rosscova

about | support

1.6x crop, not 100% viewfinder coverage (I'm just wishing)

This camera FINALLY convinced me to go digital, and i'm not regretting it.

I do miss the colours and subtle tones that are only possible with film (at this stage), also the 100% viewfinder coverage and full frame imaging area (obviously) of my 35mm EOS-1, but the trade-off has proved well worth it.

I'm finding that the (slight) drop in IQ over images I get on film are well and truly off-set by the added useability of the 40D, and the digital medium overall. You may think i'm crazy for waiting so long to go digital, but this is truly the first D-SLR that has fallen into my price range, with useability and IQ to warrant the change. In my opinion, a 30D did not have enough advantages to make the change, the 40D definitely does.

I recommend this camera to anyone who won't be able to afford the upcoming update to the 5D. I do wish I could afford full-frame.

I bought this lens about 6 months ago because it was the best quality telephoto zoom i could afford, and i would do the same again if i was back in that position. The optics are as good as can be expected for the price, and FAR better than the canon 80-200mm which i have used before.

Unfortunately, most of my shots are taken with the aperture at f8 or wider, which makes the image a bit soft. If using with ISO 100, the aperture basically needs to be left wide open to get any reasonable shutter speeds, and this gives pretty average results, especially at 300mm.

I do find though, that using the shallow DOF that 300mm and greater than f8 gives to remove foreground and background distractions (like cages and people) is great, especially in zoos, where my lens does a lot of it's work.

All in all, i would recommend this lens to anyone who can't afford L, and isn't prepared to go prime. I am confident that anyone in that situation will be as happy as a pig in the proverbial with their purchase. Personally i plan to upgrade to the 200 f2.8L prime, with a 1.4x TC for versatility as soon as i get the cash, simply because it will be tougher, faster, and a hell of a lot sharper. But it was the 100-300mm that has built my love for long lenses, and i think it can do the same for you!

I also recommend the lens hood, as i found lens flare a bit of a problem until i fitted one to mine.

I bought this lens second hand for AUS$400 about a year ago, and have been very happy with it for the price. I use it with film, and the wide angle range is great for landscapes and creative close-ups. I find it is a great lens for carrying around on the camera because it is reasonably light, and the focal lengths can prove very reasonable for most wide shots. Just stay outdoors unless you have a flash or mono/tripod, as the f3.5 is generally a little slow (especially using ISO 100 as i usually do).

On the down side, i find myself disappointed sometimes with the sharpness, especially closer to the edges. Comparing it with the 17-40mm L lens, there is a noticeable difference in image quality. Having said that, though, for the amateur photographer, the difference seen there is not worth the cost, so i will happily stick with the 20-35mm.

All in all, i would recommend this lens to any non-professional who can't afford L-glass. It will keep 98% of people very happy, as it has done for me. Probably the only lens in my kit that will stay there until it dies.