[Steeroid]

Originally Posted by kb100

My Canon EOS 40D with the Siggy 17-70 got delivered today - Its on a plane to India as we speak!!

Congrats.

And my Nikon D300 got home today. Base camera + MB-D100 Multi Power Battery Pack + 4 GB Sandisk Ultra High Speed Compact Flash + 1 additional EN-EL3 battery for the Multi Battery Pack (also accepts regular AA). I dont need the multi battery pack, but I got a good price as a kit as opposed to body only (strange!). So I had to buy the additional battery.

Other pieces of kit carried forward from legacy camera include 2 lenses (18-200 Nikkor VR and 10-20 Sigma), 1 Velbon tripod with a ball head, 1 Nikon Speedlight SB80.

[tsk1979]

Does anybody here own the Sony A700?
If so, how is the camera? The specs and IQ seems top notch

[kb100]

Originally Posted by Steeroid

Congrats.

And my Nikon D300 got home today. Base camera + MB-D100 Multi Power Battery Pack + 4 GB Sandisk Ultra High Speed Compact Flash + 1 additional EN-EL3 battery for the Multi Battery Pack (also accepts regular AA). I dont need the multi battery pack, but I got a good price as a kit as opposed to body only (strange!). So I had to buy the additional battery.

Other pieces of kit carried forward from legacy camera include 2 lenses (18-200 Nikkor VR and 10-20 Sigma), 1 Velbon tripod with a ball head, 1 Nikon Speedlight SB80.

D300 is a really nice piece of equipment - Congrats Steer - ENJOY!!

B&H did not ANY package with the EOS 40D - other than a couple of lens options. Adorama did - but they charge Sales Tax for a NJ address that I was shipping to - would have more than negated any price advantage. Strangely - I found the accessory prices in India to be much cheaper than the US.

I repeat - the only reason I bought from there was because I was getting a Bill - and therefore I can claim depreciation (- the few joys of being in business!!)

[given2fly]

Canon is giving a sizable discount on majority of DSLRs and 'L' Lenses. I am getting one 70-200 F4 for 560$ (@ Amazon and Adorama) + 8$ for tiffen 67mm UV filter.

At the same time, someone is selling me the same lens in India. It is 6 months old and in very good condition (personally verified). His reason for selling is that it is too high end for him and he would like to use a 28-200 lens for now to learn quickly. What should be the right price for the lens?

Also, is Canon US warranty for lens good in India? I know cameras aren't covered, but I heard in forums that Lens usually come with an international warranty. Is it true?

[kb100]

Originally Posted by given2fly

Canon is giving a sizable discount on majority of DSLRs and 'L' Lenses. I am getting one 70-200 F4 for 560$ (@ Amazon and Adorama) + 8$ for tiffen 67mm UV filter.

At the same time, someone is selling me the same lens in India. It is 6 months old and in very good condition (personally verified). His reason for selling is that it is too high end for him and he would like to use a 28-200 lens for now to learn quickly. What should be the right price for the lens?

Also, is Canon US warranty for lens good in India? I know cameras aren't covered, but I heard in forums that Lens usually come with an international warranty. Is it true?

Well - those websites also give the used prices. Guess 18-20 K should be a good price.

[navin]

Originally Posted by Steeroid

And my Nikon D300 got home today. 1 Nikon Speedlight SB80.

The SB80 might not TTL with the D300. the SB800 will.

Originally Posted by given2fly

Canon is giving a sizable discount on majority of DSLRs and 'L' Lenses. I am getting one 70-200 F4 for 560$ (@ Amazon and Adorama) + 8$ for tiffen 67mm UV filter.

At the same time, someone is selling me the same lens in India. It is 6 months old and in very good condition (personally verified).

The 70-200/4 lens is really sharp but...
1. it does not have IS (the IS version costs double) and hence robs you of a stop which can come useful when shooting indoors (plays, theater)
2. is about 100mm too short (the 70-300/IS can be hence considered more practical givne that much of it's long end distortion is at the edges and not really an issue on an APS-C sensor) .

[kb100]

Originally Posted by navin

The 70-200/4 lens is really sharp but...
1. it does not have IS (the IS version costs double) and hence robs you of a stop which can come useful when shooting indoors (plays, theater)
2. is about 100mm too short (the 70-300/IS can be hence considered more practical givne that much of it's long end distortion is at the edges and not really an issue on an APS-C sensor) .

Absolutely...

Given both of their price points and their IQ - guess the 70-300 IS wins the battle as of now - in fact its being called the "hidden L" in their range - and the snaps that I have seen have really impressed me. I for one do feel that the L lens is more 'contrasty' - but that's my eye - and the purists will their views.

Bang for the Buck matters - and the 70-300IS is definitely on my shopping list!

[navin]

Originally Posted by kb100

Given both of their price points and their IQ - guess the 70-300 IS wins the battle as of now - in fact its being called the "hidden L" in their range.

Bang for the Buck matters - and the 70-300IS is definitely on my shopping list!

While the 70-300 is certainly a good lens if one was really looking at bang for buck the 55-200 might be better VFM. After all it less than half the price of teh 70-300.

I consider the 70-300 an excellent travel zoom. Unfortunately Canon does not make as good a travel APS-C lens (the 18-55's IQ is not up there, the 17-85 is dated) as Nikon's 16-85. The 17-55 is very good but for travel is a trifle bulky. Mated to a 40D + BG2EN combo however it offers excellently balanced (if heavy/bulky) combination. I really wished Canon had a 50-150/2.8 (like Tokina).

