually find it easier to compose; 2. They focus closer than zooms; 3. Less distortions; 4. They have a depth-of-field scale; 5. They are faster. Remember, even a 2.8 zoom is a slow lens compared to a 1.4 or 1.8 prime lens.

-- Paulo Bizarro (pbizarro@cggp.pt), January 23, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