Good starting set of lenses for newbie amateur [Archive] - Digital Camera Resource Page

McManus

06-22-2006, 08:52 AM

coldrain

06-22-2006, 09:06 AM

What do you consider "all in one zoom" and what is your budget.
I will take a guess and say that your budget is not very high.

All in one... is that longer than you have now? Then you only have the Sigma 18-125mm and 18-200mm to consider.

If you just want a replacement for the 18-55, you can go a number of directions.

Keep the 18-55 for wide for now, and get a Canon EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II. Low in price, high in contrast and colour. And focusses well and silently.

Or, get a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Good for the money, a bit better than my Sigma 18-50mm f2.8. The Tokina 16-50 f2.8 is not out yet, so that is not an option.

The Sigma 17-70mm. It is a good lens with a bit bigger range, but a bit smaller aperture of the range. Be sure to test the lens in the shop to be sure it focusses reliably with your 350D.

I guess the combination of Ef 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II and Tokina 12-24 f4 will be a bit over your budget.

noyjimi

06-22-2006, 09:07 AM

Hello!

I'm new to the world of photography as well as new to this forum. I just purchased a Canon EOS 350D / Digital Rebel XT, and somehow convinced my coworker to get the Nikon D50, and he pointed me to this site.

Welcome McManus and you've certainly taken the first step to becoming a true Canon shooter - buying one for yourself and leading the competition astray. :D Just kidding.

Anyway, to answer your question effectively, people will probably ask:

What makes you unhappy about the 18-55? Is it the colors, contrast, sharpness, focal range, speed, ...? What would you like to get out of the "better" lens? Have you played with the camera settings - bump up saturation, sharpness, etc? Are you shooting in JPEG or RAW?

What do you like to shoot?

What is your budget for the upgrade?

-noyjimi

Clyde

06-22-2006, 09:17 AM

Here's my current plan:

1.) buy a Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime for now (being cost-conscious!)
2.) buy a good all-in-one zoom (a little less wallet-friendly) and sell my 18-55
3.) when I have money again, buy the 50mm f/1.4 prime (and sell the f/1.8)

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, thanks!!

Welcome! Canon appreciates your business, and will be happy to introduce you to a number of well qualified mortgage companies ;) .

Your plan seems reasonable, but consider keeping the kit lens. It really isn't as awful as the pixel peepers amongst us lead you to believe, and will give you a wide angle option till you replace it.

The 50 f/1.8 is a no-brainer. Get it, and enjoy.

There are a few options for the all-purpose lens. Sigma makes a well-regarded 18-125 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=257&sort=7&cat=37&page=2) or 18-200. In your situation, I might grab the canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=206&sort=7&cat=27&page=3), but I would make sure to avoid the confusingly similar f/4-5.6 version (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=9&sort=7&cat=27&page=1).

You might just skip the all purpose lens since the kit lens is really not that awful, and start right in with either the 17-40 f4L or the 70-200 f/4L. These two lenses, coupled with the 50 f/1.8 (or probably the f/1.4, since using the L is bound to cause finicky-ness) would make a dandy kit that would make many of us here jealous.

Be sure to spend more time taking pictures than thinking about better lenses to come...

Clyde

te1221

06-22-2006, 09:24 AM

The 17-40 is wayyyyy better than my 18-55 that collects dust. If I took the time to stop down the kit lens I'm sure it would be fine, but I feel more confident shooting wtih better glass

I can vouche that 17-40 F4L with the 50 1.4 is a great combo to have :)

ReF

06-22-2006, 09:28 AM

another problem that is commonly experienced when switching to dslrs is the more hands off approach to in-camera processing vs the point and shoot digitals that many are used to. this means your images will appear flatter, less contrasty and less saturated/colorful, unless you boost the parameters or post process either in RAW conversion or a program such as photoshop.

tel1221: you mean 18-55 right?

te1221

06-22-2006, 09:45 AM

Yes sorry, my finger slipped :p

McManus

06-22-2006, 11:01 AM

Wow, thanks for all the replies, guys!

By "all-in-one" I mean something along the lines of a 70-200mm or 70-300mm. And I don't have anything against the EF-S 18-55m that comes in the kit per se, but it just doesn't compare to my buddy's Nikon 50mm f/1.8 prime; hence my desire to get the 50mm f/1.8 prime.

