Indecisive newbie can't decide on glass to start his collection.

Firstly: Hi, I'm new.


Secondly: I'm currently using my Dad's
400d, the 18-55 (I think) kit lens as well as a longer EF lens (that
I'm really not a fan of.


I'm looking to buy my first camera, and have pretty much (I'm indecisive by nature) settled on the 550d.


The only thing that's bugging me at the moment is that I
don't want to settle for the 18-55mm kit (IS II if I remember correctly) lens I'm going to
quickly out-grow it and buy something else to replace it.


I've been looking at a lot of the canon lenses on this site over
the last month or so and haven't yet nailed down a lens or even two which I'm
happy with from a quality, range and price stand-point.


Basically,
I've been quite disappointed with the sharpness of both the lenses I've
borrowed from my Dad, and can tell that the camera is being let down by
them far too often. So I don't want to make a similar mistake and have
glass which is letting down my camera from the get-go. But equally I
don't want to spend too much on a lens straight off the bat. Does that
make sense?


Should I be just buying the kit, and seeing where I
feel it's lacking before I build on my set (i.e. am I being daft)? Or should I be thinking
about this more and probably look to buy the body plus another lens of
my choosing (i.e. can I have some help please)?


Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Sorry, forgot to mention, my budget isn

Hi, and welcome to the TDP forums!


You're right to be most concerned about lens choice - the lens has a much bigger impact on image quality than the body (consider - the sensor used in your chosen 550D is the same one used in the 600D, 60D, and even the 'prosumer' 7D).


If your budget will cover it, I'd recommend one of two lenses - theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or theEF-S 1<span class="bbc_u"]5-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. Optical quality is substantially better than the kit lenses, and the focal ranges are excellent for general-purpose use. The 17-55mm has a fast f/2.8 aperture, meaning it's better suited to portraits and indoor use. The 15-85mm has a broader zoom range (one consequence of that is a bit more distortion at the wide end), but the tradeoff is a slower and variable aperture. Since you've used an 18-55mm lens with a slow/vairable aperture, you may have a good idea if you want more range or a faster aperture in your 'walkaround' lens.


IN addition to the body and lens(es), there are a few other things to comsider. One would be supplementing your general purpose zoom with a fast prime - a budget option like the EF 50mm f/1.8 II (aka nifty-fifty, a fast prime that's decently sharp although not well built, and is the cheapest lens in the Canon lineup), or a step up from that such as the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. Also, consider an external flash (light from the pop-up is harsh, and IMO pictures taken with that look like they could have been taken with a point-and-shoot) - get one that allows you to bounce the flash off a ceiling (e.g. 270EX II, although I recommend the 430EX II if possible). Finally, consider a decent tripod - IMO, Manfrotto is the optimal compromise between value and quality (getting a cheap tripod just isn't worth it).


FWIW, I started out with a T1i/500D, 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 85mm f/1.8, and a 430EX II, and was very happy with my kit. I have added a lot of gear to my kit since then, but I still have and use the 17-55mm - the lesson there is to get good lenses at the outset, since they'll probably last you through several bodies over time.


Good luck with your decisions!


--John

Welcome ham!


I echo what John said; and if you can afford the 17-55 f/2.8, go for it. But I will also give you a less expensive option for a general purpose zoom that still gives you the f/2.8 max aperture: the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non vibration control version). At $450, it

I second everything Neuro/John said. I own the EFS 15-85 and it is a great lens. I do not find the distortion at the wide end to be that big of a deal and it is something that can be fixed in post-processing. It is sharp, covers a very useful range and image stabilization (IS) is amazing. That said, I've always been tempted by the 17-55 f/2.8. Both are great lenses.


While I also recommend getting a better general purpose zoom, I wanted to add that the non-IS version if the EFS 18-55 has been reported to be significantly worse than the current versions of the EFS 18-55 with IS (you can compare using the ISO 12233 charts in this websites reviews). So, you may want to see if your Dad's old lens has IS or not. If it doesn't, you may be satisfied with the EFS 18-55 IS II as a kit zoon lens and then can spend your money on other items, such as the prime lenses/etc John mentioned.


