View Full Version : Buying decisions
Ok guys, I know that I had a similar post before, but now I (think at least) am about to buy my first DSLR and I need some help. I know for sure it'd be either 40D or 50D, but not quite sure which one and what lens. Ideally, I'd get the 50D with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, but right now it's too expensive to me as I *do* want some tele lens ("L") as well. So my options are pretty much like this:
1. 40D + 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
2. 40D + 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM + 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM
3. 50D + 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
4. 50D +70-200mm f/4.0 L USM
The thing is that I really want the new VGA screen on the 50D, but I also really want a tele lens and want it to be an L lens - and the 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM is the only L lens I can afford right now, so other tele's are not an option right now. As you see from my list, if I go for the 50D I'll have to give up on either the general or the tele lens.
The 40D + 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM will cost me the same as the 50D body alone - but then bye bye fancy VGA screen [:(].
So I need your help here, especially your thoughts regarding #4 - which is a camera without a general purpose lens.
I shoot a lot indoors right now using my S60 P&S and I always wish I had more reach on the long end. The S60's long end in 35mm terms is about 105mm if memory serves me right. The 50D/40D +70-200mm f/4.0 L USM long end is 320mm (I need more help regarding this point BTW so I'll ask it at the end of this post *).
So, is it possible to have just the 70-200 for indoors? I don't mind and actually prefer taking few steps away from my subjects - and most of the time I have enough room to do that too.
And also, will the 70-200 be a good tele lens for outdoor uses? isn't it too short? I don't pretend to be a bird photographer with this lens, but is it at least possible to take SOME bird or wildlife photos with it or that'd be COMPLETELY impossible with this lens?
*Ok I promissed another question so there we go:
I've been around this site and forums (and few other sites) for quite enough time to understand most of the things including the crop factor thingy as well, but I must admit that I still don't get this 35mm equiv. thing (which also relates to the crop factor) 100%.
I do understand that, for example, my P&S at the long end is equiv. to 105mm on a 35mm/FF body in the framing/angle of view, or that a 40D with a 100mm lens will have the same framing as a 160mm lens on a 35mm/FF body. What I *don't* get is how magnification will be? Again, I've read not once that focal length is the same, and that "100mm is 100mm no matter what body you use"... so why I'm still confused? 2 reasons:
1. I keep reading that bird and wildlife photographers prefer a 1.6 crop body but can't understand why? because they don't need to crop the photo in the post processing? I doubt that's the reason as it sounds a bit dumb reason to me.
2. Now this is the main reason, I think, as to why I'm still confused - I don't have a DSLR.
Can someone who have both P&S and a DSLR please help me, and probably others, to finally **see** the differences with our eyes? Can you please take a picture of some object with both a P&S and a DSLR from the same distance? For example - take a P&S and zoom in until the focal length is equiv. to 100mm in 35mm terms, then from the same place use your DSLR with a 100mm lens... now, post the results, and let us know what exact P&S you use and what exact DSLR + lens as well.
One more thing... If I take the same picture with 2 lenses at the same focal length how much the final results are affected by the lens magnification capability? The EF 400mm f/5.6 magnification for example is .12 while the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is .2, what's the difference then? (at 400mm of course)
Thanks again guys for reading such a long post [;)]
Dallasphotog
04-14-2009, 12:52 PM
The crop factor or 35MM equivalency issue is simply related to the sensor sizes. The 1.6 crop factor cameras have sensors smaller than a piece of 35MM film and thus only get the center on the image (effectively cropping the image you would get on 35mm film). As you mentioned, wildlife photographers benefit from this cropping effect. A300MM lens produces the field of view you would get with a480MM lens on film.You can then have endless discussions about pixel density and the other sensor issues...
As foryour choices, you will find the 40D and 50D to both be good cameras and you've listed several nice lens. I really love the EF70-200MM F/2.8 L IS USM and find it works well for many sporting events and is quite useful from the back of the church during wedding shoots. The F/4 version will probably be quite useful for you, but a tad slower. I think you'll find any of the current Canon DSLR choices will be a huge step up from a point-and-shoot.
