Canon 40D or XSi (450D) (1 Viewer)

[Patrick Sun]

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.

 

[Patrick Sun]

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.

 

[Sam Posten]

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

 

[Patrick Sun]

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.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

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).

 

[Sam Posten]

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

 

[Patrick Sun]

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.

 

[Citizen87645]

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

 

[Patrick Sun]

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

 

[Scott Merryfield]

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.

 

[Sam Posten]

Here's my philosophy on stuff like that:


Gear, in general, is a commodity. Pro gear however is usually worth the price premium. If unsure if one of two pieces of consumer gear are better, go for the cheap one and use it until it breaks. If the pro gear is not astronomical in price (say, with about a 50% price premium), save up for that and treat it well. Don't listen to the experts, they are usually people with more time than sense, money than sense, or trying to sell you something. Put value in what your heart tells you and what your experiences have been. Don't get caught up in hype.


Some of you will think this is ridiculous coming from me, with my well known gear lust and lesser known Apple, Canon, Sony and especially Nikon biases. All I can say is each item I have purchased, with the possible exception of the iPad, was done so with some calculation and review readership (and saved up for individually) but without being all Revenge of the Nerds like in spec and review tomfoolery...

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Yeah, you should probably worry more about dust inside your camera body than in the lens. I'm sure it's nowhere near bad enough to worry about in the lens or the lens wouldn't be so popular now. It's not like you plan to be living in a dust bowl or something, right?


_Man_

 

[Citizen87645]

My Sigma 18-50mm zoom had a back focus problem and I had to send it in twice to be calibrated. It's fine now, but I still have lingering doubts about it. It's been enough to pretty much swear off third party lenses, though now I check the focusing accuracy on any lens I get.

 

[Patrick Sun]

What I've been reading of the Tamron and Sigma lenses does make me raise my eyebrow, and it appears to be a communication thing between those lenses and the Canon bodies.


Overall, typical average pricing these days:


Canon EF-S 15-85 F3.5-5.6 IS $620 new (can't really find them used)

Canon EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS $900-$950 used, $1070 new

Canon EF 24-105 F4 IS $850 used


Sometimes, I'll tilt my external flash to lessen the intensity, even with a diffuser cup on it. Results are hit-or-miss, I guess.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

If you can get the 17-55 f/2.8 IS used at those prices, in like new condition, I'd suggest going that route. There's not a whole lot to gain by getting a brand new Canon lens anyway (in part because the warranty is just 1 year) as long as you can test out the used lens to ensure perfect operation and are getting it from a reliable seller. Of course, you have to feel comfortable w/ that idea, etc. though. If not, then just spend the extra bit for a new lens -- you don't want buyer's remorse and constantly 2nd guess yourself about the lens over that.


That's basically what I did for my Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. I bought it in near mint condition locally off eBay for something like a net price of $850 (after using a Bing cashback deal). I would've been willing to pay somewhat more if it came w/ IS (and didn't have a known issue w/ the AF at/near infinity), but finally decided to go for it at around that price after resigning on the idea that I might ever go FF -- I still might someday, but I won't worry about that for a widezoom right now. FWIW, the seller was moving upto FF, so needed to sell the lens.


Before getting that lens, I was happily using a 35mm f/2 prime much of the time and swapping to my old 18-70mm only on occasion when I needed the wide end -- the Nikon 18-70mm is a pretty good widezoom in its own right, but I just was never that happy w/ it. I did also try a used, excellent condition Sigma 20mm f/1.8 for something better at the wide end, but it just didn't quite suit me -- it's quite big-and-hefty (and slow to AF) despite being a fixed focal length prime and just isn't as sharp or contrasty as I'd like at/near wide open aperture. Now, I usually just stick w/ the 17-55 f/2.8 and occasionally swap to one of my other lenses as I find need.


_Man_

 

[Patrick Sun]

My head says to get the 17-55mm since it should be more useful in the long run, but my pocketbook says to get the 15-85mm since it's 2/3 the cost of the other choice. Hopefully I'll get lucky on a 17-55mm tomorrow, otherwise, I may end up just renting it for Heroes Con for the first weekend in June.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Patrick,


If you are shooting people indoors on an aps-c sized Image Sensor, 85mm is probably the farthest into the telephoto range that you will practically use. I do a good deal of event photography, and I have a Tamron 18mm to 200mm (for portrait work I use a Canon 50mm f1.2) that I use as a walk around when enlargements are not going to be an issue (though I have done some nice enlargements from that lens) I find that I use the 18mm to around 24mm end of the lens FAR more than the telephoto end. If you are using a external flash say a Canon speedlite 430EX, I highly recommend getting one of these if you don't already have one...


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/435136-REG/Gary_Fong_LS2_C1_C1_Lightsphere_II_Inverted.html



You'll be amazed at the improvement in quality of the light coming from your flash. Here are a few examples of that flash diffuser in action.














All of those were shot with the Tamron.


Just my two cents.


Doug

 

[Sam Posten]

I've never bit on the Fong adapters (based on price mostly!), but I know others who swear by them. I use the Honl system, I find it very adaptable in many situations. I used to use a Sto-fen on all my flash shots and those are cheap and better than bare flash IMO, but I think the Honl's beat it by a mile.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Nice flash modifiers suggestions. I think I just have a sto-fen-type of flash cap for the time being, as I haven't quite delved into the flash control arena, but as long as I can find some economical (in size and price) solutions, I'll consider them.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Patrick Sun

Nice flash modifiers suggestions. I think I just have a sto-fen-type of flash cap for the time being, as I haven't quite delved into the flash control arena, but as long as I can find some economical (in size and price) solutions, I'll consider them.

Fong has a new version of that particular diffuser that folds down flat (kind of like a camping cup). The thing about a diffuser is that you want as much surface area as possible. The more surface area the softer the light. Also Fong's diffuser can be pointed up to bounce off the ceiling, while at the same time using the sides of the diffuser as fill light or even a catch light in the eyes. Also he makes an orange cap for it that corrects the flash color temp to tungsten. Great for shooting in available light.


Of course there are other good diffusers out there, but I'm particularly sold on this one. Frankly I never shoot with out it. Even when my strobe is off the camera on a remote trigger, that diffuser is on it.


Doug