Another thought would be to try the kit lens until one of Canon's rebate sales come along, at which time, if you are dissatisfied, youmay be able toupgrade at a slight discount.

Just had a look at the review on here and the 17-55mm really does look like a lovelypossibly be an immediate purchase). What exactly does having a fixed aperture on the 17-55mm entail though? The review mentions "stopping down" more than once, but I assume that this was a mistake and that the fixed aperture literally means you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ham

The review mentions "stopping down" more than once, but I assume that this was a mistake and that the fixed aperture literally means you're "stuck" at f/2.8 and have to adjust light via shutterspeed alone.

---

Not at all. You can always stop down the lens. A 'fixedaperture' ('constant aperture' would be a better term) means the aperture doesn't change as you zoom the lens - the 17-55mm has an f/2.8 max aperture at 17mm, and it has an f/2.8 max aperture at 55mm. Conversely, the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is a variable aperture lens (that's why the f/number is a range, not a single number) - it has an f/3.5 max aperture at 15mm, but an f/5.6 max aperture at 85mm (with stepwise reductions), A variable aperture is a compromise that allows zoom lenses to be produced more cheaply (because less glass is required for smaller apertures).


Avariable aperture has two consequences: one, the longer your selected focal length, the less light the lens allows in. So, with the 15-85mm lens at 25mm, you're max aperture is f/4 which may be enough light for your shot. But if you zoom in to 61mm or longer, you're at f/5.6 and only getting half as much light as you got at 25mm - mayne not enough. The other consequence applies ifyou shoot in manual (where you set both the aperture and shutter speed) - using a variable aperture lens in manual means you need to adjust the exposure every time you change focal length, whereas with a constant aperture lens, you don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ham

I suppose the question is if I go with the kit lens and the "nifty" to start with, how long will it be until I want to upgrade to a better all-round lens. What are the re-sale values of the kit lenses like?

---

It all depends on your impression of how well those lenses perform. If you're heppy with them, they may last you a long time... Resale value for them will be pretty low - despite the standalone price of the kit lens, anyone buying one used would know it's a kit lens, and not pay anywhere close to the high individual price of the lens. The high-end glass (which includes EF-S lenses like the 17-55mm and 10-22mm) holds value pretty well, the low end glass, not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ham

My Dad's lenses are both non-IS, and I had read that the IS (II especially) is an improved lens from the non-IS equivalents

---

For the 18-55mm lens, the IS version is definitely an improvement. There's no optical difference between the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS original and MkII (cospetic changes only).


OTOH, for the Tamron lens, the VC version (VC is what Tamron calls IS) is optically substantially worse than the non-VC version, thus the recommendation for the non-VC version. If you want IS in that focal range (personally, I find IS very helpful!), the Canon 17-55mm is the way to go.

ha, even i made that mistake when i first started looking at dslr lenses. I had a whole spreadsheet of various specs to compare everything, and didn

If you can afford it, the 85mm f/1.8 is vastly superior to the 50mm f/1.8. The Tamron and the 85 would be a killer starter kit. We hardly ever touch our 50mm these days, but the 85mm is on the camera nearly all the time. If we know we

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ham

Another problem I'm having is that I can't really tell what my shooting habits are

---

A very rough guide on this could be based on what you intend to shoot. If you intend to shoot people or indoors a lot (note, f/2.8 isn't enough for all low light situations), I would be more tempted by the 17-55 f/2.8. If you intend to shoot outdoors mostly (as I do), I would be more tempted by the 15-85. Also, I wouldn't try to find the "perfect" lens, as there isn't one. I think of them as tools. Ultimately both the 17-55 and the 15-85 are general purpose zoom lenses (so the same type of tool). The 17-55 gives you more light and thinner DOF (helps with fore- and background blur) but has a more limited focal length range. The 15-85 gives you both a wider and longer focal length, but will let in less light and have greater DOF. But ultimately, these two lenses are both great and can be used for the same general purpose photography. I've taken plenty of photos of people/indoors with the 15-85 and they have turned out great. It is just sometimes I needed a flash. And I am sure many have taken wonderful outdoor photos with the 17-55.