I want a good telephoto, too, but I don't know if I can afford anything great now. I never want to spend more than ~$300. Also, good performance in indoor lighting would be preferred... I intend on mainly shooting portraits and scenery.

coldrain

06-22-2006, 11:12 AM

Hmmm... this does not make sense at all. do you not realize that a 70-300mm lens has a totally different range than your 18-55 lens? 18 = wide view, 55 is sort of portrait focal length.
70mm has long portrait focal length, 200-300 is tele lens range.

So they complement, you can hardly call a 70-200 or 70-300 lens a all in one lens! You will only have a telerange, not very handy.

If you want to not spend more than 300$, keep the 18-55 kit lens for sure. Get a 50mm f1.8, and a Sigma 70-300 APO DG. 70-200 lenses are too expensive.

McManus

06-22-2006, 11:30 AM

DonSchap

06-22-2006, 12:09 PM

My first "real" kit lens was the TAmROn AF18~200m f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD.

13152

This lens, as well as the SIGMA version, are good "all-in-one" lenses. They get you from wide-angle right through to telephoto. You can basically use this ONE LENS all the time, but at the longer lengths, like many others... a good flash will almost always be mandatory indoors. This instantly replaced the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (included) 'kit lens' (which got shelved)... and I have been exceptionally happy with the results.

Over time, I have since built up my bag of tricks with a wide range of 'glass', but just starting out... this one covers a great deal of real estate and I believe you will get good mileage out of it. :cool:

Here's a review of the aforementioned TAmROn:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_18200_3563/index.htm

Rhys

06-22-2006, 12:44 PM

Hello!

I'm new to the world of photography as well as new to this forum. I just purchased a Canon EOS 350D / Digital Rebel XT, and somehow convinced my coworker to get the Nikon D50, and he pointed me to this site.

So anyhoo, I'm not super happy with the stock 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 that the XT comes with, so I've been shopping around, reading the lens reviews, etc. It's all a bit confusing, and I was wondering if y'all had any suggestions. Here's my current plan:

1.) buy a Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime for now (being cost-conscious!)
2.) buy a good all-in-one zoom (a little less wallet-friendly) and sell my 18-55
3.) when I have money again, buy the 50mm f/1.4 prime (and sell the f/1.8)

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, thanks!!

I'd say get the Tamron 17-35 and you'll have a wide angle that you can use on full frame for when you get a 5D. Don't look only at new lenses. Look at secondhand from places like KEH.com. I get all my lenses from them. Don't waste your time with the 50mm f1.8. It's as lousy as the kit lens (which is quite good only when it's stopped down a couple of stops).

McManus

06-22-2006, 09:54 PM

Thanks for all of the recommendations! I went to Ritz Camera today for a free photography class, and the only lens they had of all the ones mentioned was the Tamron 18~200. I wasn't too impressed, and the AF took forever, but it would be convenient to have one.

Then I played with my buddy's Nikon D50 with a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. All I can say is... WOW. It's fast at AF, it gets sharp images with no flash (my biggest complaint about my current camera/lens combo), and his pictures just look great (good color, good contrast, _very_ sharp, be it daytime or nighttime).

The reviews of the Canon 50mm f/1.8 are more bad than good, but surely it can't be too much worse than the equivalent-cost Nikon 50mm f/1.8? I don't really feel like spending $300+ for the f/1.4, but I'm going to stop by a retailer in town that sells used lenses to try out different ones and see if I can get a good price.

In the meantime, thanks for all the help! Here's the [unedited] pic I think looks the best out of all the ones I've taken:

http://www.bananamango.net/~mcmanus/photos/test/Heinz-small.jpg

Here's a link to the full sized version:
http://www.bananamango.net/~mcmanus/photos/test/Heinz-full.jpg

I'm not sure if the white specks were part of the bottle, noise, or dust, but I doubt it's dust since I cleaned it just last night. The lighting was pretty weird, but I just used Tungsten WB. The shot was at 18mm, ISO100, f3.5, and the shutter was set to 1.6 seconds. I had the camera tilted up and balancing on the lenscap and used the timer.