I have a 1dMKII, XTi and XT and I still use the XT for all kinds of commercial work. If you're really budgetconstrained, think about a refurbishedbody from Adorama, even an XTi, which will allow more money for lenses.
Thanks for the help. As for the crop factor thing, it didn't help - I know all that already. As I said, I'd like to see the differences in my own eyes.
As for the body, I don't see myself getting a more expensive body than the XXD series in the next few years, and I don't really see myself with a XXXD body as well - and if I go for XXXD anyway, I'll probably replace it sooner or later with a XXD body. Therefore, I don't see a point buying anything other then a 40D or 50D. Besides, getting a XXXD body will save me about $200 - that's the difference pretty much between a brand new 40D to a brand new 450D where I live. Also, where I live, I'll pay tax even for used equipment so buying a refurb is not a good option anyway.
May I ask why do you use the XT if you have a 1D2?
Anyways, I really appreciate your help Dallasphotog [H]
As to all the other guys over here, I've made a pretty long post with lots of questions and therfore I will probably be getting mixed answers to my mixed questions lol, so I feel a need to emphasize my biggest questions:
Would it be possible to use only 50D + 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS) for say few months (> 6) or maybe even more?
Mark Elberson
04-14-2009, 02:54 PM
Would it be possible to use only 50D + 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS) for say few months (> 6) or maybe even more?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
The FOV (Field of View) of the 70-200 f/4L when paired with a XXD body will be equivalent to about 112mm or 21.8 degrees (diagonally). You will find that extremely limiting when shooting indoors (unless you take a lot of head shots [H]). To give you some perspective zoom inall the way in using your P&S and see what the FOV is. That will be slightly wider than the widest setting on the 70-200 f/4L (when paired with a XXD body). I think that you'd be much better off with a lens that gives you a wider FOV if you are going to be shooting primarily indoors. I know you want it all right now. We all do! Putting together a comprehensive DSLR kit takes time (and lots of money!). Many members of this forumwill suggest that you consider the Tamron SP AF 17 - 50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II. That would pair very nicely with the 70-200 f/4L. If you are looking at the non-IS version of the 70-200 f/4L then you could get both it and the Tamron for about the same price that the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS will cost. I personally would pony up for the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and wait on the 70-200 f/4L [:D]. Remember that you'll spend more money if you have to spend it twice. Really think about what you need and not just what will temporarily satisfy what you want right now.
Daniel Browning
04-14-2009, 03:00 PM
So my options are pretty much like this:
I think you have a lot more and better options.
First of all, we need to get rid of this business about the 28-135. That lens a waste of money on a crop camera. It's expensive, low quality, and only covers the normal-telephoto range; no wide angle. On top of that, you've already got the 70-135 range covered in the form of your L lens.
The 28-135 is for people who:
1. Don't want to shoot anything wide angle.
2. Are willing to pay extra money just so they don't have to change lenses in order to shoot telephoto.
3. Can't afford the extra $200 for a *really* all-purpose lens such as the 18-200.
4. Want to use the lens on a cheap film camera or a used 5D they got for under $1000.
I don't think many of those factors apply to you. You are buying the 70-200 L, so obviously you must be willing to change lenses. The 28-135 would only cover the range of 28-70 for you, leaving nothing for wide angle.
The 18-55 IS can cover a much more useful range, including wide angle, and has superior image quality. If you wanted telephoto for as cheap as the 28-135, you could just buy the 55-250. But you've already decided on the 70-200 L, so that's not necessary. It's true that there will be a gap between 55 and 70, but I would argue that such a gap is less important than the other factors. Even the ideal lens (17-55 f/2.8) will leave such a gap.
The thing is that I really want the new VGA screen on the 50D,
The LCD is a big feature, especially with how useful live view is. Another big one is the microadjustment. It doesn't matter how good your L lenses are if they don't focus accurately. If you only use manual focus, or you'll always use narrow apertures where focus doesn't need to be accurate, then the microadjustment will not make a big difference. But if you use autofocus and want to shoot wide open, then I'd say it's a critical feature.
if I go for the 50D I'll have to give up on either the general or the tele lens.
Only if you buy the overly-expensive 28-135. With a more reasonable 18-55 IS, you can have both.
So I need your help here, especially your thoughts regarding #4 - which is a camera without a general purpose lens.
