Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 6, 2008, 10:30 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7
Default

I just read the review...

In a way it is true that it would be more interesting to invest in a full frame body such as the 5D...

Then probably buying a standard zoom lens would be good enough...

That would make me spend more on the body but save cost on the lens...

That's getting more complicated every day...

Fred
Fredie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2008, 2:02 AM   #12
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Well at the moment from B&H prices are roughly:

40D + 17-55 => approx $2230

5D + 24-105L => approx $2750

I know which one I'd rather have at those prices.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2008, 2:10 AM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7
Default

Yea I totally get your point!

But that's becoming real big bucks for me!

I wonder if I am not just going a little crazy... especially given that it is my first dSLR.... Yea I have been taking photos for about 5 years and I really am quite passionate but this time it seems to be a little too much...

Not certain yet what I should choose...

Does buying a FF really make a big difference on the end result in term of image quality?

Fred
Fredie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2008, 6:26 AM   #14
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Combo #3:

Rebel XTI + 18-55 IS = $520+$175 = $695

Gets you pictures that 95% of people will find indistinguishable from the others at print sizes <= 8x10.

The other point is that you may be able to pick out the differences from the same scenes shot side by side with the different cameras, but put a day between viewing the 3 prints and I would expect the results to be more or less random, even amongst pixel peepers.

w.r.t. value for money there is no contest - #3 is head and shoulders better than the others and image quality is really very good.

Also keep in mind that you hardly ever hear someone say "What a fantastic image, if only it were a little sharper, or had a little more definition." Great images can be taken with any of the modern DSLR cameras.

peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 5:21 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7
Default

Hi guys,

I guess I have not made my mind yet... That is because I am waiting for February to make the final purchase... So my mind is going in different directions.

From all your comments and what I have read, the 17-55/2.8 seems awesome and budget is not really my primary concern. However, I have to say that for the price it costs, it may brings only little benefit over other lenses.....

And because of that I have been looking at other alternatives.

Most importantly, I was looking at the 10-22mm from Canon. Looks like an awesome lens, quite versatile and which could cover my needs for landscapes pictures, street shooting, and completely zoomed out, I could still take reasonnable picture or people.

What do you think about it?

The problem that comes along is I will definitely need a complementing lens. What would you guys suggest?

The telephoto 70-200mm is awesome but I have the whole standard range 22-70 which is not covered. Is that a big deal? Or do you have any other better suggestions?

Cheers,

Frederic
Fredie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 6:00 AM   #16
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Fredie wrote:
Quote:
but I have the whole standard range 22-70 which is not covered. Is that a big deal?
It's a big deal - This is the focal lenght range that you'll be using the most often!
The 10-22 is cool but it's really a specialty lens with discernable distortion that's good for some shots, but really not designed for everyday use...

-> The 17-55/18-50 is more the main lens whereas the 10-22 is more like a secondary
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 6:22 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7
Default

Thanks for the reply.

The way I see it, it's hard to make it with only 2 lenses...

You probably have to go along with at least 3 lenses:
  • 10-22[/*]
  • 17-55 or kit lens
    [/*]
  • 70-200[/*]
That certainly is a nice set but it also comes at a price.

Well I guess I'll just have to restrain myself a little to begin with and get the 17-55. Let see what my needs are in the future.

Cheers,

Frederic
Fredie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 9:54 AM   #18
Yno
Junior Member
 
Yno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 27
Default

I switched from a Konica/Minolta system to a 40D, and so far have only one lens, the 17-55 2.8 IS. It is a great lens, and covers 90% (a made up statistic!) of the shooting I do. I will be getting a 70-200 soon, and possibly the 10-22 later. I did a lot of research and soul searching, and I think this is the best possible combination for me.

Of course, if I had the bucks, I would also buy all the super telephoto lenses, too!
Yno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2008, 8:50 AM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 31
Default

I'm about as far from pro as can be, but I've spent some time testing out various lenses for my 40D, and I absolutely adore the 28mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.8 Canon lenses. Both are not really expensive - though if you can afford it, splurge the extra for the 50mm f/1.4 over the f/1.8. These are both really fantastic low-light indoor lenses from my use of them (I've only used the f/1.8 50mm and 28mm primes).

I currently only use the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 lens, which really doesn't do well indoors at all without flash, so I was thinking of getting myself the 28mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4, and a 10-22 Canon f/3.5-5.6 for those landscape/outdoor shots. I don't really need massive zoom on my camera, but at some point I'll also get a 100mm Canon macro lens for those closeups.

But, that said, the 17-55 f/2.8 looks fantastic, but how will it do in low-light compared to the 28 f/1.8 and the 50 f/1.4. I assume the IS on the 17-55 will make up for a more closed aperture, but how much of a difference?
WilliamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2008, 8:46 PM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7
Default

Hi WilliamG,

Though I have not tried the 17-55 and as such it is difficult for me to argue on this but cameralabs provide a nice review of this lens at:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...FS/index.shtml

What they really emphasise on is exactly the fact that this lens can capture so much more light than most zoom lenses.

In fact they described it as one of the fastest zoom lens on the market at the moment.

Now how it compare to f/1.4 or f/1.8, that I can't say...
Quote:
Canon claims up to three stops of compensation, which should allow you to use shutter speeds up to eight times slower than before. For example, if the slowest exposure you could confidently handhold at a certain focal length was, say, 1/60 of a second, three stops of compensation should enable you to enjoy the same result at 1/8 (or more accurately, 1/7.5).
IS certainly is a major feature of this lens and which will allow you to easily shoot in low light...

Now again f/1.4 and f/1.8 don't have IS but with such fast lens I am sure you can capture enough light to not necessarily need IS.

And you must also note, though this is maybe valid only for pixel peepers, that the 17-55 tends to have much vignetting at f/2.8 - according to online reviews. Here again I wish to emphasise that I have not tested it myself so I would not know how serious this problem really is in real field.

In any case, I already made up my mind to buy the 17-55 as a walk around lens. Those primes I am sure are fantastic and I would probably want to buy them but I would probably not carry them around with me; rather I would keep them for my indoor photo shooting.

As for the 10 - 22, it would probably come as a secondary lens ... before or after I get a telephoto, depending on my needs - which will take some time to identify accurately.

Cheers,

Frederic

Fredie is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:05 AM.