Ouch...I just looked at the current prices of the Canon 17-55 f2.8 and almost fell of my chair. 900 Euro's....ouch! That's 150 more than I payd for 1.5 years ago.


I'm sorry to say, but to me personally this is way too much. If I look at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 I agree that it performs slightly less than the Canon. A little more chromatic aberation and no IS of course.


However it's 3 times cheaper! The Canon 17-55 is definitely not worth 3 times more.Don't forget you also need to buy a seperate lenshood for 35 Euro's... Crazy!





For that amount of money you can buy: Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Canon 85mm f1.8 and almost a third lens like the 50mm 1.4. (Even a 70-200 F4L fits the budget next to the Tamron)That seems like 10 times a better deal than the Canon 17-55 to me.


The only downside is that you don't get any Image Stabilization. But you do get great lenses and a lot more options. You could even keep the kitlens(since it's only about 70 Euro more than just a body) for the times you need IS. Just a thought.


I did love the Canon 17-55, but the current prices are just nuts [A]

I shoot a lot of indoor/no flash activities so I tend to favor f/2.8 zooms and faster primes. Having said that I love my EF-S 17-55 and I have had no problems with it in three years of solid use. I mention this because every now and then you see someone going on about dust issues, which are not a problem in my experience. I use it less now that I have upgraded bodies, but it tends to be semi-permanently attached to my 50D.


I have never used the Tamron 17-55, but it is also well regarded, if your style includes lower light venues.

Cheers for the advice everyone, I'll take it all on board when I (finally) make a decision.


But at the moment I'm thinking I'll just get it with the kit-lens, and see where I feel it's limited, I spotted pretty quickly where and when to use my Dad's lenses without really paying attention to what it was that was limiting them from an optical or technical perspective.


I'm definitely considering the 50mm prime. The effective 80mm it'll give me will be a good length, but I think the 130-140mm odd the 85mm option would give would be a little too long.


The only thing is, now that I'm content that they'll last me for a while, I'm thinking about splashing &pound;80 extra on the 600d for the flippy screen, or even another &pound;200 for the 60d.


I did tell you I was indecisive!





Oh, and for what it's worth, my dad's second lens he got in a double
lens kit with the camera and only bought because once he'd bargained a
card, battery grip, UV filters and lens hoods into it, it worked out
that he got it free. It's the EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM, and I
really don't like it. In fact it makes the kit lens look sharp and
true.

I was almost about to correct you and ask if you meant that he got the EFs 55-250, which most people tend to be happy with.


but then i checked, and there indeed is/was a 55-200. and i can't blame the shop for giving it away free.


Bryan is a bit polite in his review here: www.the-digital-picture.com/.../Canon-EF-55-200mm-f-4.5-5.6-II-USM-Review.aspx but the point is clearly made.


photozone was a bit more blunt: "The build quality of the lens is terrible - in comparison with a Coke PET bottle the Coke shines in this respect."


ouch.


meanwhile, i was just thinking, if your dad has a 400d, and they still had the 55-200 in stock, are you sure that the 18-55 kit lens is the IS version? I didn't think they were out that long ago. have a close look next time you see it. if it's the non-IS i can understand you not liking the quality. if it' the IS version, you may have a high-standard in IQ, be very careful which lens you buy then...

The 55-250 IS is definitely a great addition to the kit of a starting photographer. It has IS and has a very usefull range. And yes, image quality is not very good, but at around 300 bucks it one of the cheapest telezooms available..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Croubie

i can't blame the shop for giving it away free

---

It really is a poor lens, hence why I'm keen to make sure I'm not stuck with anything similar. But it doesn't look like canon make any lenses that bad any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Croubie

are you sure that the 18-55 kit lens is the IS version?

