--- Robert Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After my parent's camera equipment got stolen they
> want to replace it with something new. So right now
> try to figure out what to get them. I have set $1500
> as the limit. So far I have the following in mind:
>
> Elan 7 ~$430
> Canon 420EX ~$210
> Canon 24-85/3.5-4.5 ~$360
> Canon 75-300IS/4-5.6 ~$479
> total ~1479
>
> Now the questions:
>
> The flash should have FP. The 220EX seems not to
> have FP, coverage only starts at 28mm, and the GN
> is a bit too low. The 550EX is too expensive. So the
> 420EX seems to fit the bill. I would have considered
> another brand but the only one that offers FP is the
> Metz 54MZ3 which is too expensive. Any other
> suggestions?
Hi Robert,
The 220EX does indeed have FP flash, but I'll agree
that the 420EX is the better choice by far. Other
alternatives that offer FP flash (other than Metz) are
2 models from Sigma the 430 Super and 500 Super (the
Super models offer FP flash, the ST (standard?) models
don't. The 430 only has a tilt head, the 500 has tilt
and swivel. Both have an LCD and both have some nice
features) See:
http://www.sigma-photo.com/Html/news/Pixfs_ef500super.htm
and
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/flashes.htm
for more details. The 430 Super is $179. Don't know
about the 500 Super.
>
> The lenses should cover 24-300. Most pictures will
> be 5x7" with some 8x12". Almost 100% handheld. For
> the wide angle 28 is not really wide enough. So
> there is not much of a choice. I believe to remember
> from years ago that the 24-85/3.5-4.5 has received
> quite good reviews. But lately many bad reports have
> shown up, especially compared with the 28-135IS. Is
> the OPTICAL performance really that big? What other
> alternative are there including other brands like
> Sigma and Tamron? I would have considered a fixed-
> focal length but even the 24/2.8 costs $370 which is
> more then the zoom.
If it's basically 100% handheld then the 28-135 IS
will have a big advantage. You really do get a
significant advantage even at the shorter focal
lengths. Optically there's not much in it though. To
cover the wider 24mm you could go for a Sigma 24 f2.8
at around $190. But the 28-135 is a good $90-$100
more than the 24-85, so that's an additional $300 or
so there!
Another alternative is to stick with the 24-85 and get
a 50 f1.8 for low light work where the zoom won't cut
it. At $80 it's great buy, excellent optics, although
fairly cheaply constructed.
>
> For the tele I thought an IS lens would be nice
> because most pictures are shot handheld. I figured a
> lens with a bit better optical quality does not help
> that much as IS could improve pictures. But then I
> heard quite a lot of bad reviews about the 75-300IS.
> On the other hand the 100-300 doesn't seem to be
> that much better either, especially if you take the
> IS of the 75-300 into account.
I've owned both of these and they're fairly similar in
optical quality - fairly good on the short end, but
so-so at the long end. Again the expensive option
(but well matched to the 28-135) is a 200 f2.8L at
$675. Matched with a Tamron SP or Kenko Pro 1.4x
teleconverter you get a 280 f4 with better optical
qualities than either of the zooms, but it's more
money again!
Cheaper alternatives, well I just don't know. Maybe
someone else can suggest some.
>The 100-300/5.6L is not
> produced anymore and is probably out of budget
> anyway. So are there alternatives?
>
> How do these new lenses compare to the old lenses
> like an FD50/1.4, FD70-210/4.5-5.6?
>
> Warranty is one other important issue. I believe to
> remember that for Canon the US warranty is valid
> world wide. But what about other brands like Sigma
> and Tamron? Is there US warranty also valid in other
> countries, i.e. Switzerland?
>
Can't answer this as I live in Australia.
Regards
Gary
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
