i'm buying a 10D, and i'm just wondering how it will work in cold weather. i want to bring it skiing a fair bit. i know my old canon S30 point and shoot camera worked just fine in -20 degrees, the only problem was that you'd have to be very careful not to breathe on the lens, and you'd average about 80-100 shots on one 570mah as opposed to a couple hundred. does anybody know any other detrimental effects that i might encounter when using the 10D in -20 degrees? also would having the vertical grip that allows you to use 2 batteries simultaniously be essential, because it would reduce the individual drain on each battery, or does it even out in the end by how much charge you get out of each battery?

i think i once read something about someone being afraid to freeze their CMOS sensor, but i know i've frozen my S30 many times while using it, and it hasnt hurt it at all, so would this be an irrational fear, or should i worry about it?

Will's probably the man with the answer, so some advice please?

The 10D works fine in cold weather, I have used mine outside in -15, and it was perfectly fine. People worry far too much about that sort of stuff! I would only worry if I was using it around -50. The vertical grip just doubles the battery life, it does not reduce drain, as it only draws from one battery at a time, then once the first is near empty, it switches to the second, or so I have been told by several Canon CPS reps. I would only recommend the battery grip if you: A) are using long lenses (200mm+) as it does provide extra gripping surfaces. B) Need the extra battery life. Just avoid using it when it’s snowing or raining, the 10D is not weather sealed like the 1D, and water can really muck up the internal components.

I wouldn’t worry about it, as long as it does not get wet. Also, a side tip, on the 24-70 (which is nearly identical to the 28-70) the rear element is almost flush with the lens mount at the back, not inset one or two CM like on the telephotos, so be careful when you take the lens off, a scratched rear element is really bad news!

Enjoy the 10D!

i'll love it, but i dont really plan to be removing my 28-70 very much. i dont really feel like i have any more money burning a hole in my pocket, so until i absoloutely decide i need an 80-200, or some wide angle, i dont think i'll buy one. good to know theres nothing cold weather gives you to fear, and i definitely wouldnt shoot in the rain, but i think i'd be fine in the snow if its cold, cuz it wont melt on my camera, and i've used the S30 in some pretty heavy snow, and a little bit of moisture didnt hurt it. nice to know that the battery grip doesnt use both simultaniously, so now theres absoloutely no reason for me to buy it, because the 10 seconds it takes to change a battery is not a big deal at all for me.

and ya, i never plan on using it in -50 degrees, theres something wrong with me if its that cold, and i'm still trying to get pictures.

For shooting skiing you might need something like a 70-200, 75-300 or even a 300 prime, depending on how close you are. The 28-70 might be a bit short, but it really depends on what type of look you are going for.

I have used both my 300 f/2.8 and 70-200 to shoot skiing. The 300 for up on the slopes as the skiers take jumps, and the 70-200 for when they get closer.

well i'm not that hardcore of a photographer, i want to ski, aswell as take pics, so theres no way i'd lug around a 300 prime, i probably couldnt get it in my backpack, even if i could get it out of my wallet. i'd really love to get the 70-200, probably the f4 because i can afford it (maybe) and its alot lighter so i would actually take it skiing etc. i've heard that the 75-300 is not a very good lens, so i'm thinking if i already have an "L" would i actually ever take it out?

i read a review saying that the 70-200/4 backfocuses a little on the left side of the picture on a 10D. is this something you know of, or have experienced, or is that just a lemon or something?

i'm pretty sure a medium telephoto is the next lens i really 'need' want a macro, and a wide angle maybe sometime (although thats a little hard on digital)

While I have never used a 70-200 f/4, I have never had a problem with my 2.8. I also suspect that it's a malfunction with that particular lens, as the "depth of focus" (not to be confused with Depth of Field) is much greater on an f/4, compared to a 2.8 or 1.8, therefore even if the AF was a bit off, it would still be sharp. If it was the camera, it would have been even more apparent with a 70-200 f/2.8, 200 f/2.8, or 200 f/1.8.

True, the 75-300 is not a great lens, the problem though, is that anything "great" past 70mm is either an L-series zoom or prime...and you are correct, the L-series lenses are infectious! Once you use one, you don’t want to use anything else, hence the term “L-disease”.

The f/4 version of the 70-200 is not a bad choice for a medium-telephoto. If I were buying again, I would still stick with the 2.8, as I need the extra stop it offers (f/4 indoors can be pushing it, if you want to freeze movement), but for most people, it's not worth paying double the price of the f/4. The cool thing about the f/4 is its use of a flourite element. Both the 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 have these artificial crystal elements; it's not really an important feature, just kind of neat.

The only other thing is it's filter diameter is like 58mm, not 77mm like on the rest of the normal size L-series lenses, so using a single polarizer for your 28-70 and a 70-200 f/4 would not be possible. (By normal I mean lenses smaller than the 300 f/2.8, its front element is far too big to attach a filter)

sorry for showing you all these stupid ebay things, but i've found a 600mm/4 on there that closed the last auction at about 500$ without any bidders. i dont know how much i'll use it, but its a fairly reputable seller, and he says its brand new, so would that be a bad way to pick up a 10k lens?