McManus

06-22-2006, 09:58 PM

Oh yeah, and I've also noticed that the light meter is very inconsistent and wrong a lot of the time. Is that something anyone else has experienced with a Canon Rebel XT?

timmciglobal

06-22-2006, 10:31 PM

Depends what mode the metering was in.

I find the evalulative metering on canon to be quite poor compared to nikon's matrix. I honestly use partial metering most of the time.

The 501.8, if you get a good copy, is quite good by F2.2. It isn't the quiestest AF or the fastest but it's a good lens. The 50 1.4 is a quite nice lens though and usable a bit wider.

Keep in mind though, the wider the apature (F1.8 for example) the less depth of field, or area in focus. This means that while you can not use a flash a persons nose may be in focus but the persons eyes may be slightly blured.

Tim

aparmley

06-22-2006, 11:04 PM

I doubt that D50 is any faster than the XT at focusing - especially if you slap a USM lens on the XT. . .

Trust me the 50 1.4 is worth the extra $230.

Vich

06-22-2006, 11:54 PM

You obviously have high standards.

Here's how newbee kit upgrades go.

1. get kit lens
2. get cheap 50 f1.8 because a lot of people say it's wonderful
3. get cheap tele zoom because you don't want to spend more
4. finally spring for a fairly good zoom, like the Tamron 28-75 f2.8
5. get frustrated with the 50 f1.8 because it's inconsistant. Sell it for a loss, buy the 50 f1.4.
6. see how wonderful a truely great lens is. Spring for your first L.
7. you are now ruined and cannot use anything but Canon USM and Canon USM L lenses. Sell the lot for a loss and start the slow road to filling your quiver with some more of this amazing glass.

So, cut to the chase and get your first keeper. Buy the 50 f1.4.

Save your pennies and get a 70-200 f4.0L next.

Save your pennies and get the 17-40 f4.0L next.

Save your pennies one more time and get the Canon 10-22.

OK, now you're really cranking out quality images from 10mm to 200mm. You're super happy.

Then comes your first f2.8 L zoom. Or your first IS lens. Now you're ruined all over again!

In other words, just recognize your quest for the best and get the keepers the first time. 50 f1.4, $300. Your Nikon friend may suffer a little USM, f1.4, and contrast/bokeh envy (but not much because that Nikon 50 f1.8 smokes too).

I'm half kidding. Newbies usually crave, and if given the choice mount, zooms. Just steer clear of more junk (IMO, like the Sigma 70-300 APO) and get a fairly decent one to start off. The 28-105 f3.5 - 4.5 mentioned above is probably the cheapest very high quality lens. Maybe the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 would be a good alternative. Neither will be ultimate keepers, but they'll keep you satisfied for a year or 2 when you can finally afford your first L zoom (probably an f4.0 L). You'll know better by then what you want.

The 50 f1.8 can give you very good images, some pro quality. It's inconsistant focus an a few other issues (like embarrasingly cheap build) will probably have you dumping it eventually too.

Christian

06-23-2006, 02:20 AM

I went to Ritz Camera today for a free photography class

For a Canon shooter that class is generally ok at best, Nikon gives Ritz employees a discount so that's pretty much all they care to know about in my experience.

Don't get me wrong, you'll come out of it with some decent info about photography basics, but don't expect them to know to much about your gear. I know, because I also took the same class. Aside from the on/off switch and the shooting modes......... well that about covers it.

Also, do not buy any more gear through them. It's ridiculous the prices they charge, you can buy online with overnight shipping and still walk away with money in your pocket compared to Ritz. As mentioned in another post give KEH a look, also B&H and Adorama are great places and all three are well respected places to deal with.

BTW, I went straight to the 50 1.4 and couldn't be happier. And if you look around, you'll be able to find it for $249.95 like me.:D

On the 28-105 f3.5-4.5, almost every review I've read about it said it's a great lens and was recommended.

Sorry if I got a bit OT.

ReF

06-23-2006, 05:35 AM

well, i like the way vich put it. that's usually the route newbies go. that nikon 50 f1.8 is supposed to be better than canon's. so if you want a 50mm prime save your time, money, and avoid funked up photo ops by getting the canon 50mm f1.4. that $300 per lens budget isn't going to buy you much except for the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 and 50 f1.4. you'd probably end with the sigma 70-300 which seems to have more than it's share of AF problems on canon bodies. if that's going to be your budget then just get a d50. their 50mm f1.8 is supposed to be good and it's cheap, plus nikon bodies seem to have less problems with 3rd party lenses (which is what your budget will buy).

te1221

06-23-2006, 08:34 AM

You obviously have high standards.

