The Canon Thread
Sep 30, 2007 at 6:18 AM Post #361 of 2,718
Canon SLR is simply amazing. These pics that I took with my 20D + 50mm 1.8 would have not been possible had I still use my Prosumer LUMIXs.


Dummy.jpg

ISO100 f4 1/160 Sec AWB Manual Mode (No Flash)

Lights.jpg

ISO800 f1.8 1/250 Sec AWB Manual Mode (No Flash)

SUPER Noise Free even at ISO800!!!! and that with a lowly 50mm lens. I can't wait how my pics will look with my L series 24-105.....still a few more days to go ETA.....
 
Oct 9, 2007 at 11:27 PM Post #362 of 2,718
If you want some advice from someone who rolls with people who have spent more than my life savings on canon gear, and does ALOT of lens testing and trading, take a listen:

Dude, skip the 20d and at least grab a 30d- they've hit the most significant part of their price drop now that they're not the current model, and they're still otherwise far more current and in better conditions than most of the 20ds you're going to find. 20d is two generations out, and you lose alot of the improvement in interface, extra screensize, better autofocus, etc. etc.

Treat it like an investment; for a couple hundred more you'll get improved pictures, or at least an easier time taking good pictures for as long as you keep it, which'll be longer by average manufacturing lifespan, and an increased value if you ever do decide to resell it.

There's another thing to consider:

Right now, with the 24mm on a crop body, that translates into give or take a 38mm, which won't allow you much flexibility in the way of interior photography or landscapes... you're going to suffer if every time you can't get everything in the shot if you don't have wide-angle.

At bare minimum the cheapo 18-55 kit lens, but if you're using L-glass the rest of the time you'll want to chuck it off a cliff. Probably at least a 10-20 Sigma (equivelant to 15-30mm on crop body) for about $400 if you want decent quality... you could do 17-40 for about $600 if you really need to have L glass, but a 10-22 Canon for about $650 is going to be your best combo...

I'm estimating here, of course, because I do all my trading in CAD and the market here is way different.

Anyway, the other option I was going to say is: skip all the hubub of needing an extra wide-angle lens later on and invest the money you're going to yearn to spend on it in a full-frame like the 5d instead, or wait until the new one is officially released and get an even better deal.... With the L lens, you'll get incomparable image detail and sharpness the 20d OR 30d can't touch, you'll get a true wide angle at 24mm, and most of all you'll be the envy of all your 20d/30d peers.


Barring that, if you're still stuck on the 30d (hopefully you've been listening), sell the 24-105mm f4 IS and grab the 17-55 F2.8 IS... it's not L, but it's sharp as or sharper than the 24-105, a stop faster, a lot wider, and has awesome IS.

Here's my personal inkling, since I've given you so much mutually contradicting advice: If you see the wisdom in my words and are willing to scrimp a bit for the full frame upgrade, plan on playing around with the 20d right now until the 6D is announced, probably at the PMA this winter. Then, snatch up a 5d when all the trendsetters are getting rid of their old toys for the new one...

However, if you want to get a body and stick with it till product death do you part, skip the 20d and go for a 30d, or else get a 5d right now. But there's no sense cheaping out for a measley two hundred on something you're hoping to spend at least a few years with and expand your capabilities with. I speak from experience.
 
Oct 19, 2007 at 3:41 PM Post #363 of 2,718
I'd have to say that putting money on a 30D instead of a 20D is a bad suggestion - the upgrades are minor at best, and putting the extra cash on a higher quality lens is a much better idea. Bodys come and go, but lenses are forever!
tongue.gif


Basically, what you don't get is the bigger screen, spot metering and image parameters you shouldn't use much anyway, shooting RAW is a much better idea IMHO. Neither will improve image quality.


When it comes to lenses, it's really hard to give suggestions, totally depends on what a person want to shoot, if you plan to buy a full frame body any time soon (if you buy second hand lenses though, you can always resell them without too much loss, if it's a good lens). So looking at reviews and asking questions before buying is always a good idea.

