Hello to All,

I have been through the forum and did not find exactly what I wanted to know so here goes...

I am looking to move into a SLR system that I can use for general nature and travel photography. Would like it to be resonably sized and more versitle than my current rangefinder kit.

I am fairly picky when it comes to image quality so my main concern has to do with the lens choices. I shoot mostly Fuji Velvia and Provia F.

I am thinking of the following:

1. An EOS 3 body (because it has a spot meter). 2. 20/2.8 USM 3. 28-135 IS USM 4. 180 macro 5. At least one of the Canon dedicated flashes.

I have no experience with Canon equipment so any ideas or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

-- Scott G (PFD261@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002

Answers

Get the 550ex speedlite, it is made to work with the 45 focusing points and was introduced with the eos 3 for that reason!

-- mwb (pookeybookey@aol.com), May 12, 2002.

The EF 28-135 IS USM is a fine lens and the IS feature is wonderful, but if you're used to prime lens quality and are very picky, the EF 28- 70 2.8L USM may be a better choice. It's one the best zooms ever made.

The other issue is that the cross AF sensors will not be fully activated with a slow zoom like the EF 28-135 IS USM. You need at least a constant F4 aperture for the center cross to be fully enabled and F2.8 for the other cross sensors.

I agree with the other poster, the 550EX is the best flash for the EOS 3 as they wree designed to work together. The AF assist lights in other Speedlites won't cover all the AF sensors.

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), May 12, 2002.

I think the 28-135 IS is the best travel lens ever made. Mine is very sharp and the IS is wonderful. The 28-70/2.8L is extremely sharp, but it is more expensive, larger, heavier, and lacks IS. For travel and landscape shooting I generally shoot at the mid to high apertures (f/6.7 to f/16) for adequate depth of field, so for that kind of shooting, particularly without a tripod, the 28-135 with IS is more useful than the fast 28-70/2.8L without IS.

You may also wish to consider replacing the 180 Macro with the 70- 200/4L if you don't need to do dedicated macro work. The 70-200/4L is extremely sharp, fairly compact and lightweight, has excellent L- quality constuction, and it has a pretty good minimum focus distance. Being a zoom it will offer greater flexibility for travel and nature. Also, adding a close-up lens or extension tubes will allow it to do macro work.

-- Peter Phan (pphan01@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.

Great suggestions, many thanks!

I like the idea of the 70-200/4 L. The 28-70/2.8 seems like a better choice as far as image quailty, as long as you do not factor in the IS capability.

One concern is the jump between the 28 and the 20mm focal length. I like wide angles and use my 24mm alot. any suggestions on a wide angle solution to fill this gap?

I wonder if a good alternative would be a 20-35 USM or similar, a prime such as 50/1.4/1.8 or , and the 70-200/4 L?

-- Scott G (PFD261@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.

These are all good lenses you are talking about, and the 20-35 USM is another good one. There is just so many ways to get a small EOS kit. Lots of options.

The 20-35 USM, 50mm, and 70-200 f/4L is a another good option alright, but I prefer to have one mid-range zoom to have on most of the time, and then carry both a longer and wider lens. The 50mm lens just doesn't cut it as a general purpose lens for me. I rarely shoot between anything between 35mm and 70mm, but I want one (normally mounted) lens that shoots wider and longer than that. I know there is a lot of debate on 50mm lenses, but it's what I prefer. And another personal preference is for wider lenses. 20mm is too long for what I want to shoot.

That's the whole point though. Only you know what you want. Do you want a mid range zoom like I do, or do you prefer primes? How long, and how wide is enough?

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), May 12, 2002.

I was leaning toward the midrange zoom as a primary lens. Most of my shots are taken with a 35 followed closely with the 24 and 90.

Ideally I am looking to put something together that would go from about 20-24mm to 90-100mm. In order to get the image quailty in this range do I need to go to an L series lenses or?

-- Scott G (PFD261@hotmail.com), May 18, 2002.