In other words, just recognize your quest for the best and get the keepers the first time. 50 f1.4, $300. Your Nikon friend may suffer a little USM, f1.4, and contrast/bokeh envy (but not much because that Nikon 50 f1.8 smokes too).

I'm half kidding. Newbies usually crave, and if given the choice mount, zooms. Just steer clear of more junk (IMO, like the Sigma 70-300 APO) and get a fairly decent one to start off. The 28-105 f3.5 - 4.5 mentioned above is probably the cheapest very high quality lens. Maybe the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 would be a good alternative. Neither will be ultimate keepers, but they'll keep you satisfied for a year or 2 when you can finally afford your first L zoom (probably an f4.0 L). You'll know better by then what you want.

The 50 f1.8 can give you very good images, some pro quality. It's inconsistant focus an a few other issues (like embarrasingly cheap build) will probably have you dumping it eventually too.

I actually still am a dSLR newbie, but have always been into photography for a while. I was very tempted by the 75-300 that you see around for like $140 and I almost went down the same road but I luckily went to the better route. It may take you longer to get the lenses you want, but you will be way more satisfied with the results.

My focusing is very consistent and sharp, and gives me way more confidence in the ability to get the shot as opposed to the kit lens. I just save my money until I can afford particular glass in the zoom ranges I need. If you really are serious about it you should try to wait, save, and aim a little higher instead of settling with something you may not be truly satisfied with.

My next priority for this month is a 580EX, next month 85 F1.8 and then next year (wayyyyy next year) the 70-200 F2.8L IS :)

noyjimi

06-23-2006, 10:29 AM

Then I played with my buddy's Nikon D50 with a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. All I can say is... WOW. It's fast at AF, it gets sharp images with no flash (my biggest complaint about my current camera/lens combo), and his pictures just look great (good color, good contrast, _very_ sharp, be it daytime or nighttime).

If you're talking about images straight out of the camera, the D50 processes more than the XT out of the box. Why not try tweaking the contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc. settings in your camera menu - you might be surprised to get more pleasing results "out of the box."

The reviews of the Canon 50mm f/1.8 are more bad than good, but surely it can't be too much worse than the equivalent-cost Nikon 50mm f/1.8? I don't really feel like spending $300+ for the f/1.4, but I'm going to stop by a retailer in town that sells used lenses to try out different ones and see if I can get a good price.

Good idea - get one from a store with a reasonable return policy and give it a workout. See if you are pleased with the results. But don't forget the camera settings - it might just surprise you on the 18-55.

I'm not sure if the white specks were part of the bottle, noise, or dust, but I doubt it's dust since I cleaned it just last night. The lighting was pretty weird, but I just used Tungsten WB. The shot was at 18mm, ISO100, f3.5, and the shutter was set to 1.6 seconds. I had the camera tilted up and balancing on the lenscap and used the timer.

The full-size looks fine to me - I mean it's overexposed and needs WB correction - but it's not blurry. Stop the 18-55 down to f/8 and see if it improves. Shoot in RAW or set a custom WB to get the right tint.

McManus

06-24-2006, 10:23 PM

Well, I went to a great local camera shop today, and needless to say, I'm even less sure now of what lens I want to get...! It was pretty cool getting to play with a bunch of nice lenses, though (including ones I don't think I could ever "afford").

Here's the list of lenses I'm trying to choose between right now:

1.) Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (y'all are right, the 1.8 just isn't worth it)
2.) Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM
3.) Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
4.) Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8

I went in thinking I might walk out with a Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM (and I almost did!), but I've heard great things about the Tamron 17-5mm f/2.8 as well, which I didn't get to try out since they were out of stock. Ahhh, decisions, decisions!