Yeah, it's either a scam, a lemon, or hot...nobody who paid OVER 10k for a lens (just a 400, new, is 9,500!) would drop it for a mere fraction of the price. I suspect that's the reason nobody has bid on it, it's most likely stolen, and anyone who is in the market for a lens of that caliber would realize that. 600’s are popular with baseball photogs, so there is quite a demand for them. What was the ebay number for that auction?


One lens on ebay I wouldn't mind getting is a 200 1.8, they don’t make them anymore, and they are pretty hard to come by...this one seller/company in S. Korea seems to always have numerous ones up for sale, but I'm not sure if I trust them...#3853528137

wow those things are expensive. i cant imagine how hard it would be to get the focus right most of the time on that. but i guess if he has sold many of them to canada/us before, and recieved all very positive feedback on them, i would feel pretty comfortable buying from him.

the item # for the 600mm is 3853630444

Wow....my guess is that he's either hoping that starting it low will draw a feeding frenzy of bidders, and boost it to a super high price...or it's stolen, that’s still my guess, as he claims that it's new...who buys a 600 and just opens the box, without using it professionally? I mean really, would you buy a Mercedes-Benz for 60,000 and sell it right after driving it off the lot for 2,000?

Notice that he doesn't provide the serial number...I wonder why?? Most people who sell big ticket lenses on there provide a S/N, even the seller in S. Korea selling the 200 f/1.8's provides them.

My motto for stuff like this is "If it's too good to be true, it probably is".

Well, I did some research and found out that this same lens/photo/description was for sale out of Naples, Florida a few days ago...and one person who enquired about it was told that the sale could/would take place outside of ebay, so it's obviously a scam, and a costly one at that!

Speaking of skiing, I just found out that I will be shooting at the World Cup Downhill at Lake Louise this weekend, so both of the 1D's and the 10D will be low-temperature tested again. I am not looking forward to waking up at 4:30am on a Saturday morning, just to make it out there for 8:00! This is an event where that 600 would be really useful! (I think I might just use my 300 and 70-200, as the course is not very wide and I am still not sure where my photo position will be.

have fun with that, i'll more enjoy going skiing, then pulling out the camera after lunch or something, and getting pictures of my insane crazy freinds, when the suns nice and i'm too sore to be crazy enough to fall and hurt my camera some more. i know soon i'll need to get something longer than 70x1.6 for telephoto, but i'm not sure what yet, theres no way i'll be able to get a 70-200 2.8, but maybe a 4.0 or something, but i'm also kinda looking at primes in the same range, they're so nice and fast, and considerably smaller. what would you suggest?

Well, the 70-200 f/4 is definitely a good lens, and it allows you to frame stuff better in a lot of instances. With the primes, you either have to change the lens and risk missing the shot, or only shoot when the subject is the appropriate distance away. I know with the 400 and football, there are shots I have to pass up, as the players just get too close and I don’t have time to grab the other camera with the 70-200 on it. So if you need the speed, primes are definitely the way to go, but if you want the versatility, stick with zooms.

F/4 will be more than fast enough for shooting outside, you only need the speed if you plan on shooting in dark conditions without a flash or other source of light. I have found that the 70-200 range is so versatile; it's my most used lens. Plus, the f/4 version of the 70-200 is nice and light, the 2.8 is a pretty beefy lens and it weighs a fair amount too!

My only complaint about the f/4 would be the lack of a tripod/monopod mount…why Canon decided not to include it is anyone’s guess. They are not cheap, I had to replace my 2.8’s one (it disappeared during a hockey game) and it was around $200.00

The tripod mount from the 200 f/2.8 fits the 70 - 200 f/4 perfectly. I carry it all the time and use it with both lenses. If you need to buy one, they come in black or white and the black ones are cheaper.

crazy skiing friends. If i remember correctly you are the crazy skiing friend. And i assume this means your camera arrived in the mail tonight?

what do you think of the 100-300 f/5.6L? looks like i should be able to pick one up somewhere cheap for under $200 CAN. do you know anything about it, sounds like its good and small, optically great (similar to the 70-200L's) although its alot slower, a bit awkward zooming, but focuses fairly fast. seems like most of the time when i want a lens this long it will be when its pretty bright outside(ie skiing, hiking), so 5.6 shouldnt be too bad, and its better than stopping down all the other lenses in this class to get decent pictures.

people always say AF is slow and inaccurate on lenses this slow, but if you were to just have 2-3 stops more light, wouldnt that compensate for the smaller apperature? or does it not work that way, anyways i guess AF doesnt need to be all that super at f/5.6. if anyone has any experience with this lens, or something similar, ie 75-300, 70-210, 80-200 let me know how they work, or what you'd recomend.

The AF slowness is because at 5.6 a lot less light is being picked up by the AF sensors. If you were to increase the intensity of the light, it would get faster than if in a dark room, but never equal the AF speed of lenses in the f/1.8 - f/4 range. The camera focuses before stopping down, so if I am using a 1.8 lens set at f/9, the camera focuses at 1.8 and then when the shutter is depressed, stops the lens down for a split second to take the shot.