What's new

Need a gentle push towards the Canon XSi (1 Viewer)

Patrick Sun

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1999
Messages
39,660
I finally pulled the trigger on an XSI this morning. Went with a Bing cashback promotion 12-14% from J&R, and J&R was offering the kit for $599.99. Not as good as the nice Target price of $449.99 if you got lucky living near a Target that clearanced them out last month. But I can live with paying another $60+ (factoring taxes for local purchase) in lieu of spending it on gas driving all over creation.

Looks like I ordered just in time, they updated the pricing and it went up to around $640 and in clearance status just 15 minutes after I placed my order.
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
33,674
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
Congrats Patrick, please keep us in the loop as you come up to speed on the new camera!

Regarding Monopods, I've been shooting a lot of sports lately, American Football and Baseball mostly, and it amuses me to see guys with smaller IS/VR lenses on monopods. Talking to a few of them it seems to be more a method of dealing with the WEIGHT issue than stabilization. And I kinda get that, but I'm used to lugging around two camera bodies plus two pro-line f2.8 zooms and the 70-300VR plus a messenger bag full of support gear, running up and down the sidelines like mad, and I see them sitting on a steel fence with an XTI and a 70-200IS, glued to the spot... And I'm no small guy either, my own weight is a bigger impediment to me than the couple pounds a lens weighs.

It's funny to see these guys standing side by side with guys with real supertelephotos tho...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kadath/3851485040/sizes/l/

(Not a great pic but you see what I mean on the sidelines)
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
18,864
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
Patrick,

Congrats on the new camera. Did it come with just the 18-55mm IS kit lens?

If you want a 2nd battery for your new camera, I would suggest checking out www.sterlingtek.com .They have batteries for a fraction of the cost of an actual Canon battery, and they work just as well. I have been using their batteries for many years.
 

Patrick Sun

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1999
Messages
39,660
Thanks for the link to sterlingtek, I'll need to bookmark it at home. I did pick up a couple of LP-E5 batteries from the Adorama housebrand for the same price as Sterlingtek, so I don't feel too bad about getting them from Adorama this time.

Yes to the kit lens being the 18-55mm IS lens, only. Now to look for a telephoto lens (probably get the 55-250mm IS F4/F5.6 Canon lens, not all that fast, but lighter in weight than the big boys),

Will I need another battery charger, or will the kit have a battery charger inside the box? Hope I can get by with the kit charger (hope I don't have to charge the battery via a USB cable connected to a PC. Yowie!

Also, besides getting to use the camera for Dragon Con in about 10 days, I also have CEDIA the following week/end, so I'll have plenty of opportunities to experiment with the XSi.
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
18,864
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
The camera should include one Canon battery plus an external battery charger -- at least, that's what every Canon camera I've ever purchased has included. The external charger will work with the non-Canon brand batteries -- I've used Sterlingtek batteries with Canon chargers on three different cameras, and the Adorama house brand batteries should be no different.

I've read good things about the image quality of the 55-250mm IS lens, as long as you can live with its limitations (smaller maximum + variable aperture, plastic mount, slower auto focus, and no full frame compatibility). It certainly is priced attractively. I have not personally tried one, though.
 

Patrick Sun

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1999
Messages
39,660
I'm already bracing for a world of hurt when it comes to the lenses in the future. We'll see if I catch that lens upgrade bug or not in the near term after September is done.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,906
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
I think if you're only going to own one (Canon) telezoom in this range, it should probably be the 70-200 f/4L IS, if not something f/2.8. If the $$$ (and size) is an issue, you might even want to consider the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. I read/heard very positive things about that Sigma digital crop telezoom (from Nikon users).

_Man_
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
18,864
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong

I think if you're only going to own one (Canon) telezoom in this range, it should probably be the 70-200 f/4L IS, if not something f/2.8. If the $$$ (and size) is an issue, you might even want to consider the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. I read/heard very positive things about that Sigma digital crop telezoom (from Nikon users).

_Man_
I own the 70-200mm f/4L IS, and it is a superb lens. However, it is also over $1,000 new, so it is quite an investment for someone just starting up. I began with a Rebel XT, Sigma 17-70mm, and Canon 70-300mm IS lens and then began upgrading to better lenses before finally upgrading the body to a 40D. Since lenses hold their value pretty well, you can usually sell them for a decent price when you upgrade later.

If you can afford it up front, though, I always recommend spending the money for better glass.

FYI, my lens kit now consists of a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, Canon EF-S 10-22mm, the 70-200 above, Canon EF 85mm f/1.8, Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 and Kenko 1.4x teleconverter. It's really an ideal kit for a crop sensor -- the only one I am not happy with is the 50mm prime. It's a cheap lens with an extremely slow auto focus motor. I never use it since adding the 17-55mm f/2.8. My next purchase will be something to get to the 400 - 500mm range, but that probably will not be for at least another year. We currently have no trips planned where I anticipate needing that much reach.
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
33,674
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
I love the Canon 70-200F4IS and hated the 70-300 Consumer IS Zoom.

