Canon 40D or XSi (450D) - Page 3

Re: Canon 40D or XSi (450D)

I agree with Man that one lens kit does not fit all photographers. It depends on what you like to shoot, as well as your particular style. Some people like to shoot landscapes with a wide angle lens, while others use a telephoto, for example.

Zooms will give you more flexibility, and the newer high quality zooms are very close in quality to a good prime lens.

Right now my kit is comprised mostly of quality zoom lenses -- Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, EF-S 10-22mm, EF 70-200L f/4 IS -- and one prime (the el cheapo EF 50mm f/1.8, which I never use since getting the 17-55mm). This covers me for just about all my general purpose shooting needs, and the three zoom lenses make for a very good, flexible travel kit.

The next step is covering my less frequent special needs. The 85mm f/1.8 would be used for indoor low light and some messing around at junior hockey games we attend. Then, before our next Yellowstone trip, I need something longer than the 280mm I get with the 70-200mm + 1.4x teleconverter. Since it will be at least another year before I need anything longer, I'm waiting on that lens, but the choices are the Canon 100-400mmL, Canon 400mmL f/5.6, Sigma 150-500mm HSM OS, or Sigma 120-400mm HSM OS. Luckily I do not need to make a decision for quite awhile.

Jim, if you go with primes, I would suggest starting with just the kit lens (it's cheap but decent), and then get an idea of the focal lengths you need most. Personally, 50mm as my widest lens would not be nearly wide enough for me, especially on a crop sensor. However, if you are shooting mostly people, it may be wide enough for you.

Re: Canon 40D or XSi (450D)

Not to hijack this thread but..any of u guys ever use one of those remotes from HK or China? They're like less $10 bucks on ebay compared to $25 for the original RC-1s. I'd like to have one so I can make myself part of the action so to speak.

Re: Canon 40D or XSi (450D)

Yes, I bought one for about $6 for my 40D. The Canon equivalent was over $40, so I thought it was worth a try. The one I bought has worked fine.

Re: Canon 40D or XSi (450D)

I know you guys are right that there isn't one perfect solution and I'm not trying to find one. I'm looking for the highest quality 'all-purpose' lens(es) that fit my personal definition of all-purpose.

After thinking about it a lot I think zooms are what fits my 'style' and needs the best. I may add a prime to play around with but I think for 99% of what I do a zoom is the best way to go. I'll probably add a wide prime or zoom to the kit eventually.

Now, that leaves me with what zoom to go with from that list:

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS - How big a deal is the dust issue I keep reading about?

EF 24-105 f/4L IS - I'd like to have a faster lens than f/4. Plus, I love background blur and f/4 won't give it as well as f/2.8. That said, I absolutely love the range and superior build quality. This lens is the current front-runner.

EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM - I keep reading about quality control issues with this one and that concerns me with a +$1,000 lens. I'm also not sure I want such a heavy lens hanging around my neck while I'm walking the kids around Disney all day or trekking around the southwest.

Any advice on those zooms?

Re: Canon 40D or XSi (450D)

Jim,

I have no dust issues with my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, and I do not even use a UV filter on it. I have owned this lens for over 2 years. I would highly recommend the lens shade if you go with this lens, though. It does suffer from a bit of lens flare without the hood, and unfortunately the hood is an extra expense since this is not an "L" lens.

While I would love the 24-105L, it's just not wide enough for me with a crop sensor. The gap between 55mm and 70mm is not a big deal for me, so having the 10-22mm, 17-55mm and 70-200mm f/4 IS works well for me.

Re: Canon 40D or XSi (450D)

The EF-S 17-55 is an excellent lens, and there is really no comparable "L" lens for a crop sensor. You get a focal range designed for a crop sensor, image stabilization, excellent image quality, constant f/2.8 aperture, and quick, smooth focusing. All you lose is the build quality of an "L" (but the 17-55 is built well for a non-L, IMO), and the ability to use the lens on a full frame body.

Re: Canon 40D or XSi (450D)

I keep flip-flopping between the 17-55 and 24-105. It'll probably come down to a game-time decision.

Re: Canon 40D or XSi (450D)

I use the Phottix Cleon for my Nikon D300 and use it both as a wired trigger and wirelessly much less often. It's awesome as both but i couldnt live without the wired trigger functionality for my astro stuff.

Oh and the 85 1.8 was my favorite portrait lenses on the 20D, even with the crop factor.