Given that a high quality general purpose lens can be had for so cheap in the form of the 18-55 IS kit, I think it would be an unnecessary limitation.
I shoot a lot indoors right now using my S60 P&S and I always wish I had more reach on the long end. The S60's long end in 35mm terms is about 105mm if memory serves me right.
The 18-55 would give you 90mm equivalent, a bit shorter than your 105mm. However, switch to the 70-200 and you have a lot more reach. The big advantage of the 18-55 is that you will finally have a true wide angle. It could really transform the style and perspective of your photogrpahy.
So, is it possible to have just the 70-200 for indoors? I don't mind and actually prefer taking few steps away from my subjects - and most of the time I have enough room to do that too.
It's possible, but you can have problems. Most indoors are too dark to handhold 200mm without I.S. Most people would need a shutter speed of 1/320 or 1/500 to combat camera shake. If we say 1/500, then look what happens with the 55-250 IS. At 200mm, it's f/5.6, so it has a 1 stop disadvantage compared to the 70-200 f/4. But it has a 4-stop image stabilizer! So you can shoot 1/30 or 1/60 instead of 1/500. That is more than enough to make up for the different in f-number. And there will be times when you want to shoot the 70-200 at f/5.6 anyway to get deeper DOF.
Yes, you heard right: the $250 consumer cheapie will give you *better* results than the $600 "L" lens. For indoor telephoto, image stabilization is that important.
Another option is the 135mm f/2, which would allow shutter speeds twice as fast as the 70-200 f/4 non-IS for the same amount of money, but no zoom. I love that lens for distant candid portraits, but achieving critical focus will be more difficult than a f/4 or f/5.6 lens, and the thin DOF may not always be desirable.
And also, will the 70-200 be a good tele lens for outdoor uses?
Yes. Outdoor you don't have to worry so much about camera shake.
Isn't it too short?
It depends on how close you can get to your subject. Generally, yes, it's too short. Even 1000mm is too short sometimes.
I don't pretend to be a bird photographer with this lens, but is it at least possible to take SOME bird or wildlife photos with it or that'd be COMPLETELY impossible with this lens?
Only if you can get unnaturally close to the bird.
What I *don't* get is how magnification will be?
It's the same. 100mm on APS-C and 160mm on FF35, both printed at the same size have the same magnification.
However, when the same lens is used on both formats, then APS-C has higher magnfication, because it is enlarged more for printing at the same size. Unless the FF35 image is cropped in post production to match the angle of view of the APS-C camrea. But if you crop the FF35 camera, the resolution is usually much lower than APS-C, which leads us back to the point that APS-C tends to have more "reach" because of it's smaller, higher-resolution pixels.
1. I keep reading that bird and wildlife photographers prefer a 1.6 crop body but can't understand why? because they don't need to crop the photo in the post processing? I doubt that's the reason as it sounds a bit dumb reason to me.
The Canon 5D2 has 21 MP. But if you crop it to match the field of view (and magnification) of a Canon 50D, you are left with 8 MP. 8 MP is much lower resolution than the 15 MP provided by the 50D. In other words: the larger sensor only benefits the image if you *use* it. And you can't use it if you can't find a lens that is long enough. For example, the 5D2+800mm f/5.6 will beat the 50D+500mm f/4.
One more thing... If I take the same picture with 2 lenses at the same focal length how much the final results are affected by the lens magnification capability?
If the focal length and camera is the same, then the final results will also be the same. Lens magnification capability indicates how big the image will be at the minimum focus distance.
The EF 400mm f/5.6 magnification for example is .12 while the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is .2, what's the difference then? (at 400mm of course)
The difference is the 100-400 can do better macros out of the box. For example, it could do a small daisy flower whereas the 400mm f/5.6 could only do a large daisy flower.
Would it be possible to use only 50D + 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS) for say few months (> 6) or maybe even more?
For the purpose of indoor candid photography, I would say no, because of the lack of IS and slow aperture will limit you to long-range flash, which is ugly, IMHO. Better lenses for that purpose are the 55-200 IS, 70-300 IS, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, and 135mm f/2.