ReF

06-25-2006, 03:40 AM

McManus

06-25-2006, 08:39 AM

i always say this: i don't like third party stuff much. many lenses have focussing issues on canon bodies, either inaccurate, hunts too much, or just slow winding the motor even if it does lock focus accurately. some lenses could be different, like a sigma hsm, but as far as i know tamron doesn't have any special AF motors. also, f1.4 is a whole 2 stops brighter than f2.8 so the prime and the zoom don't even compare in terms of usability.

I couldn't agree with you more. I am hesitant on getting the Tamron, but was recommended to me by so many people (buddy, store, the pro SI photographer), so I figured I'd ask. Some people have lots of good things to say about Tamron on these forums.

So barring Tamron lenses, would you get the 50mm f/1.4 USM or the 17-40mm f/4 L USM? I believe you gave both a 10 in your reviews, ReF, and I think I could suit my needs either way: with a 17-40mm only to replace my kit lens and handle all my needs, or the 50mm for indoor portraits and the kit lens for wide angle. Just please don't say I should get both...! ;)

Vich

06-25-2006, 09:36 AM

May I chime in.

I have the 50mm f1.4 and Tamron 28-75 and have 2 f4.0 L Zooms.

I would take an L zoom over any third party zoom hands down. That's me, because I like the focus performance and superb IQ.

That said; some people just don't want an f4.0 zoom saying an f2.8 focuses better and is better for low light. I find using f2.8, in moving people situations, difficult at best so that's why I now have two f4.0 L zooms.

As nice as the 50 f1.4 is, it won't replace your kit zoom. It's not a zoom, and there are just some situations where you need that wider FOV.

I won't say the 50 f1.4 is my best lens, but I would never hesitate to take only that lens for a day of general shooting. However; the zooms are on my camera 95% of the time, and the Canon 17-40 f4.0L has a wonderful reputation and more closely approximates the kit lens range-wise.

Rhys

06-25-2006, 10:16 AM

Depends what mode the metering was in.

I find the evalulative metering on canon to be quite poor compared to nikon's matrix. I honestly use partial metering most of the time.
Tim

I find the metering tends to be fairly poor. I use matrix metering a lot. If the XT had entirely separate shutter/aperture controls then I'd use solely manual mode and would use an external light meter. As it is, the system has so many negatives that I'm planning on replacing it with Nikon.

cdifoto

06-25-2006, 10:19 AM

Rhys

06-25-2006, 11:09 AM

Let's put it another way. I'm very unhappy with the XT. I regret bitterly having purchased it instead of (at the time) a Nikon D70. I'm looking unhappily at the financial hit I'm going to take, selling it.

My personal opinion is that for 99% of applications, 6mp is fine, 8 is overkill and the extra storage space demanded by 8mp cannot be justified.

The controls on the Nikons fall easily to hand. The controls on the Canon do not, never will and God alone knows why they put them in such daft places. I spend 90% of my time hunting for the right buttons to twiddle. It's a nightmarish design.

te1221

06-25-2006, 02:59 PM

I couldn't agree with you more. I am hesitant on getting the Tamron, but was recommended to me by so many people (buddy, store, the pro SI photographer), so I figured I'd ask. Some people have lots of good things to say about Tamron on these forums.

So barring Tamron lenses, would you get the 50mm f/1.4 USM or the 17-40mm f/4 L USM? I believe you gave both a 10 in your reviews, ReF, and I think I could suit my needs either way: with a 17-40mm only to replace my kit lens and handle all my needs, or the 50mm for indoor portraits and the kit lens for wide angle. Just please don't say I should get both...! ;)

I have both so I thought I'd chime in. The 17-40 usually stays on my camera most of the time when doing every day stuff especially when I'm using my external flash or I know I will need wide angle in close quarters or something..

If I know I'll be in low light and wont want to use flash, or if I'm shooting primarily people, I'll use the 50 1.4. I find that the focal length of the 17-40 is on the rather short side so I like having the extra 10 mm.

I purchased the 50 1.4 first. I used my 50 all the time when I had the kit lens because of its unmatched performance and then I dusted off the 18-55 when I needed wide angle, but for everyday shooting I thought it was sufficient.

I recommend both, but I think if i had to pick one for a time being, and I still had the kit lens, I would get the 50 1.4.

Rhys

06-25-2006, 03:46 PM

The Tamron lenses I have are pretty sharp. I'm not so keen on the 70-300 but the 17-35 and 28-75 are fantastic.

