<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment</id>
  <title type="text">rec.photo.equipment Google Group</title>
  <subtitle type="text">
  </subtitle>
  <link href="/group/rec.photo.equipment/feed/atom_v1_0_msgs.xml" rel="self" title="rec.photo.equipment feed"/>
  <updated>2004-09-13T06:42:45Z</updated>
  <generator uri="http://groups.google.com.au" version="1.99">Google Groups</generator>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>D.R.</name>
  <email>d...@nz</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2004-09-13T06:42:45Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/d9917e4a58aa3491/dd5a144d9e61b710?show_docid=dd5a144d9e61b710</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/d9917e4a58aa3491/dd5a144d9e61b710?show_docid=dd5a144d9e61b710"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Another Newbie</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Hi Rob &lt;br&gt; * Your Sigma 70-300 Macro II is sharpest when set at F8 according the a review I &lt;br&gt; read. I have the same lens, and yes its better at F8. &lt;br&gt; * Use as higher shutter speed as you can with telephoto lenses like the Sigma to &lt;br&gt; avoid shake/blur. Tripod is extremely handy, but bulky. &lt;br&gt; * A circular polarizer would help cut glare from water and allow you to see into
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Dwight Stewart</name>
  <email>stewa...@noearthlinkspam.net</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2004-09-13T04:52:17Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/d9917e4a58aa3491/f1e69158a1ba6739?show_docid=f1e69158a1ba6739</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/d9917e4a58aa3491/f1e69158a1ba6739?show_docid=f1e69158a1ba6739"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Another Newbie</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  What you have is just fine (see below). If you don&#39;t know how to use it &lt;br&gt; effectively, you can leave the tripod behind. Use an ISO 100 print film for &lt;br&gt; bright daylight shots and a faster ISO 200 through ISO 800 print film for &lt;br&gt; lower light shots (evening or flash). The faster films will allow better
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Saint Chris</name>
  <email>thesa...@hotmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2004-09-13T03:42:11Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/d9917e4a58aa3491/228f59c4c8fcd28d?show_docid=228f59c4c8fcd28d</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/d9917e4a58aa3491/228f59c4c8fcd28d?show_docid=228f59c4c8fcd28d"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Another Newbie</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Much appreciated!!!! I am sure photography will be my second focus on my &lt;br&gt; honeymoon. Thank you for your quick response and I will definetly put your &lt;br&gt; advise to work. Hope to be able to share my best pic with the groups. &lt;br&gt; Thanks &lt;br&gt; Rob &lt;br&gt; misses. &lt;br&gt; want &lt;br&gt; all &lt;br&gt; help &lt;br&gt; capture
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>columbotrek</name>
  <email>nos...@yahoo.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2004-09-13T02:30:15Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/d9917e4a58aa3491/ba5a061734ab44e9?show_docid=ba5a061734ab44e9</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/d9917e4a58aa3491/ba5a061734ab44e9?show_docid=ba5a061734ab44e9"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Another Newbie</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  You are missing a fast lens. Could be some nice opportunities for &lt;br&gt; available light photography. Look at a Canon 50mm f/1.8 as they are &lt;br&gt; fast, sharp and inexpensive. Make a point of comparing its results to &lt;br&gt; either of your zooms ;) For fish underwater a polarizing filter is a &lt;br&gt; must. Serves double duty as it helps with landscapes. Improves
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Saint Chris</name>
  <email>thesa...@hotmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2004-09-13T01:47:06Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/d9917e4a58aa3491/8baa40a728345e55?show_docid=8baa40a728345e55</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/d9917e4a58aa3491/8baa40a728345e55?show_docid=8baa40a728345e55"/>
  <title type="text">Another Newbie</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Hello All...I have copied a bunch of Photography Newsgroups in on this only &lt;br&gt; because of my limited time and lack of knowledge with not only Newsgroups &lt;br&gt; but also Photography. &lt;br&gt; Here is my scoop. I just got married yesterday (thank you) and we are &lt;br&gt; preparing for our trip to Bora Bora (&lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://www.boraboralgoon.com&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt;). I do not want
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Warren Weber</name>
  <email>hiv...@bresnan.net</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2004-09-08T02:04:53Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/479debd5f7c3bcb6/4e9c81360ba9b41a?show_docid=4e9c81360ba9b41a</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/479debd5f7c3bcb6/4e9c81360ba9b41a?show_docid=4e9c81360ba9b41a"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Projector Bulb &quot;DLH&quot;</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Light Sources, Inc 1-800-882-8834 &lt;br&gt; Top bulb 1-800-867-2852 &lt;br&gt; Warren
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Alex</name>
  <email>nos...@hotmail.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2004-09-06T02:16:22Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/4f3eb12f9d2ac940?show_docid=4f3eb12f9d2ac940</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/4f3eb12f9d2ac940?show_docid=4f3eb12f9d2ac940"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Which Lens?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  Interesting stats... another website added to my favourites! &lt;br&gt; I&#39;m considering a lens such as the Canon or Sigma discussed here myself, how &lt;br&gt; do they compare on focus speed? &lt;br&gt; Alex
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <email>andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2004-09-04T13:23:38Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/d9fed3b636afa92b?show_docid=d9fed3b636afa92b</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/d9fed3b636afa92b?show_docid=d9fed3b636afa92b"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Which Lens?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  The Canon is slightly sharper and has lower distortion, buth there&#39;s &lt;br&gt; very little in it: &lt;br&gt; Sigma AF 70-200/2,8 APO EX HSM &lt;br&gt; Photodo test result: 3,9 &lt;br&gt; Effective focal length: 72 - 193 mm &lt;br&gt; Weighted MTF for 70 mm: f2,8 0,73, f4 0,76, f8 0,75 &lt;br&gt; Weighted MTF for 135 mm: f2,8 0,76, f4 0,84, f8 0,87 &lt;br&gt; Weighted MTF for 200 mm: f2,8 0,78, f4 0,81, f8 0,81
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <email>j...@no.komm</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2004-09-04T12:41:44Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/d84f145993991e8a?show_docid=d84f145993991e8a</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/d84f145993991e8a?show_docid=d84f145993991e8a"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Which Lens?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  In message &amp;lt;19GdndAnxvEHOKTcRVn...@comcas t.com&amp;gt;, &lt;br&gt; It is a good lens, optically, according to all the reports and tests, &lt;br&gt; but the Canon is even better. The Canon 70-200 zooms are their sharpest &lt;br&gt; zooms, allegedly.