---

I think you mis-read me, it's the non-IS version. Again, it's not very good. I have a feeling I'll be happier with the IS kit lens, but ideally I want to get something a bit faster.





Also, is the 60d really &pound;280 better than the 550d? Or even &pound;200 better than the 600d? If the price differential was any less I'd be off out to buy the 60d now, but as it is I'm more tempted to go for the 600d.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ham

Also, is the 60d really &pound;280 better than the 550d? Or even &pound;200 better than the 600d? If the price differential was any less I'd be off out to buy the 60d now, but as it is I'm more tempted to go for the 600d.

---

Depends on your needs. The 60D hasbetter build, better controls (e.g. rear dial), top LCD, a pentaprism instead of a pentamirror (brighter viewfinder), better AF system (still 9 points, but all are cross-type on the 60D vs. only the center point on the T3i/600D). The 60D has a full stop faster shutter (1/8000 s vs. 1/4000 s max), and the 60D also has much better battery life (almost 3 times as many shots on a full charge as the T3i/600D). The 60D also feels much different in your hand than an xxxD body.

Yeah, i've read over the OP again and you're right, i misread. I saw you mention the IS II kit lens in the third line, but that's what you could get new not what you had already, my bad.


and what do you mean by 'faster'? the 15-85 is actually slower (or the same) compared to the 18-55, up to 47mm. only faster is the 17-55 f/2.8. but again, 15-85 and 17-55 are both optically damn good, choose only between the zoom range vs low-light.


Don't bother with 17-40L on APS-C, the 24-70 f/2.8 is good but expensive, then you need a 10-22 or similar on the widest end to go with it.


.





also, comparing the 600D to 60D, i'm stealing what i wrote to someone else on another forum:


60d has better AF (9 cross type vs 1 cross + 8 normal)


60d has top lcd, 600d uses the back screen for reference


60d has pentaprism (better quality), 600d has pentamirror (cheaper/lighter)


60d has a bigger viewfinder (try it out in a shop to see if/how annoying a smaller one is for you)


60d has the electronic level


60d has flash sync to 1/250s, +-3ev comp, 600d to 1/200s, +-2ev comp.


60d does 5.3 fps for 16/58 shots (raw/jpg), 600d does 3.7fps for 6/34 shots.


60d has fullsize raw/mraw/sraw (to save card space), 600d only has fullsize.


60d has weather sealing (at least, to some extent)


60d battery apparently lasts longer (1100 vs 400 shots)


60d is aluminium and polycarbonate (755g), 600d is steel + polycarb (570g)


and it doesn't say it on the canon website, but the 600d can do 1-3x digital zoom when filming (using 'clean' sensor crop), i think up to 10x (using 'dirty' old-school digital zoom).


plus a few small things, like 1/4000s vs 1/8000 shutter speed (which you'll probably never reach unless you buy an f/1.2 lens or point straight at the sun), interchangeable focussing screens, live-view face detection, more custom functions, data verification kit compatibility may or may not mean anything to you.


ergonomically, the 60d is a fair bit bigger, has a back wheel instead of buttons, and more quick-control buttons on the top near the lcd (the 600d has them doubled with the 4-way buttons on the back)


.


so which of all that matters? 60D's better AF, weather sealing, more fps for more shots, all those lean towards more action/wildlife.


the lcd and the digital level i find particularly useful, but they're not worth the &euro;300 difference on their own. the bigger viewfinder you'll have to decide yourself if it makes a difference. Battery lasting longer also helps for longer trips (or buy a spare, factor that cost in too)


.


And the phrase you'll hear a lot around here is "what do you want to use it for?" if your answer is learning, being creative, filming, street photography, landscapes, travelling light, then all of those point to the 600d.


the only reason to go above that would be for sports/action, not jamming it in your bag at the first sight of rain (but then you need a better lens for full weather sealing), and just a more professional-looking and -handling camera. If you shoot RAW then you don't need any of the gimmiky in-camera effects either way, photoshop what you want later.


