colorflow Posted February 19, 2007 Share #1 Â Posted February 19, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have decided to fully jump into digital photography. Have a couple of trips planned for this summer. Naturally will be taking the M8 (hope it comes back from Solms in time). But need something longer than 90 or even 135. Am considering getting a used Canon 20D and their new 70-200 f4 IS plus, perhaps, the 1.4x converter. Seems to me the 20D is a good value - has enough resolution (actually higher pixel density than the M8 or full frame Canons) and pretty inexpensive used. My other criteria is size and weight and so the f4 rather the f2.8. I will be using the M8 90% of the time and the tele only occasionally for birds or wild-life. Any input would be appreciated. Â Thanks in advance, Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 Hi colorflow, Take a look here Which telephoto outfit to complement the M8?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Nitnaros Posted February 19, 2007 Share #2 Â Posted February 19, 2007 Alan, I think the 70-200/f4 is a good choice, since you want to minimize weight. Plus the crop factor of the 20D gives you a lot of reach. Â However, I would not add the 1.4x extender; it does cost you 1 stop of light, which makes your lense a f5.6 max aperture - it gets "dark" that way. You got plenty of reach without it, so I would skip that one (it makes more sense for the 70-200/f2.8, but then you have a have rig). Â Bye, Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted February 19, 2007 Share #3  Posted February 19, 2007 I have decided to fully jump into digital photography. Have a couple of trips planned for this summer. Naturally will be taking the M8 (hope it comes back from Solms in time). But need something longer than 90 or even 135. Am considering getting a used Canon 20D and their new 70-200 f4 IS plus, perhaps, the 1.4x converter. Seems to me the 20D is a good value - has enough resolution (actually higher pixel density than the M8 or full frame Canons) and pretty inexpensive used. My other criteria is size and weight and so the f4 rather the f2.8. I will be using the M8 90% of the time and the tele only occasionally for birds or wild-life. Any input would be appreciated.  Thanks in advance, Alan  Oh my, exactly my idea. Except that the F4 with the 1.4 converter may be a little problematic in focusing. Consider instead the 70-300 mm DO . On the 1.6 crop factor 20D we are talking 135- 470mm that is imaged stabilized. And the lens is really small .  There are some things the M8 is not good at. For telephoto beyond 135mm , for using the tilt-shift lenses , or for extreme macro, a DSLR can't be beat. So thats about 10% of my shooting. I quess it would be different if I was a sports shooter  Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 19, 2007 Share #4 Â Posted February 19, 2007 Alan let me give you a better choice here get any small body you want in the canon but get the 135 f2 lens and the 1.4 x converter. That combination is better than the famed 70-200 2.8 i tested this and sold the zoom in a heart beat. The 135 f2 is probably there sharpest lens made next to the 200 1.8 so you get a excellent 135 f2 and 180 2.8 on FF body. Don't need anything else but that and your M8 system. Maybe a macro and than get the 50 macro it is cheap and good Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted February 19, 2007 Share #5  Posted February 19, 2007 Alan let me give you a better choice here get any small body you want in the canon but get the 135 f2 lens and the 1.4 x converter. That combination is better than the famed 70-200 2.8 i tested this and sold the zoom in a heart beat. The 135 f2 is probably there sharpest lens made next to the 200 1.8 so you get a excellent 135 f2 and 180 2.8 on FF body. Don't need anything else but that and your M8 system. Maybe a macro and than get the 50 macro it is cheap and good  What Guy said is my second choice. Of course I have that combo too Certainly for the maximum in quality that is the way to go. However you do give up alot of range over the DO. However the DO is a rather aquired taste and requires a little more PP to get back contrast; also the bohkah is kind of weird . However I really like the rig...no lens changing or nothin!  