Luckily, the 18-55 is so much cheaper than the 28-135 that I would hope you can afford to get the 50D, 18-55, and 70-200 f/4 L without breaking the bank.
Hope that helps,
Jack M.
04-14-2009, 03:19 PM
The VGA screen is nice, but ifI was in your position,I would not go for it if it were to cost me a new lens. This is solely my opinion, others could be completely disagree. You cant go wrong with either.
<div></div>
<div>If you were to go with the 40D -</div>
I would go with the <span style="background: yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word"]Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 as your first general purpose lens. Itwill give you better IQ then the 28-135, and a wider angle. You wont have the reach of the 28-135, but you will have most of the focal range covered that the 17-50 doesn't have with the 70-200 . That and a major plusis that its got a constant aperture of 2.8, you will wish you had that with the 28-135.
<div>The 40D,<span style="background: yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word"]Tamron17-50mm and 70-200L would definitely be the wayI would go ifI were in your position.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
Now, If you were to go with the 50D -
<div>Its really hard to say if the 70-200 will last you 6+ months. When choosing between a general lens and a <span style="background: yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word"]tele, it comes down to what your mainly going to be shooting. If you go with the 70-200, your always going to want that shorter shorter focal length. If you go with the general purpose lens, you always going to want that<span style="background: yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word"]tele reach.You just have to prioritize and go for the range that willbe best untilyou can afford another lens.</div>
<div></div>
<div>So to try to answer your biggest question - Will it be possible to use the 70-200 alone for 6+ months? Yes. Will you be satisfied? Probably not. Your going to want more range and a larger aperture. Either way you going to have much better IQ and versatility then any P&S can offer.</div>
<div></div>
You may or may not have read these pages already, but they have great information on crop factors. They have some examples of different views from different crop factors.
CMOS-White-Paper.<span style="background: yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word"]pdf (http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Information/Canon-Full-Frame-CMOS-White-Paper.pdf]http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Information/Canon-Full-Frame-<span style="background: yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word)
aspx (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-View-Crop-Factor.aspx]http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-View-Crop-Factor.<span style="background: yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word)
Good luck with you final choice!
Thanks Mark and Daniel - it helps a lot. Now I have at least some kind of understanding regarding the magnification thingy.
But as always, I'm just more confused than I was at first as to what lens/lenses to get [:P]
Daniel, the 18-55 IS kit lens was never an option for me - not even in a bad dream. Since you say it is optically better, I'll check Bryan's review right away anyways.
As for the 70-200 f/4 L, you say that it's too slow for indoors and too short for outdoors... so what are the uses of this lens?
Thanks again everybody.
Thank you Jack. Of course I've read Bryan's review about the crop factor,<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"] but not the other one you've mentioned. I'll check it out right after reading Bryan's review for the 18-55 IS kit lens that Daniel suggested over here.
Edit: I've read the other one you mentioned as well. Since it was a PDF I thought (without even looking at it) "I probably haven't read it", but now after opening it, I see that it is Canon's PDF which I've read as well [:)]
Oh and Daniel, I'm not sure you're right about the lack of IS in the 70-200... I'll explain...
I should have mentioned that but I forgot: I prefer taking pictures of people while they are acting naturally = moving, and not posing to the camera, therefore IS won't help much anyway.
Mark Elberson
04-14-2009, 04:09 PM
Oh and Daniel, I'm not sure you're right about the lack of IS in the 70-200... I'll explain...
I should have mentioned that but I forgot: I prefer taking pictures of people while they are acting naturally = moving, and not posing to the camera, therefore IS won't help much anyway.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
What Daniel said still applies even when taking candids. Most natural motions that people make can be stopped at 1/100 and in some cases even slower (although my hit rate drops significantly under 1/30) but the rule of 1/focal length still applies. What I am saying is, at 200mm (320mm equivalent) you would need at least 1/320 to maintain a sharp image which is must faster than what you would need to stop the motion of your subject. Even at 70mm (112mm equivalent) you would need a 1/125 shutter speed to reduce blur from camera shake. Make sense?
But as you said, I'll need something around 1/100 anyway to stop motion.