.


ergonomics may also factor. personally, i've got a 7D which has the select wheel and joystick on the back, and dial by the shutter. 60d has the wheel and dial, 600d has 4-way back buttons and the dial.


I'm so used to using the joystick (for selecting af point) and wheel (+-ev in Av mode or shutter speed in M mode) and dial (aperture in Av or M mode), and i can just reach all the buttons by the top lcd with one finger by memory, that i can take almost any picture in any style without even removing my eye from the viewfinder (ok, i've had 10,000 shots of practice).


I tried my sister's 550D the other day, and i couldn't figure out a damn thing. but she's almost as fast as me because she's used to the way her camera is set up. So basically my view ergonomics-wise is that whatever you buy you'll get used to it after a while (just don't buy a better body and downgrade, then you'll notice the difference).


.


.


i'd always recommend better glass for a lower body to almost anyone, i learnt that by pairing the 70-300nonL with a 7D (6 months later i bought the 70-300L), definitely get the 600D over the 550D if the difference is only 80squid. for 60D vs 600D, how much is 200 quid worth to you? you presumably already know how much you like taking photos from borrowing your dad's, if you think you really want to get into photography long term (even as a hobby, doesn't mean you ever have to sell a photo), then 200 quid is nothing. but if it means missing a rent/mortgage payment then 200 might mean a bit more to you and go the cheaper option...

Haha, it won't mean missing a rent payment, but it might mean waiting for ANOTHER month's wages before I can splash out (time goes incredibly slowly when you're waiting to buy a new toy!). It also might mean holding back on accessories like lens hoods, spare batteries (may not be an issue) a bag (borrowing my Dad's slingshot would be fine) and will definitely mean waiting a bit longer before I use anything better than the kit lens with it (I don't think I'll want to use either of my Dad's if I get the newer kit lens with whichever camera I buy).


Most of my photography is opportunistic so far, I've not been out somewhere specifically to take photos, but I do notice myself viewing the world differently and wishing I had the thing with me at least once a day, and when I do spend time taking photos, I can't put it down.


A lot of the features on the 60D are more than I need at the moment, but the question is will I get hooked and want/need them in the future? And if I do, will whichever camera I have by then need upgrading anyway? The only features that really stand out as being useful at the moment are the pentaprism viewfinder and the build quality of the thing. But then will the extra size hinder me when out and about? Will I be less tempted (and will the GF be more persuasve for me not) to take it out if it's a bit bigger and heavier?


I think the future upgrade point is probably the biggest one at the moment. I'll be more than happy with the 600D for a while, it's more than a good enough camera for what I'm using it for at the moment, and if the time comes when I want to upgrade, I'll have a set of lenses already, and either a very capable but smaller second camera, or an asset to either p/x or sell second hand.


Speaking of removing the quick-option buttons from the 4-way control, are the ones from the "zoom" buttons removed too? I'm forever finding myself trying to zoom in on a preview and accidentally changing the focus point setup. That might be worth &pound;200 on it's own!





Thanks for your help chaps, I'll be sure to stick about on here and <span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]pester you with more questions share my pictures in the future [Y]





Oh, can someone explain the advantage of cross-type focus points over the standard ones please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ham

A lot of the features on the 60D are more than I need at the moment, but the question is will I get hooked and want/need them in the future? And if I do, will whichever camera I have by then need upgrading anyway?

---

Possibly. Depends on how 'hooked' you get. Personally, I started out with a 500D/T1i...and in a few months switched to a 7D (and subsequently added a 5DII). But the xxxD cameras are quite capable, and IMO you're better off spending money on lenses, unless a body has a feature you definitely require (e.g. better AF and faster frame rate for sports/action, etc.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ham

can someone explain the advantage of cross-type focus points over the standard ones please?