and that coming from a prime lens kind of guy Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 19, 2007 Share #6 Â Posted February 19, 2007 Rex yes you do give up the range that is for sure and a lot depends what you do after 90mm. On the DMR system I have the 180 f2 and the 1.4 so for me that is about really all i need , although a great 135mm would be nice on the M8 like a nice F2 one. That was a hint leica . LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colorflow Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share #7  Posted February 19, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Alan let me give you a better choice here get any small body you want in the canon but get the 135 f2 lens and the 1.4 x converter. That combination is better than the famed 70-200 2.8 i tested this and sold the zoom in a heart beat. The 135 f2 is probably there sharpest lens made next to the 200 1.8 so you get a excellent 135 f2 and 180 2.8 on FF body. Don't need anything else but that and your M8 system. Maybe a macro and than get the 50 macro it is cheap and good  Guy, I have seen the 135 and it's photos from a friend. Great lens - sharp and beautiful OOF. On the 20D it would be over 300mm with the 1.4 ext and the 1.6 crop. Only thing is whether I need the zoom? still a big gap between 90x1.33=120 on the M8 and the 135x1.6=216 on the 20D.  The 70-300 DO has decent reviews and light, but have not seen actual photos with it, but presumably not the quality of the L lenses,  Rex, do you have photos from the 70-300DO?  Decisions, decisions...  Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted February 19, 2007 Share #8  Posted February 19, 2007  The 70-300 DO has decent reviews and light, but have not seen actual photos with it, but presumably not the quality of the L lenses,  Rex, do you have photos from the 70-300DO?  Decisions, decisions...  Alan  I wish I could get my hands on some old DO photos but I haven't much used the darn thing since descending into the world of digital rangefinder photography. Even with the RD1 last summer I was sticking to a maximum of 90mm. I had the Canon with a suitcase full of lenses but I never use it. My old DO photos are buried on a hard drive somewhere (sound familar?) . I really have to get organized  BTW the DO is of "L" quality as to build. And although very small, it is NOT light. This little sucker is all metal and glass. Feels like an 1955 all brass and chrome Japanese battleship which I kind of like. As to the "look" of the pictures, they are undeniabley unique. But I like lenses that have personalities.  Boy, I'm jacking myself up about this lens. Think I may got out tommorow with the DO and the 135mm F2.0 for the first time in about a year.  Guy, your right about Leica and it's own 135mm F2 . I'm having good luck with my ancient Nikkor 85mmF2 even without the 1.25 mag.  Rex ....aint' the M8 somethin? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted February 19, 2007 Share #9 Â Posted February 19, 2007 would be interested in some 70-300DO photos as well :-)) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted February 19, 2007 Share #10 Â Posted February 19, 2007 Rex and Alan, I had the 70-300DO for some time, and although it was a really nice lens with good construction, I found the bokeh sometimes too distracting, and this I find too important when shooting birds, for example, because there are often many small branches around. It also has low contrast, as you said, and it really needs lots of PP to get the shots right. It is also an expensive lens, which makes no sense to get for a cheap 20D, if the goal is to save money. There is a regular consumer version of a 70-300 zoom in Canon's lineup, at about half the price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macusque Posted February 19, 2007 Share #11 Â Posted February 19, 2007 I agree with Carsten about the 70-300 DO. I used the lens for a while but I found its bokeh and contrast not very good (ditto for the 400/4 DO IS). Some recent samples are said to be better as far as contrast, but in the end I'd much prefer the 70-200/4L IS, although I don't know about its bokeh (I found the 70-200/4 non-IS bokeh less pleasing than that of the 70-200/2.8L IS at the same apertures). Â I'm shooting with the DMR now, but a great lens which I'd like to see from Canon is their 400/5.6L with IS. That plus the 70-200/4L IS on a 20D/30D would make for an excellent and relatively light nature photography setup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Roggen Posted February 19, 2007 Share #12  Posted February 19, 2007 If it's portability you want, this might be a good choice. Fits in your pocket... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/16631-which-telephoto-outfit-to-complement-the-m8/?do=findComment&comment=176275'>More sharing options...
reven Posted February 19, 2007 Share #13 Â Posted February 19, 2007 Ok following advice. Â 1. Take the 20D with the 70-300 DO IS. It is a good lens. not as good as the 70-200 but ok. Especially if you use a 20D. I used mine with the 5D last summer and got fantastic results from it. (only the corners are wide open soft, but on a crop camera you shouldn't have this problem at all) Â Secon thing IF you want the BEST quality possible get the 70-200 f4 IS. I sold my 135 after I got the lens because there was nearly NO diffrence. and at 200 the zoom performce MUCH better than the 135+1.4. I really think this is the best zoom ever made by Canon and one which would even be allowed to be labeled as good as leica zooms. You don't believe it ? Give it a try. It's even better than the 70-200 2.8 IS Â Â the 70-200 gives you around 110-320 I think that should be enough for most cases. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted February 19, 2007 Share #14 Â Posted February 19, 2007 I'd have to agree with Guy on this, the Canon 135/2 is an incredible lens. Beautiful Bokeh, razor sharp for in-focus areas. Â The 135/2L on a 20D will give you the field of view of a 200mm+ telephoto, which is the most frequently used focal length on a 70-200 tele-zoom according to some surveys I've read. Â I've found that beyond 90mm (120mm equivalent field of view on the M8 for portraits), I usually want to jump to true telephoto of 180mm or greater. Â Additionally, on a 20D, the 135/2 becomes the equivalent of a 300/2.8 when using the 1.4X ... in a much lighter, and smaller package than the 300/2.8. Nice for travel. Â BTW, f/2.8 or larger max aperture is required in Canon cameras to maintain the the more sensitive AF cross sensor(s). The 20Ds focusing isn't that of the 1 series cameras, so it can use all the help it can get. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 19, 2007 Share #15 Â Posted February 19, 2007 Err... (posted before) :D Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugby Posted February 19, 2007 Share #16  Posted February 19, 2007 I'd prefer the Leica Elcan 90mm f1.0 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/16631-which-telephoto-outfit-to-complement-the-m8/?do=findComment&comment=176351'>More sharing options...
steich Posted February 19, 2007 Share #17  Posted February 19, 2007 @jaap: Don´t use this near an airport. Some security people might think you were carrying a Stinger ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andit Posted February 19, 2007 Share #18 Â Posted February 19, 2007 Hi Alan, Â I don't know why anyone has not made the suggestion that you should try a Digilux 3 with some oly glass. They make a 50 - 200mm f/2.8 lens. This translates to 100 - 400mm in 35 terms at a fixed f/2.8 aperture... Not even Canon manufacture a lens like this. Best of all, the price for this lens is real reasonable. Â Some of the images, that have been taken with the D3, posted on this site are incredible. I would think that they are at the very least as good as Canon images, if not even better. Â Hope this helps Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andit Posted February 19, 2007 Share #19 Â Posted February 19, 2007 ... to me the 20D is a good value - has enough resolution (actually higher pixel density than the M8 or full frame Canons) ... Â Just wanted to share some technical details. When it comes to sensors and pixels, it's the actual size of each individual pixel that influences the quality of the image. That is the main reason why a photo taken with a 10 megapixel D-Lux 3 (as an example), and one taken with an M8 (both have 10 megapixel resolution), can not be compared to one another. The larger the image sensor's pixels the better the photo... Â Looking at the actual pixel size of various camera's, what is known as pixel real estate in the industry, the Canon 20D and 30D have pixels of 6,4 microns, the Canon 400D (or Rebel XTi) has 5,7 microns, the Leica Digilux 3/Pana L1/Oly E330 have 5,5 microns. Interstingly enough, the M8 and DMR have the same size pixels at 6,8 microns, the D-Lux 3 in comparison has 2,6 microns. The largest pixels on 35 type cameras are used on the full frame Canons (1DSII and 5D) at a size of 8,2 microns. The medium format backs use much larger pixel elements. Will try and find out the sizes and share them here, that is, if anyone is interested. Â Sorry to have bored you guys, Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colorflow Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share #20  Posted February 19, 2007 When it comes to sensors and pixels, it's the actual size of each individual pixel that influences the quality of the image. Andreas  Thanks Andreas, but pardon a naive question:- surely the pixel density also counts for higher resolution? While the size of the pixels influences noise level?  Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.