The Nikon 70-300VR is superb however. Not rubbing it in, if it were reversed I'd say it. The 70-200F4IS is a superb lens which has no Nikon counterpart. The 24-105IS is also amazing.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,906
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
Originally Posted by Scott Merryfield

Since lenses hold their value pretty well, you can usually sell them for a decent price when you upgrade later.
Is it actually worthwhile to try to resell an old kit-level lens though? I thought about selling my old Nikon 18-75DX, which is better than typical kit lenses, but found that it'd only fetch ~$150 or so even if it was in near-mint condition in large part because it's too widely available (and discounted) -- it was ~$300 new when I got it w/ my D70. I ended up deciding to hold off on an upgrade instead, and now, plan to just pass it (along w/ the old D70) on to my middle-school-age daughter, who is becoming interested in photography.

Honestly, I think if you have a cheap, old kit lens, you're better off just giving it away to a good friend or someone in the family, instead of selling it at a substantial loss.

If we're talking about reselling an upper-mid-tier lens (or better), that'd probably be different. People wanting such a lens are more likely to know better and consider buying used, instead of as part of a brand new kit from some retailer.

_Man_
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,906
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
Originally Posted by Sam Posten ">[/url]

The Nikon 70-300VR is superb however. Not rubbing it in, if it were reversed I'd say it. The 70-200F4IS is a superb lens which has no Nikon counterpart. The 24-105IS is also amazing.
[/QUOTE]I too wish there's a 70-200 f/4 VR for Nikon, but yeah, the 70-300 VR is quite good and certainly great for the $$$ -- I think I only paid a net price of ~$400 for mine. It's become my primary telezoom these days unless I know I'll need the f/2.8 -- and then must decide between my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and Nikon 200 f/2.8 prime for the long end (or 85 f/1.8 for the short end). Usually, I'm fine enough lugging the 70-300 VR along w/ 85 f/1.8 (and maybe have my 17-50 f/2.8 already on the body).

Actually, ideally, I should've just gotten the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR (along w/ 85 f/1.8) from the get-go, but oh well.
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
18,864
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
Originally Posted by Sam Posten

I love the Canon 70-200F4IS and hated the 70-300 Consumer IS Zoom.
While I didn't hate the 70-300mm IS, there were a few things I found lacking. It's autofocus was slow and hunted in low light, and the lens needed to be stopped down when used at 300mm or it lost its sharpness (and I used it for evening wildlife shots, so I needed to shoot wide open at 300mm quite often). The 70-200mm IS, in contrast, has lightening fast and smooth autofocus, and is sharp wide open at all focal lengths. It also takes a 1.4x teleconverter very well when extra reach is needed (the TC was useless on the 70-300mm IS).

Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong



Is it actually worthwhile to try to resell an old kit-level lens though? I thought about selling my old Nikon 18-75DX, which is better than typical kit lenses, but found that it'd only fetch ~$150 or so even if it was in near-mint condition in large part because it's too widely available (and discounted) -- it was ~$300 new when I got it w/ my D70. I ended up deciding to hold off on an upgrade instead, and now, plan to just pass it (along w/ the old D70) on to my middle-school-age daughter, who is becoming interested in photography.

Honestly, I think if you have a cheap, old kit lens, you're better off just giving it away to a good friend or someone in the family, instead of selling it at a substantial loss.

If we're talking about reselling an upper-mid-tier lens (or better), that'd probably be different. People wanting such a lens are more likely to know better and consider buying used, instead of as part of a brand new kit from some retailer.

_Man_
Well, the Canon kit lens typically only costs around $100 if purchased with the camera, so you can probably easily get your money back when you decide to upgrade. If the lens was being purchased separately at twice the price, though, I agree that it may not make sense. It may be better to keep the lens and bundle it for sale with the camera body if upgrading that in the future.

I sold my Sigma 17-70mm lens as part of a bundle with my old Rebel XT, and later sold the 70-300mm IS for $400 to a co-worker (probably could have got another $50 - $75 online, but this sale was hassle-free).