---

All AF points detect contrast with a line-type sensor. Cross-type points (the center point on the 550D/600D and all points on the 60D) are sensitive to both vertical and horizontal lines, linear AF points (off center points on the 550D/600D) are sensitive to lines/contrast on only one orientation. The translation is that a cross-type point can lock onto more images features than a line-type point, so is better able to achieve a focus lock.

Gah. I still haven

I wouldn

Erm... thank-you qwRad, I've managed to find the 600D + 15-85mm for just over &pound;1,000 at digitalrev.com


It's almost impossible to search for it, searching for "600D" or "15-85mm" finds very few results, so no idea how I've found it, but I've bookmarked it!


The only thing is, all their prices seem to be a good &pound;50-100 cheaper than Amazon, which not only seems just a little too good to be true, but also means the two together only works out as a &pound;25 saving compared to buying them seperately. Do DigitalRev have a decent reputation?


If this is a temporary deal or something it'll convince me to buy the two together.

Don't know about them, haven't bought anything from there. I live in Finland and over here everything camera related is pretty expensive compared to rest of the Europe/World. I have ordered some lenses from www.fotemia.de and www.cameranu.nl and they were very good both regarding price and shipping. I have found www.geizhals.eu to be a good site for price comparisons in EU.


For &pound;25 the saving is much less than I would have imagined, maybe the 15-85mm price bought alone has dropped significantly from the last time I checked. It's a good lens nevertheless, perfect focal length for an all-around lens, excellent IS and good image quality for my 7D but I eventually ended up selling it since I wanted something that is weather sealed and/or a little faster and also hope to buy a used 5D2 as a second/first body as soon as I get the cash together. :) I also tested the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS briefly in a shop on my 7D and frankly I wasn't very impressed with it compared to my 17-40L and 70-200 f/4.0 L IS but that might be because of the demo lens in question and also I would have to shoot with one for at least a day to get a real sense of the performance.


As a side note I have an Asus Transformer android tablet on order from www.simplyelectronics.net (ordered on 26th of june) but that is a more debated shop, they usually quote "1-2 day" shipping times but it can take as long as 3-4 weeks to get your order. Some also complain that it takes forever for a refund if you need one. Their prices are really "too good to be true" though. The consensus on the forums is that they import grey market products from Hong Kong and sell them from their UK based warehouse so EU buyers won't have to pay taxes. On some Finnish forums people have had both positive and negative comments about the shop and I decided to take a risk since I wasn't in a real hurry to get the tablet. Paid with a credit card so there's no real risk of losing my money if the product doesn't arrive. I will let you know in my "Best tablet for a photographer thread" when/if I eventually get it.

damn, i replied to this a few hours ago and didn

Hi Ham, I've traveled the same path you're on regarding camera and lens choices. I also spent hours and hours reading the reviews on this site.


When I made my purchase the 350D was the current model. I bought this body as a kit with the 18-55 and 75-300. These were not great lenses and when I got a 50mm 1.8 I was like a blind man that could now see. Some time later I got the 17-55 2.8.


Two important points have been raised in this thread that I would like to second:


Jan said you could get a few very good lenses for the price of a 17-55 2.8. This is something to weigh very carefully when starting out. I never really regretted buying the 17-55 as a beginner but it left me with a tight focal range and no money to by any other gear - for years! (I would also like to add my view that lenses conform to the law of diminishing returns. In other words the image quality does not increase proportionally to the price. Well not in a linear fashion at least. In other words there may be a huge price difference between a very nice lens and its very excellent counterpart, but you are unlikely to see this difference matched in the image quality. Whereas at the other end of the spectrum when upgrading from a poor quality kit lens you will find that a modest investment will yield a considerable increase in image quality , try the 50mm 1.8 from an early 18-55, you'll see what I mean. So the question is: Where do you want to enter in on the Quality vs Cost curve?)


Neuro raised the other point; there are some other very important parts of your kit such as a stable tripod that will need to be included in your budget. A good tripod is part of the equation when striving for image quality. Add to that hoods and filters etc.