I think I finally decided to upgrade to the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS lens for XSi, just need to find a deal on it now.  Went through some hand-wringing on the L lens contenders: mainly 17-40 F4 L, 24-105 F4 L, but, like Scott mentioned before, the XSi crop body negates some of the wide angle performance benefits, but it is nice to think of having the L's sealed construction, but I was still not happy about no IS and needing an external flash in the low-light conditions that I'd usually end up using them (convention centers, or hotels) for the F4, as it might be too slow to capture the shots I wanted without using the flash.  I figure if I ever moved up to a FF body, I'd just have to sell off any EF-S lenses when that time came, but I just don't think I want to sink *that* much cash into photography for the foreseeable future.

 

I sniffed around the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 VC, but it just seems like I'd be tossing good money after bad, so I'm just going to stick with the Canon lenses and bite the bullet on the costs.

The 17-55 is spendy, but it's consistent and reliable - I use one at work but have a Sigma personally. I think you'll be happy with the Canon. Eventually I want to trade up my Sigma for it, but it will take some time to get there.

I think you will really like the 17-55mm, Patrick. It is a very versatile lens, has a quick & smooth AF motor, and provides excellent image quality. I use this lens for the majority of my shots.  I would recommend getting a lens hood for it, though, to reduce lens flare, as well as help protecting the lens.

*sob* now I'm wavering back towards the 24-105 F4 IS L lens, and just dealing with needing to use my external flash for the indoor shoots if the lighting conditions aren't favorable.  The reach is what is enticing me back towards the L side...

Patrick,

 

What do you need the extra reach for on such a lens?  Do you not need the extra FOV of the wider lens?

 

You should probably consider how you'll realistically use the lens before choosing.

 

I have Nikon's version of the 17-55mm f/2.8 cropped lens (unfortunately, w/ no option for IS) -- as well as Nikon's lower-end 18-70mm DX (from my old D70 kit) -- and to me, the wideangle end is far more useful than the missing normal-to-short-tele end on such a lens.  I find that if/when I need the extra reach, I typically also need a faster lens and/or even longer reach -- and I have that covered w/ a couple Nikon fast primes (plus a manual 105mm macro prime) as well as a Sigma f/2.8 telezoom (when I feel like lugging it) and a Nikon 70-300mm DX w/ IS.

 

If I were you, I'd probably go for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS (unless you really think you'll go fullframe) and then add one of either 70-200 f/4 IS or one of the f/2.8 telezooms at some point down the line.  Meanwhile, you can also add the fairly popular (and affordable) 85 f/1.8 or maybe a 105mm prime (especially if you're interested in macros) to get a little bit more reach (and the brighter, sharper glass) when you need it.  And a mid-range prime is pretty portable for pairing w/ a walkaround widezoom -- I often just throw one in my jacket pocket and leave the camera bag behind.

 

Also, I (and many others) find that it's typically easy enough to cover the in-between range by "zooming" w/ your feet/etc instead of the lens when dealing w/ a coverage of less than ~2x range, eg. from 55mm to ~105mm, although you generally won't get quite the same POV that way.

 

Hope that helps some...

 

_Man_

Edited by ManW_TheUncool - 5/10/10 at 10:24am

Another option, if you want additional reach, would be Canon's new EF-S 15-85mm IS lens. You will lose the constant f/2.8 aperture, but otherwise get a lens that is supposed to perform on par with the EF-S 17-55mm.  I agree with Man -- I wouldn't want to use a lens at 24mm on the wide end as my general purpose lens.  That just isn't wide enough on a crop sensor for me. While I also have a 10-22mm ultra wide angle lens, I would be swapping between that lens and the 24-105mm too much, based on how I shoot.

 

One other thing to keep in mind -- even f/2.8 is not always fast enough for shooting indoors without a flash, unless you have a body that performs very well at high ISO settings. In those cases, your only solutions are either a fast prime lens or a flash -- and sometimes there is just no getting around the need for a flash.

I agree with Man's recommendations. Especially in crowded environments like conventions a wide FOV is a necessity and a short/mid tele will come up short in the large panel settings. When you need reach, you should REALLY reach with something like a 70-200.

 

Thanks for the additional feedback, y'all.

 

I don't think I'd be that happy with the 15-85 f3.5-f-6.3 IS lens.

 

I would use a different longer lens for the panels (have the cheapo starter 55-250 IS F3.5-F6.3 crap zoom), eventually would settle for the 70-200 F4 IS (ain't no way I'm lugging the more expensive F2.8 version around all day) if I win the lottery sooner than later, so my focus on the walk-about lens.

 

I've seen tons of photos from a guy on Flickr ("calibre68") who takes tons of photos at conventions, and car shows, and of lovely car show ladies, and he mainly uses the 24-105 for those shots, but with an external flash, and I like what I saw in those shots. 

