EOS 1v with Tamron 28-300

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

Hi,

I'm planning to buy a Canon 1v body and i already have a Tamron 28-300 lens. I wanted to know if the Tamron 28-300 has good preformance with the EOS 1v? What weeknesses cause the lens to the body? and to the overall preformance of this pro camera?

Thank's OFir Cohen

-- Ofir Cohen (ofirco@hotmail.com), July 12, 2001

Answers

I'm planning on buying a top of the line stereo amplifier with digital input and 250 watts of power, and I already have a pair of 3" speakers from Radio Shack.

That's one way to look at your question. Another way is the traditional argument (a sound one, I would add) that it's not the camera that matters - it's the lens. Don't waste your money on a fancy camera if you have a cheap low-end consumer lens. Get a cheap camera and a fancy lens if you want to spend big dollars and get decent photos.

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), July 12, 2001.


As a camera body is just a light-tight box connecting film/CCD and lens, it can never affect a lens' optical performance. Occasionally a 3rd party manufacturer's lens causes an Eos body to act up due to electronic (in-)compatibility issues, but unless the body's lens mount is distorted or the film guide rails and/or the pressure plate have been damaged, image quality is precisely the same for an Eos 3000 and an Eos 1v.

Overall performance of the Eos 1v is excellent, as far as one can use this term wrt camera bodies. The problem is, zoom lenses with a large focal length range aren't good at all optically, no matter what the manufacturer says. I've seen 20x30cm prints made via such a lens: chromatic aberration was obvious. A few months ago, a friend and I were about to test her 28-200mm and a 180mm lens for the same mount; we didn't use any film when resolution was visibly better in the viewfinder (i.e., the 180 allowed to identify details that simply did not exist in the zoom's image).

Ofir, this site answers plenty of questions, and yours as well.

You probably already have a Canon Eos camera body. (If not, an Eos 30 is an excellent choice.) Then, think minimalistic: do you need focal lengths beyond 100mm? My photography students usually don't, btw, although they thought they would at the beginning of the course. I would like to suggest either:

Canon 28-105mm/f:3.5-4.5 USM and plenty of film. That lens isn't the best, but OK for 13x18cm and a dimension above any gigazoom.

Canon 28mm/f:2.8, Canon 50mm/f:1.4, Canon 100mm/f:2.8 Macro USM, and plenty of film. If your preferred motives are too fast to allow changing lenses, you wish to use b&w and colour simultaneously, or travel to areas whose climate is tough on cameras, these three lenses and a second camera body cost still less than one Eos 1v. (Or choose a Ricoh GR1s instead of the Canon 28mm: that P&S offers manual aperture setting and exposure compensation and has an excellent built-in 28mm/f:2.8--and you can take it with you when the SLR gear seems to heavy.) These fixed focal length lenses are among the best lenses ever made.

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), July 13, 2001.

You some people are real funny< The performance of the tamron with the 1v will be good, I've used it alot. In fact the sigma 17-35 is a much better lense than a canon. The people at canon are so stupid they made a $1000 street price macro mp-e 65 lens that if you WANTED to put a filter on it you CAN NOT!! put a macro light on will not fit AT ALL. Called canon they more or less said DUH! IS THAT RIGHT! I have most of canon's so called top line lens and cameras, all that glitters isn't golden.But the 1v is one fine camera that i will say. Those who say a body just gathers light had better look at calender 2001 HELLO!!!! You buy a 1v you will never think about another camera. Rich

-- rich Dattilo (fire@nls.net), August 10, 2001.

Rich,

The optics & performance of Sigma lenses (& anyone else for that matter) have to be taken on a per lens basis. I've heard that the Sigma 17-35mm lens is actually slightly superior to Canon's similar offering (optically speaking -- I beleive the mechanics still go to Canon with their innovations). I've also heard that Sigma's 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM is pretty nice for the price. Tamron & Tokina definately have some nice lenses -- but they've definately had some flops (as has Canon).

NK Guy & Oliver Schrinner have made excellent points. The issue with the 28-300mm is that it is a "superzoom," and technical trade-off's HAD to be made in it's design (same as any superzoom). You could say the formula is: focal length range x image quality = convenience x cost (the greater the focal length range the greater the convenience, but image quality will suffer to keep costs down).

You have to admit that coupling a $400 lens with a $2000 body seems somewhat imbalanced. My assumption is that OFir can't afford to upgrade lenses if he's pay new price on the 1v, but that he will eventually get lenses that match the performance characteristics of the body. Why get a pro body (top of the line, at that) if you only plan to use consumer grade lenses? The whole point of those armored beasties is that they can take abuse, and having a consumer lens on the lens mount pretty much negates that advantage. I'm in the same camp as the above posts -- I'd rather spend that $2000 on L series lenses & TC's and slap them onto a Rebel 2000 until I could afford to upgrade the body!

My question to you OFir, is whether the 1v is right for your needs. Only you can answer that. An Elan 7/7E is a very sophisticated camera that is far less expensive (but it doesn't have all the armor & weather seals, and has poorer EV rating for low light work). What draws you to the 1v? Ruggedness? Highest shutter speeds/frame advance speeds? All those custom functions? Etc.

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 11, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