To answer a few other points in this discussion:


The Canon hood for a 17-55mm 2.8 can be purchased from ebay. Mine cost $2.50.


I sold my 18-55 and 75-300 on ebay for AU$110 and $200 respectively but I estimate their true values to be about half this - I just got lucky.


The xxxD bodies are small. With a lens like the 17-55mm the small size of the body is not really an advantage and makes it hard (IMO) to hold the combined weight securely. People with big hands often struggle. My XXD feels better with bigger lenses.

I don

I wouldn

I honestly think that for the price, the 15-85mm is what I need. It really doesn

In terms of IQ, the 17-55mm and the 15-85mm are pretty similar, both very good. The 15-85mm has more barrel distortion at the wide end, a consequence of it

Just want to say thanks to everyone who helped me make my decision. I went for the 15-85mm and I bloody love it. I ordered it on Tuesday Night last week at about 2300hrs and it arrived at 1200hrs on the Friday of the same week using Digital Rev (&pound;530 all incl.).


I took it with me to my Dad's apartment on the Kent coast and got some lovely shots of his dog, even in pretty low light (thank-you IS). I do however now want to consider either a good flash-gun or a faster lens purely for indoor action shots.


Anyway, a selection for you:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/dhamr/5955484223/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/dhamr/5955495783/


Ah, just remembered I ran out of space on Flickr, I've got some more varied ones that I couldn't upload. I will add them at the end of the month if anyone's interested.



Would also appreciate any comments or critiques on my flickr page now or in the future, so please feel free to add me and drop me a comment.

Get a flash for the cheap way out and fire it too the celing and enjoy the better part of great images[:)]


A fast prime such as the 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8 would be perfect later on.


Cheers,


John.

Ham....glad you like it. I checked out the pictures and they are very nice.


I second the idea of getting a flash. At first I got the 50 mm f/1.8. The issue I ran into with the 50 mm f/1.8 as an indoor low light lens is that f/1.8 isn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ham

Ah, just remembered I ran out of space on Flickr, I've got some more varied ones that I couldn't upload. I will add them at the end of the month if anyone's interested.

---

One Flickr-related comment - upgrading to a Flickr Pro account is one of the best $25 I've spent. Unlimited uploads, large images, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

One Flickr-related comment - upgrading to a Flickr Pro account is one of the best $25 I've spent. Unlimited uploads, large images, etc.

---

I couldn't agree more. I use it as a display piece (referring people to it for my most recent images, else to my own site for a more polished, yet rarelyupdated,professional face) as well as a backup service for my most prized images.

I

That

Just had a look at the price of the 580 and it

well the 580 is the only master, but not needed unless you have more
than 1 flash (and doesn't matter if you have a 60D or 7D with their
built-in transmitters.


580 does full rotation, 430 and 320 only rotate 3/4 (apparently the
'wrong' way for portraits, but i'd try it in a shop if you can). 270 is
fixed.


430 and 580 can zoom to 105mm, and give AF assist grids, 320 and 270
only give wide/normal modes and fire the flash for af assist.


.


that's the main of it, otherwise you're paying purely for power. you
can always dial-down the power on a higher model, can't get more from a
lower model though. (2 smaller ones can provide for more interesting
studio effects though, if you're into that sort of thing)


.


http://www.canonrumors.com/files/580EXII.pdf is a fairly good idea to
read. if you don't understand the technical, just understand that
there's a chance you may have to send a warranty repair so don't buy
from Hong Kong or USA (i know it's cheaper though).


http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/05/r...n-flashes-cr2/
and http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/07/t...the-flash-cr1/ may
or may not interest you, but if you wait for 'the next new thing',
you'll be waiting forever and never buy anything. (actually, it makes
sense now, putting the optical flash controller in the 7d/60d/etc, if
they make a radio wireless controller, that'll be another add-on gadget
they can sell you...)