Hi, some advice regarding an upgrade/change would be welcome.

I am currently working as a documentary photographer, in the areas of health care and promotion, the wider public sector and cover local exhibitions & events. I've been using an EOS 300, 28-90 USM II (Rebel 2000) with a BP200 and a 380ex speedlite for about a year now. Unfortunately I'm not that keen on the camera, although there is nothing specifically wrong with it (apart from the plastic screw tripod mount on the battery pack). I am looking for a similar camera, with: less auto features, a larger and non-plastic body, a decent dof preview and separate buttons to control aperture and shutter speed in full programme/manual mode.

Regarding lenses(the 28-90 USM has to go), a prime 50mm & something like a 70-200mm zoom would suffice for now. AF would be useful for the exhibition & event photography, however, could I do without it? My other option is to sell/exchange the Canon gear for some prime lenses, flash and powerpack for my old and very trusty Pentax MX. However I would be without AF on a camera this age (I think), once again, could I do without AF? Because of my budget, I am looking in the second-hand market, but what I want is a camera that I will not be thinking of replacing for at least 5yrs (if at all). I bow to your greater wisdom and knowledge. Thanks Jonathan Hughes

AF would be useful and because of my budget I am looking in the second hand market.

-- Jonathan Hughes (liquidideaz@netscapeonline.co.uk), October 12, 2001

Answers

Try an EOS 3, a 70-200 f/4 L and the 50 f/1.4 prime. You can continue using the 380 until you can upgrade to a 550. I'd certainly try to stick with AF if I were you, as it is very useful at times. The Elan II might be decent choice, also, as it meets the criteria of having separate controls for aperture/shutter in manual mode. They're getting very cheap in the used market. I don't like the slow film advance, personally, but if you don't need more than 2 frames/second, it might work well for you.

Mark

-- Mark Stedman (mstedman@lam.org), October 12, 2001.

I agree with the above, if you're set on the 50mm prime. Otherwise, I'd advise that you go for a 28-105 USM or 24-85 USM, which are around the same money as the 50mm F1.4 USM, although the optical quality of these two lenses is not as high as the 50mm prime, or the 70-200 F4L, but are both considerably better than the 28-90.

However, all of this is a lot of money, so you might also want to look at the EOS 30/33 or the 50e/50 (Elan 7e, Elan 7, Elan IIe, Elan II respectively), which will probably provide what you want, leaving more money for lenses.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), October 13, 2001.

Thanks for the comments guys, after some shopping around, I think that I'm going to stick with the EOS 300 for a while and invest in a 28-135 USM IS to replace the 28-90. I'm also considering the EF 70-200 F/4 USM L, which I think will get me close enough without looking to conspicuous. But what of a fixed telephoto lens, any comments on the ef 200 f/2.8 l II USM? Regarding the 50mm prime, I will have to wait a while as it looks like I'll have to come up with a significant wedge of cash. One more thing, I'm in Plymouth UK which is fairly bleak when it comes to trying out (and even finding in stock) a variety of lenses, and getting good consumer advice. Where is a reputable place to get serviced and guarenteed 2nd hand lenses (not Jessops please - the amount of incorrect information their shop assistants come out with is truly astounding) Thanks Jonathan

-- Jonathan Hughes (mailto:liquidideaz@netscapeonline.co.uk), October 14, 2001.

Jonathan-

The 200mm F2.8L II is optically better than the 70-200 F4L. However, the 70-200 F4L is so amazingly good that the difference is marginal at best. Most people would not notice, and would be very impressed with the 70-200 F4L's images (I am). The quality of the 70-200 zooms almost makes the fixed lenses in that range redundant, other than their faster apertures (I wouldn't say no to a 135 F2L though...). I think the 70-200 will suit you just fine. I will certainly attest that it keeps pace with my 300mm F4L IS.

Plymouth...hmmm. I live in Southampton, and have an absolutely excellent LCE Canon Pro Centre, as well as a normal LCE, a Jessops and a Photo Optix. The pro centre is THE place to go. Find out who your local Canon pro centre are, and deal with them. They'll offer you better prices, better choice, better stock...

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), October 16, 2001.

A nice aspect of an SLR system, as you have discovered, is that you can replace only part of it at a time as your needs evolve and your budget permits.

Among normal lenses, consider the 50mm 1.8. It is a very sharp lens, selling for a small fraction of the cost of the 50/1.4. On the down side, the 1.8 has a noisy autofocus motor which does not allow full time manual focus (FTM). An FTM lens like the 50/1.4 allows you to focus manually even if its switch is set to autofocus. The current 50/1.8 Mark II has a plasticy feel and no depth of field scale. But if that bothers you, you can buy the older, metal-barreled, (crudely) DOF-scaled original 50/1.8 on the used market. Both a second-hand, older-version 50/1.8 and a new 50/1.8 Mark II cost around $85 in the United States, compared to a cost of $365 for the 50/1.4 lens. Without question, the 50/1.4 is better optically and more solidly constructed than the 50/1.8. But given that the 50/1.8 is already very sharp, and sturdy enough even in the plastic version, one certainly can question whether the 50/1.4 is worth 4 times the cost.

Among general-purpose zooms, the Canon 28-105 has a good range and is a good buy.

Another way to save with little loss in quality is to purchase a 420-EX flash instead of a 550-EX. Or you can buy a Canon-compatible flash made by another manufacturer, such as Vivitar, Sunpak, Metz (expensive, however), or Promaster (a brand that may not be sold in the UK). The important thing is to buy a tilt-and-swivel flash, which allows you to bounce the light off a white ceiling for vastly improved indoor shots, whether the camera is held horizontally (with the flash head tilted) or vertically (with the flash head swiveled). Any tilt-and-swivel flash is likely to incorporate the two most useful advanced features, high-speed synch and second-curtain synch. But don't let the salesman persuade you to buy a tilt-only flash.

Some things, such as tilt and swivel, are worth their extra cost. If you often take pictures without using a tripod, Image Stabilization (IS) really works, allowing you to use slower shutter speeds and still get a sharp image with a hand-held camera. So if your budget allows, you might spend about $500 on the Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom which comes with IS, instead of spending about $250 on the Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 without IS. Among telephoto zooms, the 70-200 f/4 L is superb. However, the less good 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS costs less, provides image stabilization, and reaches to a greater focal length: it may well be good enough for your purposes. To meet a still tighter budget, the 75-300 without IS is quite modestly priced.

Be aware that zooms tend to suffer from linear distortion, especially at their extreme focal lengths. I own the 28-135 IS and find that its pronounced barrel distortion at 28mm makes it unsuited for shots of buildings (indoors or out). However, zooming it out to 35mm restores decently straight lines.

I agree with Isaac that when (and if) you replace the Rebel, either the current Elan 7/7E, or a less expensive second-hand Elan II/II-E, would be logical choices.

-- Michael Lopez (mlopez@ers.usda.gov), October 26, 2001.