Now since it's a DSLR, I can go to let's say 800 ISO to compensate the a-bit-slow f/4 and lack of IS and still get much better results than with my P&S at f/2.8, 50 ISO - correct me if I'm wrong as this is also one of the reasons for moving to a DSLR... with my P&S there is never enough light indoor (I prefer no flash at all) and I can't even think about going to ISO higher than 50.
Mark Elberson
04-14-2009, 04:40 PM
But as you said, I'll need something around 1/100 anyway to stop motion.
Now since it's a DSLR, I can go to let's say 800 ISO....
That is true. You can increase the ISO to allow for faster shutter speeds but you will find that unless every light in the room is turned on to full-blast that you will require higher ISO just to get up to 1/30, 1/60, etc. The point is that if you only "need" 1/100 (and like I said, many times you can get away with less, it all depends on your subject(s)) to stop action then it's only going to introducemore noise into your shots if you add an additional 1,2,3 stops of ISO in order to properly compensate for camera shake.
I love taking candids with no flash (is there any other way [:)]) but even when I use my 50 f/1.4 in a dimly lit room I still have to increase the ISO to get a workable shutter speed. You can crank up the ISO to be able to shoot candids with the 70-200 f/4 lens but is it advisable, I'd say no.
Daniel could you please fill in what I left out :)
TSEvanson
04-14-2009, 04:46 PM
Oren,
I own the 70-200 f/4 and the 18-55 kit lens (non-IS). You will absolutely love the 70-200 coming from a P&S. It is my main lens, and I mainly take pictures of my kids in the park and of wildlife. So I encourage you to go for it. HOWEVER, as has been mentioned already, this lens is WAY to long to be usable indoors. You can snap the odd portrait, but forget about framing several people or composing a scene.
If you want to take candids indoors, get something with a wider angle, 35mm or less, and a large aperture. I also have the 50 f/1.8 "nifty fifty" for indoor shots when I don't want to use a flash. On a crop body, it is a little long, but it works asa budget solution.
I also switched from a point and shoot about a year ago, and can tell you that once you switch, you won't look back. Good Luck, and prepare to take your pictures to a whole new level.
The point is that if you only "need" 1/100 (and like I said, many times you can get away with less, it all depends on your subject(s)) to stop action then it's only going to introducemore noise into your shots if you add an additional 1,2,3 stops of ISO in order to properly compensate for camera shake.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
At 1/100 I don't need to compensate any camera shake, at least not with my P&S, don't know about a DSLR at 70mm f/4 though. But at 1/100 f/4, I will need few more ISO stops to compensate the 1/100 and f/4 [:P]
Anyway, my question was more like this: with the 70-200 f/4 at say ISO 800 indoor, is it possible to get good = at least "twice better" than with my P&S?
P.S Without defining what "twice better" is, as it's not easy at all.
TSEvanson, thanks for the help. Just making sure... you mean that you have the 70-200 f/4 non-IS right?
Can you post some examples of pictures you've taken with both lenses?
What body do you use?
Daniel Browning
04-14-2009, 05:25 PM
Daniel, the 18-55 IS kit lens was never an option for me - not even in a bad dream.
It gets a lot of undeserved criticism, IMHO. Yet the 28-135 is even worse and costs more money. Check out the It's Time to Praise the Kit Lens ("http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/t/716.aspx) thread.
As for the 70-200 f/4 L, you say that it's too slow for indoors and too short for outdoors... so what are the uses of this lens?
I didn't say it was too short for outdoors, just too short for birding. There are many other things to shoot outdoors besides birds, including people, places, and things. Portraits, landscapes, sports. Animals, vegetables, minerals. Lots of stuff. :)
I definitely like your idea of buying one good lens.
I should have mentioned that but I forgot: I prefer taking pictures of people while they are acting naturally = moving, and not posing to the camera, therefore IS won't help much anyway.
Perhaps not. But even people acting naturally can allow slowish shutter speeds sometimes (I get people laughing at 1/60 all the time). It depends on several factors: how steady you are, how fast your subjects are, technique and timing, and how large you want to print.
Very steady, fast subjects, one-shot technique, and small prints: IS wont help so much.
Normal steadiness, normal subjects, multi-shot technique, and large prints: IS will make a huge difference.
One of the biggest factors is print size. If you want to make 12x18, you'll have to have much less motion blur than is needed for a wallet-size print (i.e. web size).
