Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,565
    No no. DSLRs are expensive and draining on the pocket book. When you get the camera you are going to want to get bags and extra memory and upgrade your computer, and cleaning stuff and tripods. Then you will realize that you probably should could have just started with a cheaper lens kit to start with so you could afford all the other stuff without stretching your budget.

    If you are shooting low light indoors your best bet will be to use a flash. If you can't use a flash (club shots) you are going to want a prime because IS can't stop subject movement and you will end up with motion blur. You are going to want to have that F1.4 with available light shooting. IS does help, but only if you are shooting static subjects.

    As far as sharpness goes, the new kit lens looks to be plenty sharp. And the Sigma 30mm 1.4 gets great reviews.

    We are only advising caution because we have all been there before and we are giving you advice based on our past experiences. The 17-55mm 2.8 Is is a killer lens no doubt but personally I think there are more effective ways for you to spend that money initially, like on a flash, a nice bag, cleaning supplies, a tripod, or whatever else you might need.
    5D MK III, 50D, ELAN 7E, 17-40mm 4, Sigma 10mm 2.8 fisheye, 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS, 30mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 580 EX, 430 EX speedlight, Pocket wizard flex and mini.
    Canon G10

    Pentax P30, 50mm 2.0

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,163
    Quote Originally Posted by koti View Post
    The flash and a fast prime will be on my list in the near future for sure.
    Can You tell me any reason I should not get the 17-55 besides me being a lamer and not deserving it ? Thats what Im reading in between the lines from You guys
    Nah it's kinda like having 10 dollars and wanting a 10 dollar wallet. We're trying to give you 5 dollar wallet options so you actually have some cash left to put in it... ie a good balance. The dSLR game isn't a cheap one to play and if you end up thinking it sucks or certain gear is overkill, you have to take a loss on resale. Starting slow usually makes more sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by koti View Post
    Edit :
    The Sigma 50mm f1.4 is known for its focusing problems...lots of people say to stay away. Is it working ok for You ?
    My Sigma 30mm is fine. Successfully tracked a 64 km/h car with it at 3FPS on the 10D (an older, not-so-fast AF body).
    Ouch.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Warsaw/Poland
    Posts
    109
    Who said I got 10 dollars?

    Edit :
    Guys...I know exactly what Im getting into. Im prepared to spend around $5k in the next few months; $2.5k initialy on the body + a startup lens + $2.5k later on on a prime + some wide angle + flash. Bags, memory (I have a good tripod), etc, Im prepared to spend a few houndred on that too.
    You know, the dollar is getting week by the minute and our economy here is doing quite well as opposed to some other economies out there

    But seriously...thanks for the tip on the Sigma 30/1.4
    I red some bad things about it and left the subject some time ago. Now Im gonna have to look into it further.
    Last edited by koti; 02-02-2008 at 02:56 PM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    3,109
    Quote Originally Posted by koti View Post
    But seriously...thanks for the tip on the Sigma 30/1.4
    I red some bad things about it and left the subject some time ago. Now Im gonna have to look into it further.
    Some people have had pretty good results with the Sigma 30 1.4 and I trust Don's assessment. Mine had inconsistent focusing issues on my 40D - so I returned it. I now have the Canon 28 1.8 instead. There's a lot to like about the Sigma. When it focuses, it is very sharp and contrasty even wide open. The Canon isn't as nice, but in the end I felt it was a better lens for me - esp. b/c my next camera will be full frame.
    Canon A720 IS, 40D w/ BG-E2N, 28 1.8, 50 1.4, Sigma 70 2.8 macro, 17-40 F4 L, 24-105 F4 L IS, 70-200 F4 L IS, 430 EX, Kenko 2X TC & Ext Tubes, AB strobes and more...
    View my photo galleries here: imageevent.com/24peter

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, CA
    Posts
    3,591
    Ok, telephoto options...I'm going to stick to the IS ones so you won't have to obey that annoying SS=1/f rule. All of these are good lenses, but I haven't used any of them. So the suggestions are based on things I've read.

    Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS - $500 - Smallest, lightest, probably the best for travel. I think it has a rotating front element too.
    Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS - $1000 - This one is sharp throughout the range. You can use this one with a 1.4x TC
    Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS - $1650 - This one might not be tack sharp at the long end wide open. I think you could use this one with the 2x TC in addition to the 1.4x
    Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS - $1100 - Not great at 400mm, slow max aperture

    The prices might be off by a little. I went from memory. If you need something faster than f/2.8 you'll need to get a prime.
    Last edited by TheWengler; 02-02-2008 at 10:45 PM.
    Lukas

    Camera: Anonymous
    I could tell you but I wouldn't want you to get all pissy if it's the wrong brand

    Flickr

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    3,109
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWengler View Post
    Ok, telephoto options...I'm going to stick to the IS ones so you won't have to obey that annoying SS=1/f rule. All of these are good lenses, but I haven't used any of them. So the suggestions are based on things I've read.

    Canon 70-300mm IS - $500 - Smallest, lightest, probably the best for travel. I think it has a rotating front element too.
    Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS - $1000 - This one is sharp throughout the range. You can use this one with a 1.4x TC
    Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS - $1650 - This one might not be tack sharp at the long end wide open. I think you could use this one with the 2x TC in addition to the 1.4x
    Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS - $1100 - Not great at 400mm, slow max aperture

    The prices might be off by a little. I went from memory. If you need something faster than f/2.8 you'll need to get a prime.
    Lukas - for a Pentax dude, you seem to know an awful lot about Canon gear. Am I missing something?
    Canon A720 IS, 40D w/ BG-E2N, 28 1.8, 50 1.4, Sigma 70 2.8 macro, 17-40 F4 L, 24-105 F4 L IS, 70-200 F4 L IS, 430 EX, Kenko 2X TC & Ext Tubes, AB strobes and more...
    View my photo galleries here: imageevent.com/24peter

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, CA
    Posts
    3,591
    Quote Originally Posted by 24Peter View Post
    Lukas - for a Pentax dude, you seem to know an awful lot about Canon gear. Am I missing something?
    Well, since Pentax doesn't have any good telephoto lenses I have to ogle another brand.
    Lukas

    Camera: Anonymous
    I could tell you but I wouldn't want you to get all pissy if it's the wrong brand

    Flickr

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Warsaw/Poland
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWengler View Post
    Ok, telephoto options...I'm going to stick to the IS ones so you won't have to obey that annoying SS=1/f rule. All of these are good lenses, but I haven't used any of them. So the suggestions are based on things I've read.

    Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS - $500 - Smallest, lightest, probably the best for travel. I think it has a rotating front element too.
    Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS - $1000 - This one is sharp throughout the range. You can use this one with a 1.4x TC
    Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS - $1650 - This one might not be tack sharp at the long end wide open. I think you could use this one with the 2x TC in addition to the 1.4x
    Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS - $1100 - Not great at 400mm, slow max aperture

    The prices might be off by a little. I went from memory. If you need something faster than f/2.8 you'll need to get a prime.
    Thank You Lukas, this was very usefull.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickcanada View Post
    No no. DSLRs are expensive and draining on the pocket book. When you get the camera you are going to want to get bags and extra memory and upgrade your computer, and cleaning stuff and tripods. Then you will realize that you probably should could have just started with a cheaper lens kit to start with so you could afford all the other stuff without stretching your budget.
    ...
    I have to completely agree with Nick's statements (but if you have rather deep pockets it may not apply to you). I went that 17-55 route and I will not be able to afford a mayor purchase like a 10-22, 70-200 f4L or a 580 exII for quite some time. I could have easily fit in a 18-55IS, 430ex and either a 40D or a 400D plus prime/telezoom in that same budget.

    Don't get me wrong though, I not only love my setup, but it also perfectly fits my needs as I do mostly landscapes etc (otherwise I would have got myself another setup) .

    TheWrengler: What is that "annoying SS=1/f rule" rule about?
    Canon 60D with EF-S 17-55 IS USM lens kit etc.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Georgetown, KY
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by njoy_az View Post
    What is that "annoying SS=1/f rule" rule about?
    It's a guide for the slowest handheld (without IS) shutter speed. If you're using a focal length of 200mm then 1/200th is a guide to handholding. Shooting slower than 1/200th "may" introduce blur due to camera shake. Some people are more steady and some are less, but it will generally be close.
    Dennis

    Canon 5D
    Canon 20D


    Georgetown, KY Photographer
    Retouching

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •