Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 30, 2006, 7:09 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

[align=center]My first DSLR[/align]
[align=center]
After waiting forPhotokina in order to make my final decision I've decided to choose the following equipment:

Camera: Canon Rebel Xti (400D)

Lens: Canon EF 17-40 f/4L USM

I want to hear your opinions before my purchase next week.
[/align]
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 30, 2006, 11:41 PM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 36
Default

I think your making an excellent choice on the camera body. I am unfamiliar with that lens though. My 1st DSLR is the Rebel XT (350D) with the lens kit EFS 17-55. I have taken allot of pictures with it to get used to it and become familiar with all the features. I think you will enjoy it alot.
scotiez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2006, 11:57 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Mazen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 24
Default

The Rebel XTi is a great choice it has great software AND hardware dust reduction and brilliant features so good luck..but im not familiar with the lens either i find the 18-55mm lens the most common but still a canon is a canon:-)..good luck n nice choice.
oh and here's a sample pic from the Canon website of how cool the image is!!!
Mazen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 1, 2006, 1:35 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

F/4??? Slow lens in my opinion with limited shallow D.O.F.

But that L glass from CANON is the most affordable one of all. (At around $700)

If I would you, I would go for two third-partyF/2.8 lens solution that can cover 17 - 150 mm (Just an idea).
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 1, 2006, 5:29 AM   #5
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

If you are sure you are going to upgrade to a bigger sensor camera quite soon then the 17-40 is a good choice.

The 17-40 is an excellent lens in many respects, build quality, control of CA, flare, USM motor, however it's not the sharpest kid on the block for small sensors.

If you are unlikely to purchase a bigger sensor camera then it would be very much worth considering the digital lenses, EF-S 17-85, or 17-55 from Canon, or something from one of the other 3rd party lens makers, there are some very good lenses out there.

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...=mtf+challenge

IMO f4 is plenty fast enough for a wide-angle to normal zoom. It all depends on whether you think you will be wanting shallow DOF on wide-angle shots, and how you hope to achieve that. Most people are more concerned with large DOF on a wide angle lens.

Of course it is also lacking Image Stabilization, so you will probably want a tripod to go with that setup if you don't have one already.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 1, 2006, 2:32 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

After hearing many opinions over the web the last days I've decided to give up the Lens and search for an alternative one, I sure want to have the ability to take photos with shallow depth of field, that what made me switch to DSLR in the first place, so I need you advice on a new lens, can be third party lens too, so I can start shooting already.
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 1, 2006, 6:22 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 150
Default

F4 still gives shallow DOF. I would prefer F2,8 not because of even shallower DOF (which ofter will be too shallow) but because better low light possibilities.

If you're not going to full frame soon, you should consider lense optimised for smaller APS-C sensor. You'll get better zoom range, smaller size and weight.

However, I don't think 400D is an excellent choice of a body. It is capable of taking excellent photos (though all other DSLRs are capable to do that also), however body itselft (viewfinder, ergonomics, build quality) is worst of all DSLRs (300D and 350D are even worse).

Have you tried to handle 400D and it's direct competitors?
Edvinas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 1, 2006, 9:39 PM   #8
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Idan,

Lens choice is completely dependent upon what you are planning on doing with it.

You stated you want shallow DOF, so obviously it isn't landscape photos you're interested in. What is your interest? Without knowing that, it's kind of silly to suggest what a good lens might be.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 1, 2006, 10:40 PM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

JohnG

You may get some ideas from some of the previous posts on this subject, like this 9 page thread. ;-)

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=87


Idan

No offense. But, please go out and buy a camera. Any Camera. :-)

Then, use it for a while and see where you're running into limitations with your equipment. Take some photos and learn from them.

You've been analyzing this for months and months now (with more than one post indicating that you'd made up your mind before changing it again later). I thought we had this narrowed down to a basic kit type lens and an inexpensive prime for starters so that you'd have a lower priced entry point that lets you get started.

I think you're over analyzing. ;-)

I'll let you in on a secret. My wife has used nothing but a 35-70mm lens for years and has thousands of great images from it that put most of mine to shame. She's never even hinted to me that she wants more lenses. She's perfectly happy with what she's using, for the types of photos she takes.

Each person is going to have different needs. For example, JohnG shoots lots of sports. So, he needs longer and brighter lenses that are sharp at wide open apertures with fast Autofocus. But, there are tradeoffs with any choice (size, weight, cost, and more).

More often than not, I keep a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 on my KM 5D. It's got a relatively useful focal range, only loses about a stop on average compared to an f/2.8 zoom, it's sharp enough wide open, and it's not too bad from a size/weight perspective, making it a good walk around lens for me.

I've got other lenses I use, too, depending on what and where I'm shooting. I may use something brighter, or longer or wider at times.

There is no one perfect choice for all users in all conditions.

But, any camera and lens (or lenses) would let you get started taking some photos with a DSLR and learn more about what you may or may not want/need and where your equipment could be limiting you.

Consider it a tuition fee. It's a learning experience. But, unless you actually get out and start using a DSLR, you'll never get around to enjoying one and determining what would make a better fit for what you like to take photos of.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 2, 2006, 4:28 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:

After hearing many opinions over the web the last days I've decided to give up the Lens and search for an alternative one, I sure want to have the ability to take photos with shallow depth of field, that what made me switch to DSLR in the first place, so I need you advice on a new lens, can be third party lens too, so I can start shooting already.

Take a look here. (Tested lens)

Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro

Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP Di II XR




BenjaminXYZ 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 10:43 PM.