Your own steadiness is a factor as well: if you can handhold 200mm at 1/125, the IS will not help as much as if you need 1/500.
Technique plays a factor as well. If you're willing to shoot 1/60 on a continueous burst, then find the one that has the right moment and no motion blur, you win. But if you prefer to get just one shot of precisely the right moment, and not have to wade through a bunch of pictures after the fact, then IS will not help as much.
If you absolutely need to capture a certain moment with no risk of subject motion blur, then too the 1/60 provided by IS will not help.
Now since it's a DSLR, I can go to let's say 800 ISO to compensate the a-bit-slow f/4 and lack of IS and still get much better results than with my P&S at f/2.8, 50 ISO - correct me if I'm wrong as this is also one of the reasons for moving to a DSLR...
Keep in mind that ISO varies by camera. For example, ISO 50 on your digicam would probably be called ISO 125 on the 50D. So the digicam was actually better than it seemed. Even so, f/4 on a DSLR will certainly give better results than f/2.8 on a digicam. The only question is: how much better? At f/8, the DSLR is probably the same as the f/2.8 digicam. At f/5.6, it's twice as good as a digicam. f/4 is four times better. f/2.8 is 8 times better. And so on. The only question is how much better do you want it to be?
Another option you may wish to consider is the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 for $675. It's got more useful focal length range for indoors, double the action stopping power, and very high image quality. The Mark II version of this lens fixes a few of the problems with the original, and with microadjustment you should be able to get accurate and reliable autofocus. Don't forget the f/1.8 or f/2 primes I suggested, either. They're not that expensive, and they don't zoom, but the indoor action stopping power and image quality is very useful.
I've seen the kit lens thread before, they got nice photos there, but there are few awful ones as well. Also, it is f/5.6 at 47mm! very bad I think, but I still haven't read Bryan's review about it as I've been reading your replies and responding to them - thanks guys!
So what are you telling me? that I can be fine with just 50D + 70-200 f/4 L?
As for prints, I barely print my photos. When I do, I print them in the good old normal (and small) size - can't remember what size it is, but it's just the normal size that we used to print when we were using our old film cameras (not SLR).
As to the sigma suggestion, it gives me 50mm that's right and with that it'd be much more easy to NOT buy a general purpose lens, but on the long end it has only 150mm and from the previous posts I fear that even 200mm won't satisfy me [:(]
And lastly - I don't forget the primes, but from another, similar thread that I started here before, I understand that getting a prime instead of a general purpose lens is not a good idea.
alexniedra
04-14-2009, 06:04 PM
First and foremost, the VGA screen.
I tried out the 5D Mark II yesterday at a local camera store, and trust me, the difference is noticable, but not life changing. What I'm trying to say is, the VGA screen is very cool, but IMHO, not worth the extra cost of the 50D. I was faced with the same decision when I bought my 40D - And I just couldn't justify the cost of 5MP and the screen. You will be much better off with the 40D and 28-135 and 70-200 f/4 L. You'll really enjoy this setup.
Now, to answer your field-of-view crop factor question: Basically, the sensor in the 40D, 50D, and Rebel Series are smaller than those found in cameras such as the 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III, which are "full-frame" sensors. This means that the sensor is the same size as a piece of 35mm film.
The crop factor comes into play when using lenses. If you get an image at 100mm on a 1.6x crop factor camera, it would be as if you cropped the center of the image captured by a full frame camera. This cropping results in the "effective" focal length being multiplied by a factor of 1.6x. Make sense?
35mm equivalent means that a picture taken with a 40D at 100mm would require 160mm on a full frame camera to yield identical framing.
I hope this helps.
Anyway, trust me; You'll really enjoy the world of DSLR. It's a totally new ballgame. Have fun.
alexniedra, first, thanks for the help of course [:)] What lens/lenses did you get? Can you post examples of them as well?
Now, to answer your field-of-view crop factor question: Basically, the sensor in the 40D, 50D, and Rebel Series are smaller than those found in cameras such as the 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III, which are "full-frame" sensors. This means that the sensor is the same size as a piece of 35mm film.