DonSchap

06-25-2006, 04:23 PM

Let's get back to that "budget"? Remember that part?

McManus: How much liquid investment do you have, here? In the beginning, I was under the distinct impression.. we were under $1000. That really is a powerful control on how you decide the glass for your rig.

First off, TAmROn glass is relatively cheap compared to the Canon L-glass of roughly the same focal length and aperture. "L"-glass is not the standard "newbie" type of investment, either. This is professional-level glass and will obviously cover all the bases of the lower-priced glass. It's kind of like comparing top-drawer race cars to the standard road use cars, but not quite. Yes, they both get from point A to point B... but how fast and with what kind of style.

Obviously the photographer is looking to acheive a certain level of perfection or quality in his shot. He can normally frame the shot with any comparable lens... but the real content of that frame will be decided on by the performance of the glass. Peformance usually has a pretty good-sized price tag, too.

So... where is the line on the funds? That at least sets the limit for the suggestions. :)

McManus

06-25-2006, 04:25 PM

Well, I bit my lip and purchased the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. Should be here by Wednesday (just in time for my trip to Cali this weekend). I can't wait!

I figure I'll probably just stick with this for now and use my kit lens for wide angle, and sometime next year I'll just finance the 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L together, and I should be done for a few years. :)

DonSchap

06-25-2006, 04:28 PM

Fotokina is coming in September and all the secrets will be revealed. There may be some very interesting alternatives to come from it. This is a very highly anticipated show, this time.

http://66.218.71.231/language/translation/translatedPage.php?lp=de_en&text=http%3a%2f%2fwww.photokina-cologne.com%2f

Be patient :D

McManus

06-25-2006, 04:58 PM

Funny you should mention that "budget" Don... ;) It seems to go higher and higher every time I frequent these boards or play with a new lens, etc. etc. At this point, I figure I'm just gonna stick with the three afore-mentioned lenses, get a few filters, and try to be happy for a few years, and I will re-evaluate my needs at that time again (hopefully technology will have brought today's pro-level gear down to my price range).

...my poor wallet...!

DonSchap

06-25-2006, 05:11 PM

the way they've been going... and Canon has anything to say about it... new f/2.8s are going to be hovering near the $1000 range.

Nikon is right there with them... so it isn't that big of a surprise.

Judging with what SIGMA, TAmROn and Tokina are kicking out... Fotokina may just be the place to watch.

Good luck on all your choices... locking in on and buying that Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM will have you dancing the "manual zoom", that's for sure. :rolleyes:

I just hope, for your sake, there's enough "dance floor" for you. :eek:

cdifoto

06-25-2006, 05:24 PM

Good call on the 50mm f/1.4 USM. It'll have you spoiled. Not the most versatile thing out there but a pleasure to use each and every time.

ReF

06-26-2006, 04:35 AM

I couldn't agree with you more. I am hesitant on getting the Tamron, but was recommended to me by so many people (buddy, store, the pro SI photographer), so I figured I'd ask. Some people have lots of good things to say about Tamron on these forums.

So barring Tamron lenses, would you get the 50mm f/1.4 USM or the 17-40mm f/4 L USM? I believe you gave both a 10 in your reviews, ReF, and I think I could suit my needs either way: with a 17-40mm only to replace my kit lens and handle all my needs, or the 50mm for indoor portraits and the kit lens for wide angle. Just please don't say I should get both...!

Well, I bit my lip and purchased the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. Should be here by Wednesday (just in time for my trip to Cali this weekend). I can't wait!

I figure I'll probably just stick with this for now and use my kit lens for wide angle, and sometime next year I'll just finance the 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L together, and I should be done for a few years. :)

i think you made a good choice. to me, the 17-40 is an upgraded kit lens - better optics. both do the same, thing, one just does it better.

the 50mm f1.4 on the other hand will give you the ability to shoot images that are impossible with the 17-40. with my style of shooting the images coming from the 50 f1.4 and 17-40 are completely different. i think the 50mm fits better with what you want to do. to me, the 17-40 is more suited toward landscapes or indoor shooting with a flash.