The advantage of starting with the inexpensive kit lens is a dSLR newcomer can learn the camera and which lenses he/she needs before spending a lot of money upfront and possibly buying the wrong lenses for his/her use. The disadvantage is many people will quickly outgrow the kit lens and want something else -- although when we travel I see a lot of dSLR users with the kit lens and their camera set to the automatic "green box" mode, because they have no idea how to use a real camera. For those people, the kit lens maybe all they will ever need.
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
33,674
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
Originally Posted by Scott Merryfield

While I didn't hate the 70-300mm IS, there were a few things I found lacking. It's autofocus was slow and hunted in low light, and the lens needed to be stopped down when used at 300mm or it lost its sharpness (and I used it for evening wildlife shots, so I needed to shoot wide open at 300mm quite often). The 70-200mm IS, in contrast, has lightening fast and smooth autofocus, and is sharp wide open at all focal lengths. It also takes a 1.4x teleconverter very well when extra reach is needed (the TC was useless on the 70-300mm IS).
Right, the Canon 70-300IS is super slow to autofocus and the stabilization mechanism is loud and clunky, plus mine was soft at all apertures at 300 and especially wide open. Which makes the 70-300VR so amazing to me, I shoot that sucker wide open and it focuses really well on fast action in all kinds of light. And I got mine with the Live Cashback so it came out to a ridiculously cheapy $385 or so, it's my best bang for buck lens ever, just topping the Tamron 28-75 f2.8

My problem is that I've essentially topped out on the lenses I wanted and can afford. For baseball I could probably get by with the new 70-200VR rev 2, but I've got that range covered by the 70-300, can deal with the bokeh and speed of that lens, and often want more reach than even the 300 gives me and if I'm going to get something longer I'm not going to cheap out on it. I'd get the 200-400VR for football and the 600 f4VR for birds, if they ever make enough of them to satisfy the huge demand that still exists. That's over $10k in 2 lenses tho and as a hobbyist I can't justify that. And the 70-200VR2 is now something crazy like $1800 and the 70-300 does all I ask of it for 1/4th the price.

Plus that D4 is coming this year and I want to go full frame to get the most outta my 14-24 and 24-70 lenses. Too many good choices on what to spend dough on and not nearly enough cash to get it all. That $250million lottery seems to be a smart bet to me! =)
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
18,864
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
I am reaching a similar point, Sam. I eventually need a lens with longer reach for our next serious wildlife trip, but the options are not very attractive. Canon's EF 100-400mm L IS is around $1,400 and is in serious need of an update (very old IS system), and their 400mm L f/5.6 prime lacks image stabilization. Sigma offers a 120-400mm OS HSM and 150-500mm OS HSM alternative at a lesser price, but I would rather have the quality of a Canon L. The Canon 500mm and 600mm primes are way out of my budget, plus they are too big to travel with (if I just rented one). Luckily, we are not planning any trip in 2010 where I anticipate needing something longer than I already have, so I can afford to wait.

As for full frame, my eventual ideal setup would be two bodies -- one FF for landscape and low light work, and a crop for wildlife. I could avoid some lens changes, and have a backup body on special trips. However, this would be a long way off in the plans (if ever).
 

Patrick Sun

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1999
Messages
39,660
Ye gads, I'm just sitting here waiting for tomorrow to show up since I got my tracking number! My mind still reels at the cost of the long-reach telephoto lenses...
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
33,674
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
I rented the 100-400L for my trip to Las Vegas, the HTF MeetUp, and a helicopter tour of the Grand Canyon. It is fantastic.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kadath/1019645089/in/set-72157601235801888/

At $1400 it isnt a bargain but it is very good. I definitely see it getting a new IS version sometime in the future but have been guessing that it is just around the corner for about 3 years now =) The Nikon 80-400VR is in the same boat, due sooner than later, time will tell when it will be.

I definitely intend to have both a FF and crop camera for the reasons you list. I'm currently juggling the D300 and D5000 as I've loved having two bodies but the D5000 will go as soon as I get a FF body. I love the hell out of my D300, I don't see ever selling it even when 'better' bodies come along. The D5000 is every bit the D300's match in IQ, maybe even a smidge better, but I hate the smaller body's ergonomics, worse AF, and the loss of CLS control.

Sorry to derail your thread, Pat! =) Hope the new cam comes in and you get to experience the addiction like never before =)
 

Patrick Sun

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1999
Messages
39,660
Please hijack away, I'm learning some interesting tidbits, like I think I'll need to look into a second mortgage to hang with this new hobby...
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
18,864
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong

_Man_
Instead of the Tamron 200-500, I would suggest looking at the Sigma 120-400mm HSM OS ($780) or Sigma 150-500 HSM OS ($899) if considering third party lenses. Both are in a similar price range and have image stabilization and HSM focus motors (Sigma's answer to Canon's USM). The 150-500 is quite large and heavy, plus it uses 86mm filters, which are quite expensive. The 120-400 is a little smaller and lighter, plus uses more common 77mm filters, but you lose 100mm of reach. I've been considering these two lenses for when I eventually add something longer than 200mm to my setup.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,813
Messages
5,123,618
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top