The crop factor comes into play when using lenses. If you get an image at 100mm on a 1.6x crop factor camera, it would be as if you cropped the center of the image captured by a full frame camera. This cropping results in the "effective" focal length being multiplied by a factor of 1.6x. Make sense?
35mm equivalent means that a picture taken with a 40D at 100mm would require 160mm on a full frame camera to yield identical framing.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
I don't want to sound rude, but guys: I know all that long time ago (thanks to Bryan of course [:D]), please don't keep telling me about the sensor size, cropping and all that - I know it. As for the real question I asked about the 35mm equiv. thing - Daniel pretty much clarified it to me... I'm not an expert now, but a bit smarter [:D]
...but if not too hard, can someone still take a picture with his P&S at 100mm (35mm equiv.) and then another with his DSLR + 100mm lens and post it over here? You know the old saying... 1 picture (actually 2 in our case LOL) = 1000 words [:P]
It doesn't have to be 100mm of course, it was just an example.
Anyway, trust me; You'll really enjoy the world of DSLR. It's a totally new ballgame. Have fun.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Thanks again alexniedra [H]
UPDATE: I've read part of Bryan's review for the 18-55 IS kit lens - didn't even read it all since just the beginning was enough for me... I'm not getting this lens - even if optically it's relatively good. It has a plastic mount! c'mon Canon... you could have done better.
I also didn't mention that I can get the 40D + EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for the same price as the 40D + 28-135.
Any thoughts about the 17-85? I've heard that this lens is disappointing, is that right?
Daniel Browning
04-14-2009, 07:27 PM
Any thoughts about the 17-85? I've heard that this lens is disappointing, is that right?
It's a great lens for what it is: an inexpensive wide to telephoto super zoom.
28-135 is to 5D what 17-85 is to 40D.
alexniedra
04-14-2009, 10:47 PM
Anyway I got my 40D with the 17-85 as a demo from a local camera shop for $1000 CAD. It's a great lens, and having used the 18-55 for a while, it's a definite step up for me. I also noticed that (with use of the 18-55) I didn't feel that I was getting wide enough. So in turn I got the Tokina 12-24 f/4 zoom. Haven't looked back.
Anyway my parents (*sigh* - Yes, I'm 15) bought the 55-250 zoom with their Xti last May, and I'm using that as my main long lens. It's a good lens, and IS helps, but I'm beginning to see the limits of the lens - 5.6 isn't quite fast enough for hockey, focusing isn't quite "there" all of the time...
As I get more and more involved in my high school's slideshow and yearbook, and a local newspaper, I find myself longing for some L glass - Specifically the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 24-70 2.8 - So I'd have myself coverage from 12-200mm.
Anyway now that you've read my novel of a post, I'd say this: Make sure that 28mm is wide enough for you. It very well could be, but just make sure it suits you're needs.
Also, the temptation to go L is there, and will always be there. The 70-200 is a great lens hands down, but I'm sure you'll want yourself a 24-70 too sometime soon [H]. My take: Find the limits of your first lens, then move on.
Dallasphotog
04-15-2009, 01:00 AM
May I ask why do you use the XT if you have a 1D2?
That's easy, my typical game day set-up is 1DMKII w/ EF400mm F/2.8L IS USM, XTi w/ EF70-200mm F/2.8L IS USM and XT w/ 24-70mm F/2.8 L USM. I put the 400 on a monopod and sling the XTi over one shoulder and put the XT around my neck. Sometimes the Agony-of-Defeat is best captured with the 24-70.
/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.00/TN_5F00_IMG_5F00_6486.jpg
XT, EF24-70mm F/2.8L USM, Av, F/8.0, 1/800, ISO-400
alexniedra, I used to want the 24-70... I always thought: hmmm 17-55 or 24-70.
I now know that the answer is probably the 17-55 for many reasons.
Dallasphotog, this is a great photo, I like it. How can you handle 3 cameras with 3 heavy lenses like these?
Bill M.
