View Full Version : So excited!
I've had an S2 IS for 3 years, and I've loved it. It's been a great camera for me. But as I got more into photography, I knew that I wanted something better, more capable, better IQ, etc. It was time for a D-SLR.
After stumbling across this site, I spent the last couple of months deciding what I wanted, reading review after review. Deciding on a lens was pretty easy. I had trouble deciding between the XSI and the 40D.
But I'm very excited to say that my new camera and lens arrived last night (one day early!) from B&H. A new XSI with the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM!
Just from messing around with it last night, I know I've already been able to get better pictures inside than I ever got with the S2 IS. Got some great pictures of my little boy. The wide aperture really is great!
Just had to share, cause I'm so excited. Thanks for reading!
HiFiGuy1
01-16-2009, 12:20 PM
Congratulations! I hope to be joining you soon in the D-SLR fraternity. I already have a lens, but no body. I think I'd have been better not getting the lens yet, because now I can't stand not being able to use it.
Bill M.
01-16-2009, 12:22 PM
Congrats! That's a nice combo to start with and a definite improvement over the S2 IS. My friend just picked up a XSi last month and she loves it. Post some pics when you get a chance!
Justin Stone
01-16-2009, 01:09 PM
You'll be very happy with that combo for a long time. Unless, of course, if you get bit by the bug and start trading up. The 17-55 is a fantastic lens by all accounts. If you have a little one also consider the 85 f1.8 prime lens. I just got one and wow, it is so nice for indoor shooting and portraits. At about $330 it is easy on the wallet too. Happy shooting!
Bryan Carnathan
01-16-2009, 01:32 PM
Congrats Alex! That's a nice combo.
I'd also like to get a DSLR and as time passes I'm having a hard time deciding on a general purpose lens. At first I thought about the 17-55, then thought about the 24-70 f2.8 L and then the 17-55 again. After all that, someone over here mentioned that the 17-55 has a high chance for making some troubles based on the experience the guys over LensRentals had with this lens. So I'm now considering the 17-40 f4 L, but the problem is that it is f4, only 40mm on the long end, and non-IS. So now I'm having a hard time and don't know which one to choose. Why all non-telephoto L's don't have IS? this would make our decisions much easier.
Anyhow, as I said, I'm seriously thinking on the 17-55 - so please post some pictures as soon as you can if that's not too hard, and also let us know what do you think about it.
Finally, don't forget to have fun with your new toys! [H]
Ifmracing
01-16-2009, 05:19 PM
Oren -
If you can get away with the f4, but want to add IS, the 24-105 f4L IS is a great option I hear.
(no personal experience, but am looking at it for a purchase myself)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)
peety3
01-16-2009, 05:40 PM
Why all non-telephoto L's don't have IS?
I suspect it's a blend of two factors: room and need. If I understand correctly, a 35mm-format SLR (whether digital or film) means the film plane would have to be at least 33.6mm (24mm / sqrt 2) away from the lens mount, to have room for the sensor. In practice, it'd need to be larger than that, to allow room for the hinge and mechanism, etc. Therefore, the widest of lenses may need a reverse telephoto group at their rear, to 'project' the wide-angle image through that open space at such a short focal length; adding an IS unit might require space that isn't available to the designers. Since handhold blur is assumed to be inversely proportional with focal length, they may assume that shorter focal lengths have less need for IS.
So I've taken a fair number of shots now, all indoors ith pretty low light. I gotta say, I was a little disappointed with my results, but I honestly think that the mistakes are mine, not the lenses. I'm not so knowledgeable yet about controlling f.stop and focus and shutter speed and ISO. So I've mostly just been doing point-and-shoot with the Program setting.
And for the sake of disclosure, portraits are NOT my strength at all. My limited skill is more well shown off with landscapes and macros. I want to get outside today and take some shots that will be more representative for me of this new lens, but the weather here has been atrocious (we have an inversion, so it's all smoggy and gross out). I need to get out above the clouds, so I'll go up to the mountains later today.
Here's one shot that I was kind of happy with that I had a chance to edit a little bit. I still think it's a little soft, what do you all think?
/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.73/IMG_5F00_0064-size.jpg
hmm, that didn't really work. how do i post a shot that won't get cut off? what size does it need to be?
TheRoff
01-17-2009, 01:40 PM
Nice shot, probably, I would resize it to about 800 pixels in width and keep the proportional height. Congrats on the new camera.
Ok, had a chance to get out above the clouds yesterday to try out the new camera and lens, and true to what I thought, my higher comfort level with landscapes really let me appreciate the advantages to this new setup. I really like my results.
And I was finally able to get the cliche, but oh so cool, lonely tree shot. Here it is!
/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.73/IMG_5F00_0163_5F00_1_5F00_2-size.jpg