ReF

06-26-2006, 04:57 AM

I find the metering tends to be fairly poor. I use matrix metering a lot. If the XT had entirely separate shutter/aperture controls then I'd use solely manual mode and would use an external light meter. As it is, the system has so many negatives that I'm planning on replacing it with Nikon.

okay, let me start off by saying that you are completely entitled to having your opinions on the matter. you don't like the XT - that's completely valid and i have absolutely no problem with that.

but honestly, the complaining is getting quite tiresome because it comes up so often in so many thread AND because the problems seem so personal, as in i don't hear anybody else making the same complaints.

the metering is iffy
the controls are confusing
the buttons are difficult to find
the autofocus system isn't worth a damn
it doesn't take AA's

how many of us share those views and how many of us want to hear that over and over? and all this is just from 1500 shots on an slr system that you have not used before - no wonder you're unfamiliar with the camera.

seriously, if your s1 (or s2?) is functioning better than your XT then you need to have it checked out instead of just bashing it all the time or just trade it in already.

cdifoto

06-26-2006, 05:41 AM

I can't wait till Rhys gets his Nikon.... ;)

coldrain

06-26-2006, 07:18 AM

I can't wait till Rhys gets his Nikon.... ;)
Time to avoid the Nikon board though, when that happens...

No AA...
Much heavier (he already found the D70 too heavy)...
Way more confusing menu/option/buttons system...
Even bigger file size (he complains about the 8mp... too much space needed)..
Cumbersome still in use of AIS lenses...
No Nikon exchangable focus screens as far as I know (unlike the EOS 5D, but I may be wrong on this point)...

Poor nikon forum :eek: ;)

Oh, and that does not take into account that he will find out that the performance of his old AIS lenses will not be as hot as he remembers them to be with film. And also does not take into account that it really is not very expensive to actually replace his AIS manual focus primes with better modern AF primes that are more light sensitive (the AIS Nikkors were not so light sensitive as we now know primes).

cdifoto

06-26-2006, 07:32 AM

Time to avoid the Nikon board though, when that happens...

No AA...
Much heavier (he already found the D70 too heavy)...
Way more confusing menu/option/buttons system...
Even bigger file size (he complains about the 8mp... too much space needed)..
Cumbersome still in use of AIS lenses...
No Nikon exchangable focus screens as far as I know (unlike the EOS 5D, but I may be wrong on this point)...

Poor nikon forum :eek: ;)

Oh, and that does not take into account that he will find out that the performance of his old AIS lenses will not be as hot as he remembers them to be with film. And also does not take into account that it really is not very expensive to actually replace his AIS manual focus primes with better modern AF primes that are more light sensitive (the AIS Nikkors were not so light sensitive as we now know primes).

That's ok. I don't go on the Nikon forum. That was also my point. ;) :)

Rhys

06-26-2006, 08:43 AM

The Fuji S3 Pro takes AA batteries :D

The Nikon battery pack can take those twin AA cells which means a modified version should be usable.

cdifoto

06-26-2006, 08:55 AM

The Fuji S3 Pro takes AA batteries :D

The Nikon battery pack can take those twin AA cells which means a modified version should be usable.

You were talking about buying the D200, not the S3 Pro. The S3 Pro and D200 are both FAR bigger than the XT which you claim is too bulky. Your hated XT can take AAs in a battery grip too. What's your point again?

Rhys

06-26-2006, 09:46 AM

You were talking about buying the D200, not the S3 Pro. The S3 Pro and D200 are both FAR bigger than the XT which you claim is too bulky. Your hated XT can take AAs in a battery grip too. What's your point again?

Yes - it can. It takes 6. My reconditioning charger takes 4. It's not a biggie but I would prefer to use 4 batteries rather than 6. Having said that my Nikon FM took 8 AA batteries in the MD-12 motordrive but I always used alkalines in my MD-12s as it was a low drain device.

JTL

06-26-2006, 09:53 AM

Yes - it can. It takes 6. My reconditioning charger takes 4. It's not a biggie but I would prefer to use 4 batteries rather than 6. Having said that my Nikon FM took 8 AA batteries in the MD-12 motordrive but I always used alkalines in my MD-12s as it was a low drain device.Here you go...problem solved! ;)

http://thomas-distributing.com/maha-mh-c801d-battery-charger.htm

Can we talk about something else now?