04-15-2009, 12:35 PM
Oren,
My vote would be for the 40D and the 17-85 combo. If you were considering the 28-135, then the IQ and build quality of the 17-85 can't be far off from that. My friend picked up the 40D a couple of months ago with the 17-85 and loves it. He's taken some really nice images with it from what I have seen. From reading most of the posts here at TDP, I think most people really like their 40D's. I think you really need a general purpose lens first and foremost that can give you wide-angle capabilities and then work on the 70-200 f4 as your next purchase. I used the 17-40 as my first L lens with my 20D and I thought it was a great lens to start with (but just a little short on the long end sometimes).
I just picked up the 5D II recently, and I can tell you that the VGA screen is an absolute thing of beauty, compared to the display on my older 20D. Is that and the extra megapixels you get with the 50D worth an extra $250, I don't know, but that is almost half the price of a new 17-85.
These discussion boards are great to get advice on decisions, but sometimes you just have to go with what's in your current budget and make due until you save up for the gear you really want (lots of L glass!). It seems you have done most of the research you need to make an educated decision on what to get----jump right in and get it! That way you can do what you really want to do and take some great pictures!
I don't know... we all know that any new DSLR coming out from now on will have a VGA screen and HD movies (and an HDMI port - which will be useful for me). I don't care for the HD movies, but I really want the VGA screen as any new camera around will have one.
dmckinny
04-15-2009, 06:11 PM
Oren,
I'm new to DSLR having switched over in the last year, so I am very familiar with the questions and frustrations you are going through right now. The previous posters have given you much good advise and I won't repeat any of that. I think your last post is very telling, it seems you want the VGA screen, but you can see a use for the HDMI port. This is the same kind of problem I keep having, I forget to classify features by by what I NEED versus what a WANT.
Keep in mind that a cheap body with a great lens can produce better results than a great body with cheap lens. Also bodies are like computers, they lose their value very fast and are obsolete rather quickly. Lenses, on the other hand, typically do not become obsolete, and retain their value for many years.
My advise is look at your budget, decide what kinds of photographs you are going to take most of the time, then pick the best lenses that fit your needs and worry a little less on the body. You will be replacing the body before any of the lenses, unless you buy the wrong lens in the first place.
Sincerely,
David McKinny
Another update: I think that at first I'll be getting the 50D + 17-85. I see that I can get it for about $1630 over here. At the morning when I wake up = within ~8 hours from now, I'll give this shop a call to check out that they still offer this kit and for that price, as we all know that prices has increased recently and this shop doesn't seem to update their site very often. If they still have it at this price, it might be what I'll be buying - at least at first. Then I guess I'll rent a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and see how the 70-200 range feels and whether it is useful for me.
-Why I said f/2.8 IS after I talked so much about the f/4 non-IS? Simple reason: there is just one rental shop all over the country here and they don't have a big collection - they don't have the f/4 version for example.
Ok that's it for now, anybody has some thoughts? comments? anything to tell me before I get 50D + 17-85?
Hmmm.... Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II or Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?
The Canon is a slow lens but focus speed is pretty much fast and accurate and it has a silent ring USM.
The Tamron is fast - constant f/2.8 but has less reach on the long end, focus is slower than with the Canon and not very much accurate according to Bryan, and it does not have fast and silent focus motor.
Now, one of the big reasons that made me realize that I need to move to DSLR was that I wanted to stop indoor action without using a flash. I'm not talking about stopping indoor sports and the like - just babies, kids and people who are moving around.
If I go with the Canon, this lens is slow - f/5.6 at the long end (which I'll probably be using a lot), so that's not good unless the 50D ISO performance is so good so it can compensate for the slow max. aperture.
If I go for the Tamron I might just miss the action as a result of the slow focusing speed. With the Canon I still might get the shot but it will be blurred, and that I can get with my P&S as well... don't need a high end DSLR for blurred pictures.
So people... please help, I'm confused [^o)]
Daniel Browning
04-18-2009, 11:43 AM
If I go for the Tamron I might just miss the action as a result of the slow focusing speed.
Bryan says the Tamron "AF is rather fast, but the high pitch buzz made by the focus motor is deceptive - making the lens sound slower.
I found AF accuracy to be quite good with relatively few missed shots"
That matches my experience.
If memory serves, the Tamron doesn't have FTM, it does not have IS and has 35mm less on the long end. Anyhow, few missed shots is, well... missed shots and that something we don't want.
So which one is a better choise at least in your opinion?