I have yet to see the Tokina lenses performance on a Canon. Otherwise the 11-16/2.8 and 50-150/2.8 look like good alternates to Canon's lenses perfectly complimenting the 17-55 in range (dont know about IQ yet).

[kb100]

Originally Posted by navin

While the 70-300 is certainly a good lens if one was really looking at bang for buck the 55-200 might be better VFM. After all it less than half the price of teh 70-300.

I agree - but the IQ of the 70-300 IS is in a different league all together. Its around the $540 mark in the US - which is an excellent price for the IQ!

I consider the 70-300 an excellent travel zoom. Unfortunately Canon does not make as good a travel APS-C lens (the 18-55's IQ is not up there, the 17-85 is dated) as Nikon's 16-85. The 17-55 is very good but for travel is a trifle bulky. Mated to a 40D + BG2EN combo however it offers excellently balanced (if heavy/bulky) combination. I really wished Canon had a 50-150/2.8 (like Tokina).

Which is where lenses like the Sigma 17-70 and the Tamron 17-50 comes in. Comparatively cheap as well @ 400.

I have yet to see the Tokina lenses performance on a Canon. Otherwise the 11-16/2.8 and 50-150/2.8 look like good alternates to Canon's lenses perfectly complimenting the 17-55 in range (dont know about IQ yet).

I did see some good things written about the Tokina lenses - but seems sadly underrated.

Tokina 50-135/2.8 - take a look at this - very sharp and love the bokeh!

[Gill]

friends,getting Fuji s9600 for 15.8 k and Canon S5 for 15k,on the internet reviews one major cons for fuji is absence of IS,and one major pros for S5 is excellent auto mode capabilities,but overall fuji has better lens and sensor,and manual zoom ring!
advice plz.

One more thing,How much authentic are pics posted on flickr.com,are they really clicked by the camera they are posted under or it can be otherwise???
I liked the S5 pics more then s9600 on flickr,but the internet reviews says 9600 is far better.

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by kb100

I agree - but the IQ of the 70-300 IS is in a different league all together. Its around the $540 mark in the US - which is an excellent price for the IQ!
Which is where lenses like the Sigma 17-70 and the Tamron 17-50 comes in. Comparatively cheap as well @ 400.

I did see some good things written about the Tokina lenses - but seems sadly underrated.

Tokina 50-135/2.8 - take a look at this - very sharp and love the bokeh!

kb100 if you want a cheapo tele zoom, look no further than the 55-250IS (88-400 effective). It is a brilliant lens for the price... the only downer being its slow and EF-S. Neither is really an issue. Attached is a sample image. Judge for yourself if it satisfies your requirement.

The tokina 11-16 2.8 looks like a very nice lens but again meant only for digital.

[kb100]

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

kb100 if you want a cheapo tele zoom, look no further than the 55-250IS (88-400 effective). It is a brilliant lens for the price... the only downer being its slow and EF-S. Neither is really an issue. Attached is a sample image. Judge for yourself if it satisfies your requirement.

ROC - Nice shot! And I agree - total VFM and very acceptable IQ.

I have done a lot of side by side comparisons - And so far I have liked the little 'extra' that the 70-300 seemed to provide. (Its sharper for one)

I have put off my purchase for another month or two (unless I get impatient!)

In the meantime I will do a lil bit of experimenting with whatever I can lay my hands on

BTW - Any Mumbaikar Bhpian travelling south (Cbe/Cok/Blr)?? My camera needs fetching!!

[reignofchaos]

Frankly having tested both the lenses, I really don't see a point of buying the 70-300 over this lens unless you need it for film. The difference in price is around 17 grand (12 vs 29) and I'd not pay for the miniscule improvement in IQ. I had gone with the money to buy a 70-300 but picked up this one instead. I needed a cheap tele until I can afford a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and this was exactly that .

Point to ponder... for the price of the 70-300 IS, you can get this lens and also an 85/1.8 or a 50/1.4. Now which do you think would be better .

[navin]

Originally Posted by kb100

I did see some good things written about the Tokina lenses - but seems sadly underrated.

Underrated? Where?

Originally Posted by Gill

friends,getting Fuji s9600 for 15.8 k and Canon S5 for 15k.

Get the Fuji. Better range. bigger sensor. faster lens.

The Canon however has 2 advantages IS and the flip and twist screen.

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

Attached is a sample image. Judge for yourself if it satisfies your requirement.

The tokina 11-16 2.8 looks like a very nice lens but again meant only for digital.

Ref: Image. What are those white spots? water droplets?
Ref: 11-16. You mean the 11-16/2.8 is only for APS-C digital or will it cover FF digital too?

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

Frankly having tested both the lenses, I really don't see a point of buying the 70-300 over this lens unless you need it for film.

The 55-250 IS is better VFM than the 70-300. The 70-300 might be a better lens. For that matter if you are mostly shooting f/8+ the 70-300 is more than adequate even when compared to the 70-200/2.8 IS. The bigger lens however is superb when you are operating in bad light or very high shutter speeds (you have to sacrifice DOF though).

[kb100]

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

Frankly having tested both the lenses, I really don't see a point of buying the 70-300 over this lens unless you need it for film. The difference in price is around 17 grand (12 vs 29) and I'd not pay for the miniscule improvement in IQ. I had gone with the money to buy a 70-300 but picked up this one instead. I needed a cheap tele until I can afford a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and this was exactly that .

You have a point.

Do you have some more shots that I can see? If its not on the web can you post a few in the Non-Auto Images thread?

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

Point to ponder... for the price of the 70-300 IS, you can get this lens and also an 85/1.8 or a 50/1.4. Now which do you think would be better .

Hmmmmm.. You have yet another point...