Please share your thoughts on this: 1000D to 2nd-hand 50D

[MrGreenBug]

[] Thanks Daniel!

[MrGreenBug]

Hi again! I

[TucsonTRD]

Have you considered the ef-s 17-55 lens? You lose a good bit of the focal length compared to the 24-105, but you will gain low light performance. I have the 50D (and the 17-55) and I love the camera. But there is almost always a better camera body to buy. So no matter what you have there will be something better out there and you will probably want it. As far as the lens goes, there isn't another lens that I would want for it's purpose over my 17-55. This is a different train of thought compared to the other posts here, but one worth mentioning I think. Also keep in mind that a 24mm lens isn't very wide for a 1.6 fovcf camera.


Good luck.


Braden

[MrGreenBug]

Thanks Braden for your thoughts. I

[neuroanatomist]

I've thought of the 17-55mm but I really don't go wide even on my kit lens as I try to avoid the distortion it has on the wide end. I limit myself in shooting at 24mm mark on the kit lens as much as possible.

Couple of things to consider in that regard. First, the 17-55mm has substantially less distortion at 17mm (2% barrel) than the 18-55mm kit lens at 18mm (3.2% barrel). It's still there, but not as bad. Second, since barrel distortion affects all zoom lenses at the wide end, you'll have barrel distortion on the 24-105mm, too. If you use the 24-105mm at 24mm, you'll be getting distortionwhich is not too different from the 17-55mm at 17mm, around1.8% barrel (and that's with the 'sweet spot' effect of using an EF lens on a 1.6x body - at 24mm on FF, distortion is over 4%). So, from the standpoint of distortion, you'd be better off with the 17-55mm, especially zoomed in a bit from the wide end, than with the 24-105mm, unless you're prepared to stay away from the wide end of that as well, and use it from ~35mm onwards (in other words, not wide angle at all).


Also, the 17-55mm delivers better resolution than the 24-105mm on a 1.6x body, and has less chromatic aberration; however, it does have more vignetting wide open than the 24-105mm (the sweet spot effect again).


Speaking of wide open, the 17-55mm is a full stop faster than the 24-105mm and that can make a big difference in some situations. The 24-105mm would be better than your kit lens, which drops to f/5.6 at the long end (where the 17-55mm would be 2 stops faster). As you say, since you use flash you may not need more light, but the wider aperture is also nice for portraits (more background blur). Also, using an f/2.8 lens activates the high-precision center AF point on cameras with that feature (your 1000D doesn't have it, but all the recent bodies do, including newer Rebel/xxxDs, the 50D and 60D, etc.).


Build quality of the 24-105mm is better than the 17-55mm, but optically I think the 17-55mm is a better choice, unless you need a zoom that runs more into the telephoto end.

I was thinking of upgrading to the 50D for the faster burst and speed. Also the ability to micro-adjust ... But since the 60D just came out.. I was wondering if getting a 50D is still any good

The 50D is still a fine camera, in some ways superior to the 60D (the 60D lacks AF microadjust, and has a slower frame rate). If you don't need/want video, I think the 50D is a good choice.


--John

[MrGreenBug]

... So, from the standpoint of distortion, you'd be better off with the 17-55mm, especially zoomed in a bit from the wide end, than with the 24-105mm, unless you're prepared to stay away from the wide end of that as well, and use it from ~35mm onwards (in other words, not wide angle at all).

You've got a great point on that, John! I've overlooked that point where I'm shooting at 24mm at kit lens and assuming 24mm on a 24-105 is different on that. Now, I've really have to rethink on this purchase.

Build quality of the 24-105mm is better than the 17-55mm, but optically I think the 17-55mm is a better choice, unless you need a zoom that runs more into the telephoto end.

I was considering the 24-105 because of it's extra reach for those times I want to go on candid mode where I have to be out of the view. The 24-105 and the 17-55 is almost the same price here. By the way, I wasn't considering the 17-55 before because I have the nifty-fifty and therefore my longing for extra reach.


Thank you John for the wonderful input. You've got me thinking again.


Angelo

[Sheiky]

Angelo,


for thatamount of moneyyou could buy the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-OS, to replace your kitlens and add the Canon 70-200 F4L to it to aid the extra reach. You could keep the nifty-fifty for low-lights and portraits for instance. In my opinion this set is more valuable than just the 24-105 or just the Canon 17-55.


That way you would have great optical quality from 17-200mm. And also have a good low-light lens.


Obviously you would lose IS with this set. If IS is important to you, you might want to consider keeping the kitlens and the nifty-fifty and get the 70-200 F4L IS for the extra reach.


Just some ideas. Good luck man,


Jan