The 24-105 is an awesome lens, but not very wide on a crop camera, so you'll probably want a 10-22 or equivalent lens to get the ultra wide shots. The 50 1.8 is a good lens for it's money, so definately a keeper. Not that impressed with the 1.4 version, if you want an ultrasharp 50 you should really look at getting a Contax Zeiss lens and an adapter instead. You loose the autofocus and auto stop down functions, but you get one of the sharpest lenses ever made for 35mm cameras for peanuts really...
smily_headphones1.gif


Anyway... I could go on forever, but I'll get back to my lonely beer instead, work day is over!
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Oct 19, 2007 at 6:18 PM Post #364 of 2,718
If I was in the canon camp, I would get the:
17-55mm IS, 24-70mm L, 85mm 1.2 L, and 135mm f2 L (most people would just get the 70-200mm 2.8 IS L though)

But for a typical hobbyist, I'd say get the 17-55mm IS + 70-200 f4 IS + whatever macro lens just for fun is more than adequate.
 
Oct 19, 2007 at 6:41 PM Post #365 of 2,718
Quote:

Originally Posted by martook /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I
The 24-105 is an awesome lens, but not very wide on a crop camera, so you'll probably want a 10-22 or equivalent lens to get the ultra wide shots. The 50 1.8 is a good lens for it's money, so definately a keeper. Not that impressed with the 1.4 version, if you want an ultrasharp 50 you should really look at getting a Contax Zeiss lens and an adapter instead. You loose the autofocus and auto stop down functions, but you get one of the sharpest lenses ever made for 35mm cameras for peanuts really...
smily_headphones1.gif



Everything I've read indicates that the 50 1.4 is superior to the nifty fifty 1.8. Wonder if you got a bum 1.4. My 1.8 seems to have a hard time focusing and I'm leaning to the 1.4.

Did not know about the Contax route. Sounds interesting...
 
Oct 19, 2007 at 8:00 PM Post #366 of 2,718
50mm 1.4 is in general superior, but opened up all the way you'd be better off just holding a magnifying glass in front of the sensor and hoping for the best. Seriously UGLY Ca and soft focus. Far better bang for buck with a 50mm f1.8 (mk 1 if you can get it, then you get the focal distance guage and metal construction)

As for the 30D, IMHO improved autofocus algorithim, spotmetering, shooting both raw AND Jpeg, better buffer length for action shooting, etc. etc. are worth one or two hundred more if you're going to be using it for a while... but to each their own.
 
Oct 20, 2007 at 9:59 PM Post #367 of 2,718
Quote:

Originally Posted by archosman /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Everything I've read indicates that the 50 1.4 is superior to the nifty fifty 1.8. Wonder if you got a bum 1.4. My 1.8 seems to have a hard time focusing and I'm leaning to the 1.4.

Did not know about the Contax route. Sounds interesting...



Well, the 1.4 is better than the nifty fifty, especially the feeling of it (not quite as plastic), but it's still not that great of a lens. Wide open performance isn't the best, and unless it's too long for you, a 85mm 1.8 is usually a better option.


Using manual lenses is kinda funny, makes you think a bit more before you take a shot, although sometimes you really miss that autofocus
wink.gif

Best thing with Canon is that you can adapt almost every other brand of lenses out there (except old Canon lenses, funny enough...), so when your Nikon pals brag about being able to use their 30 year old lenses, don't worry - so can you
biggrin.gif


If you want more information about it, a good forum is:
http://forum.manualfocus.org/
 
Oct 21, 2007 at 3:08 AM Post #369 of 2,718
Quote:

Originally Posted by ipacmm /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I am a big canon fan, have way too much money invested in L lenses and camera gear but I love photography so it makes up for it.


You could send one of those L lenses up my way...
tongue.gif
17-40 would be awesome
wink.gif
 
Oct 21, 2007 at 6:33 AM Post #371 of 2,718
Quote:

Originally Posted by martook /img/forum/go_quote.gif
although sometimes you really miss that autofocus
wink.gif



Yeah especially when the viewfinder sucks
tongue.gif
 
Oct 21, 2007 at 12:21 PM Post #373 of 2,718
Quote:

Originally Posted by bperboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You could send one of those L lenses up my way...
tongue.gif
17-40 would be awesome
wink.gif



I chose the 16-35 over the 17-40. Sure I can send it over since I run a Canon lens rental site.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top