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Mark B.</name>
  <email>mbohntras...@comcast.net</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2004-09-04T11:22:07Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/8d8b51f769da5981?show_docid=8d8b51f769da5981</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/8d8b51f769da5981?show_docid=8d8b51f769da5981"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Which Lens?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  and &lt;br&gt; I can&#39;t speak for the Canon, but I have the Sigma and I can tell you it&#39;s a &lt;br&gt; teriffic lens. Ignore the naysayers. The 70-200 f/2.8 EX is one of their &lt;br&gt; best lenses. &lt;br&gt; Mark
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Skip M</name>
  <email>shadowcatc...@cox.net</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2004-09-04T04:22:38Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/0517425df44ed331?show_docid=0517425df44ed331</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/0517425df44ed331?show_docid=0517425df44ed331"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Which Lens?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  in &lt;br&gt; decide &lt;br&gt; lenses &lt;br&gt; severly &lt;br&gt; I would hardly say that an increase of 0.1&amp;quot; in length and diameter, &lt;br&gt; (7.6&amp;quot;x3.3&amp;quot; vs. 7.7&amp;quot;x3.4&amp;quot;) and an increase of 6 and a half ounces (2.8 lbs. &lt;br&gt; vs. 3.2 lbs.)as a tremendous amount of extra weight and size. That&#39;s &lt;br&gt; somewhat in the realm of complaining about the pea under the stack of
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Martin Francis</name>
  <email>mcsa...@com.btinternet</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2004-09-03T19:33:38Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/99a04202b25b0ad7?show_docid=99a04202b25b0ad7</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/99a04202b25b0ad7?show_docid=99a04202b25b0ad7"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Which Lens?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  and &lt;br&gt; There is one stop difference, and the Canon makes up for it by being easier &lt;br&gt; to handhold. A colleague of mine swapped a Sigma 70-200 EX for the Canon &lt;br&gt; 70-200 f4L and couldn&#39;t be happier. &lt;br&gt; Of course, if you already have a &amp;lt;35mm-&amp;gt;70mm zoom you could try the Canon &lt;br&gt; 200mm f2.8 prime...
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>David Littlewood</name>
  <email>da...@nospam.demon.co.uk</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2004-09-03T14:15:10Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/76cb8f8a7ecb14c8?show_docid=76cb8f8a7ecb14c8</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/76cb8f8a7ecb14c8?show_docid=76cb8f8a7ecb14c8"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Which Lens?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  In article &amp;lt;41385f09$0$29719$afc38...@new s.easynet.co.uk&amp;gt;, Dimitris &lt;br&gt; &amp;lt;dimitri_74_nospam@nospam_hotm ail.com&amp;gt; writes &lt;br&gt; (1) I bought my daughter a Canon 70-200 f/4 last year; it is a superb &lt;br&gt; lens and she is very pleased with it. &lt;br&gt; (2) I have never used the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX; however, I have bought &lt;br&gt; 3 Sigma lenses in the past and concluded I will never buy another one. I
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Rick</name>
  <email>swtra...@tampabay.rr.com</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2004-09-03T14:40:43Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/fd3c1ca502cb9730?show_docid=fd3c1ca502cb9730</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/fd3c1ca502cb9730?show_docid=fd3c1ca502cb9730"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Which Lens?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  and &lt;br&gt; I have not used the Sigma but I own the Canon 70-200 f4L and love it. If &lt;br&gt; you look around you can find it used for $500 or less.
  </summary>
  </entry>
  <entry>
  <author>
  <name>Jimmy Smith</name>
  <email>nos...@pleaseno.more</email>
  </author>
  <updated>2004-09-03T14:19:22Z</updated>
  <id>http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/2237b4b3b0351636?show_docid=2237b4b3b0351636</id>
  <link href="http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment/browse_thread/thread/e02745e2b03b12bf/2237b4b3b0351636?show_docid=2237b4b3b0351636"/>
  <title type="text">Re: Which Lens?</title>
  <summary type="html" xml:space="preserve">
  &amp;quot;Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)&amp;quot; &amp;lt;usern...@qwest.net&amp;gt; wrote in &lt;br&gt; message &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; href=&quot;http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=413863CD.2090505@qwest.net&quot;&gt;news:413863CD.2090505@qwest.net&lt;/a&gt;... &lt;br&gt; expensive), &lt;br&gt; couple &lt;br&gt; and &lt;br&gt; I disagree. The tremendous amount of extra weight and size and cost severly &lt;br&gt; detracts from the usability of this lens. &lt;br&gt; Jimmy
  </summary>
  </entry>
</feed>
