Side note: I got confirmation from Canon that my camera is in the service center. I can expect it back in ten business days from yesterday.
As for lenses, I bought my 300D with the 75-300 because at $189 it was nearly free, and the 18-50 EFS. I quickly discovered how terrible that 18-50 is, but Warren (on this list) had bought the 24-80mm and didn't need his 28-105mm, so he sold that one to me. The 28-105 stayed on my camera all the time. My next lens purchase was the f/2.8 100mm macro and the f/1.8 50mm macro. Recently I decided to leave the 28-105 off, and just use the prime lenses as much as possible. The 50mm stays on for almost all pictures now, or I swap for the 100mm. That cheap 75-300 still gets use, but not often. It just isn't that good. I want a wider lens, however, and I think I enjoy being a prime guy. I borrowed a friends f/2.8 24mm, and I like it. With the 1.6 that 24mm matches the wideness of both my Nikon 950 and my Nikon 995, both of which I adored until I got the 300D. I had almost forgotten how they took pictures until several weeks ago when I looked back through old CDs of images, and realized that my camera is telephoto all the time, and I loved taking wide pictures with my Nikons. Since I plan, however, to get the 24-80mm like Warren has someday, I'm going to buy the f/2.8 20mm prime instead. It is even wider than my Nikons were, but not terribly so. I'm also pretty commited to buying the f/2.8L 200mm lens. It is very affordable, and the extra zoom over my 100mm should be just about right for what I want. If I need longer, then both the 1.4 converter and the 2.0 converter will turn it into a faster sharper lens than the 75-300 is. It will just cost me another $650, though. Someday I should probably get a good zoom, an L series. But in the meantime, I think I get by just fine. On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:37:41PM -0700, Robert Meyers wrote: >> That 18-50 lens may well be worth looking at, if >> optical quality is good enough. It's funny, I never >> felt the 28-70 was long enough for my needs on film >> bodies, and now I don't think it's wide enough on my >> 10d. I guess I'm never satisfied <g>. > >Yep. I felt the same way. The reason you are citing is one of two major >reasons I did not buy a 10D. The only option I was left with was the 17- >40L... and I absolutly dislike that lens. Too much distortion. The oly was >the perfect fit with it's base lens though (28-108 equiv). Supposedly, they >are going to bring out a 12-42.5mm F2.0 constant or the like... now that >would be impressive. Now if the 1Ds price drops enough when the Mark II >comes out... my portrait camera may end up being Canon DSLR (currently EOS >3 / Elan 7E with Minolta 5400). -- void *(*(*schlake(void *))[])(void *); /* http://www.nmt.edu/~schlake/ */ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
