My new 350D/XT setup

[Bluedog]

Sold the Silver XT and got this setup to replace it. The Black body just looks more appealing indeed:

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/51786520/original.jpg

[JTL]

Lookin' sharp! :D

[cdifoto]

Sold the Silver XT and got this setup to replace it. The Black body just looks more appealing indeed:

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/51786520/original.jpg

Looks good...now all you need is the grip..:D

Do you find yourself using the 17-40 the most? Looks about the same size as the 24-70, although I'm sure its a bit lighter (I never compared specs btw). I'm debating whether I wanna go super wide with a UWA or just cover what my kit lens covers with an improvement in quality (ie 16-35 f/2.8 or 17-40 f/4).

[Bluedog]

I just got the 17-40L but in the past my Sigma 18-125 stayed on my other one 75% of the time hardly never zooming past 38mm for the most part. I couldn't justify the cost of the 16-35L. The feel of this lens is superb.

[TheObiJuan]

congrats on your purchase!

[Bluedog]

Thanks ObiJuan ... it'll tide me over till the next model comes alone ... :rolleyes:

[TheObiJuan]

Thanks ObiJuan ... it'll tide me over till the next model comes alone ... :rolleyes:


LOL at the :rolleyes:, some require more out of their gear.
After shooting with the markII for a few months I find difficulty dealing with the focus and ergonomics of the 350D. It's like using a fork for eating, then moving down to using a stick. Both can get it done though...

I love the image quality of the 350D but everthing else needs to be addressed.
The 20D is a good camera, but in the sun the screen is worthless, focus speed is a little slow and jumpy.
I suppose the update will have some of these fixes/updates.

[Rex914]

Looks good...now all you need is the grip..:D

Do you find yourself using the 17-40 the most? Looks about the same size as the 24-70, although I'm sure its a bit lighter (I never compared specs btw). I'm debating whether I wanna go super wide with a UWA or just cover what my kit lens covers with an improvement in quality (ie 16-35 f/2.8 or 17-40 f/4).
It's actually quite a bit smaller than the 24-70. The specs don't really portray everything. You've got to see, touch and use both in person to see how much smaller and lighter the 17-40 is. But smaller and lighter doesn't mean flimsier. The 17-40 still felt very sturdy to me.

[ReF]

It's actually quite a bit smaller than the 17-40.

you mean smaller than the 24-70, right?


congrats on the purchase Blue. i love that lens! i have it my camera more than any other lens i own and it is what's causing my tamron 28-75 to collect dust.

[jamison55]

Congrats BlueDog, I have your twin! The 17-40 is my most used lens as well...light but sturdy.

[timmciglobal]

Ya know, it's funny if you put a picture of a Pro1 next to it. You got your pro2 folks :)

Tim

[Rex914]

you mean smaller than the 24-70, right?


congrats on the purchase Blue. i love that lens! i have it my camera more than any other lens i own and it is what's causing my tamron 28-75 to collect dust.

Whoops, typo there. I should get a bit more sleep...

[aparmley]

Nice blue - Nice! Congrats.

[lucky8]

Yo Blue,
Is that EW-83DII Lens Hood really worth 50 bucks?
What's wrong with the one that comes with it?

[Bluedog]

Yo Blue,
Is that EW-83DII Lens Hood really worth 50 bucks?
What's wrong with the one that comes with it?

The one that comes with it is for a Full Frame sensor camera. It was I thought but that is kinda high priced ... :o