 

This is calibre68's photo set from Comicon 2009 with mainly the 24-105:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/calibre68/sets/72157621734555311/

 

(Holy crap!  Pikachu is cute!  But I digress...)

 

He did say that he stands within 10 feet of the subject, can get to about 7 feet to the subject, and makes use of the long end to get the close-up shots with some bokeh sometimes.  He does go wider with another Tamron 17-50 for shooting car bodies, though, and acknowledges that he might miss out on the wider group shots at times, but it's a compromise he's okay with given the flexibility, otherwise, with his 24-105.  Perhaps the wider 17-55 will allow me to use it within 4-6 feet of the subject, which is the more common distance between you and the subject in the hustle and bustle of conventions.

Something else to consider in this is your target output.  Do you plan to do high quality enlarged prints w/ shots taken at the long end of that 24-105L?  If not, you can always shoot-to-crop to get "closer" for the final output of those shots that need it.  OTOH, you cannot do the same to get wider -- in some instances (for landscape-type images), you could go "wider" by photostitching (and shooting w/ corresponding/necessary techniques), but probably not for what you plan to do.

 

Of course, cropping has its limitations -- and you'd still be missing the longer reach for the original shot.

 

RE: the 15-85 IS, besides what's already mentioned, I suspect it'll also come w/ fairly substantial distortions/aberrations/corner-softness/etc compared to the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which may or may not be acceptable to you.

 

_Man_

Love my 17-40, even on a crop camera.  It's sitting on a shelf now just waiting for Canon to introduce a sub 1k FF camera =p  Or an EVIL cropper.

I'm not all that into the post-processing of photos (just too many of them when I go nuts), so if I don't get it on the first pass, it'll remain untouched, with the exception of batch re-sizing, as I don't see the point in uploading the max resolution file, and just re-size to something as large as my PC's screen desktop resolution or smaller.  There are, of course, exceptions, like fixing the white balance of the odd photos that looks too warm or cold.

 

Now, I'm swaying back to the 17-55 since I looked at my old photos, and I do take a lot of full-length body shots to get the entire outfit (of cosplayers) in the frame, so having a wide end would be useful, else, I'd need to step back a lot more and get a full-length view or 3/4-length view or closer 1/2-length shot.

Now, if I accept I'll need my external flash, I may end up also looking towards the Canon EF-S 15-85 F3.5-6.3 IS USM lens.  It does appear to be a sharp lens, and with IS, I might gain a stop or two, but it's still limited in low-light situations, and external flash will most likely be needed if I want to use it at conventions anyway.  I just wish it was priced in the $450 range, and not the current $620 range since it's not a "fast" lens.

IS only fixes shake not subject movement.  Indoors IS is not a substitute for fast glass.

But for my application, I'll be shooting people posing for the shot indoors, not action shots, so I'd be relying on fill-in flash to shoot at a fast enough shutter speed and decent ISO to get a properly exposed shot.  I totally get that fast glass will help with action shots. I just don't think I could go without flash even with a fast lens shooting inside of hotels and their open spaces.  I'm just more peeved by the price, even with the instant rebate for it (and other selected Canon lenses) factored into the new prevailing price.

Yes, the Canon lenses are a little pricey when compared with the third party alternatives. FYI, I used to own a Sigma 17-70mm lens, and it was a very good lens for the price.  It did not have IS, a fixed f/2.8 aperture or the fast USM auto focus motor, but it yielded very high quality shots when used within it's limitations.  I chose it over the Canon alternative at the time -- their EF-S 17-85mm IS lens. Sigma does make a version of this lens now with IS and USM, but I do not know how it compares with the older version in image quality.

 

However, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens is priced very competitively against the comparable Nikon lens (which lacks image stabilization).

Canon lenses are bargains compared to the Nikons equivalents.  QYB =)

Holy crap, somehow, I managed to stay up to 3:30 a.m. last night just reading all the reviews and threads on camera sites on the various lenses I've been considering.  My eyes were bleeding from all that reading!  Now, I continue to lean back towards the 17-55 F2.8 IS USM lens, even if dust seems to find its way inside the lens assembly.  I do wish it was more weatherproof/sealed like the L lenses.

 

Maybe next you should read "The Paradox of Choice." ;)

 

http://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choice-Why-More-Less/dp/0060005696/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273856250&sr=8-1

I totally get lambasted/sidetracked by "paralysis by analysis".

I wouldn't worry about dust with the 17-55mm f/2.8, Patrick. I have owned this lens for several years. It's my primary lens, and it has no dust issue. The inside still looks very clean. Besides, a few dust particles inside the lens will not affect your photos at all, even if your copy should get a few over time.