Support NeoGAF

[Rentahamster]

Does anyone care to comment on my following purchasing plan? I've pretty much decided on the Nikon D90, but was trying to figure out whether to go with the 18-105mm kit or just get a body.

I think I've decided to sort of build my own kit by just getting the D90 body and the 18-55mm VR lens (I think this is usually included with the D40?). This will save about $100 or so off the 18-105mm D90 kit, but that's not really my prime reasoning. The 18-55mm a bit lighter of a lens and what I tend to shoot won't really require the zoom of the 18-105mm but it still provides me with the same wide-angle lens play (which is what I tend to use more).

I'd probably immediately pair this with the 35mm f/1.8 lens for indoor and lower-light situations.

How does this sound to people, or am I making some ridiculous mistake by passing up the D90 kit lens in this manner?

18-55 and the 35 sound fine to me since it doesn't seem like you really need to zoom all that much.

You could even just forget about the 18-55 and go with the 35. On a recent vacation trip, I took a D40, the 18-200 VR, 30mm f1.4 Sigma and SB400 flash. I just used the 30mm Sigma prime lens 90% of the time.

Learn to zoom with your feet and get the fundamentals down. You can do that with just one prime lens.

When you're ready, I'd advise you to get a hotshoe flash and learn about the wonderful world of bounced flash and white ceilings.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Prime Lovin' <3

As Rentahamster stated, a good prime with a focal length you find yourself using constantly will take you far. I've been using a 50mm prime for the past two years. The only time I've felt limited is when I need some 200-400mm focal length for reach that goes beyond where I can reach with my feet.

Recently I've learned the fine art of Mosaic/Panoramic stiches (Mosaic being multi level images, pano a single horizontal frame of image). This allows me to shoot landscapes with my 50mm.

 

[mrkgoo]

Prime Lovin' <3

As Rentahamster stated, a good prime with a focal length you find yourself using constantly will take you far. I've been using a 50mm prime for the past two years. The only time I've felt limited is when I need some 200-400mm focal length for reach that goes beyond where I can reach with my feet.

Recently I've learned the fine art of Mosaic/Panoramic stiches (Mosaic being multi level images, pano a single horizontal frame of image). This allows me to shoot landscapes with my 50mm.

To be fair, a long tele can do more than just save you from walking closer. The compression effect from standing faraway is a fun thing to play with, but to get any decent image from standing further away, you of course need a tele.

To get an idea of what I mean, people often take group photos by standing in front of mountain range. The result is an image with the mountains very, very small. "Oh they seemed a lot bigger when we there." To alleviate this, stand as far away as you can and use a tele. Because you stand further away the perspective is different, and the tele allows you to capture the image without having to crop.

It's a way to get the moon looking large in you images too. I've still waiting for that shot of the full moon near the horizon, and I'm faraway enough, and I also have my tele to make the moon look large.

 

[JavaMava]

I'm looking to buy my girlfriend a camera for christmas. She's mentioned a few times she's never owned her own and it's something she really really wants. It'd be a beginner camera. She mostly takes pictures when we're out together, but she also takes pictures of herself if she's trying on a new costume, and will try to tell a little story or set a scene or something with the images. She'll also do this if she gets a new plush toy or something.

So I'm looking for something digital. Smallish, sleek. And I'm looking to spend around $200 on it before tax. I'd be willing to go for like $220 or something, but not $250. Also I'm in canada, so if I can order it online, or in a store in canada that'd be great as well.

EDIT:
How about this one?

 

[mrkgoo]

I'm looking to buy my girlfriend a camera for christmas. She's mentioned a few times she's never owned her own and it's something she really really wants. It'd be a beginner camera. She mostly takes pictures when we're out together, but she also takes pictures of herself if she's trying on a new costume, and will try to tell a little story or set a scene or something with the images. She'll also do this if she gets a new plush toy or something.

So I'm looking for something digital. Smallish, sleek. And I'm looking to spend around $200 on it before tax. I'd be willing to go for like $220 or something, but not $250. Also I'm in canada, so if I can order it online, or in a store in canada that'd be great as well.

EDIT:
How about this one?

Sounds reasonable. They're all much the same - you pick your price range, and you basically get what you pay for. Canon are pretty solid performers. Iw as going to suggest something with a 28mm equivalent wide - just because people don't know what they're missing without a moderate wide (better indoor group shots, and self images at arms length, just more versatility in general), but nothing in your price range.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/

 

[Rentahamster]

Does anyone care to comment on my following purchasing plan? I've pretty much decided on the Nikon D90, but was trying to figure out whether to go with the 18-105mm kit or just get a body.

I think I've decided to sort of build my own kit by just getting the D90 body and the 18-55mm VR lens (I think this is usually included with the D40?). This will save about $100 or so off the 18-105mm D90 kit, but that's not really my prime reasoning. The 18-55mm a bit lighter of a lens and what I tend to shoot won't really require the zoom of the 18-105mm but it still provides me with the same wide-angle lens play (which is what I tend to use more).

I'd probably immediately pair this with the 35mm f/1.8 lens for indoor and lower-light situations.

How does this sound to people, or am I making some ridiculous mistake by passing up the D90 kit lens in this manner?

Oh one more thing - since you're getting a D90, you're not restricted to purely AF-S (lenses with the internal focus motor) for your autofocusing since the D90 comes with an AF motor in the body.

If you had gotten the D5000, the 35mm is one of the few affordable prime AF-S lenses.


However, since you are going with the D90, the cheaper 50mm f1.8 lens is an alternative to the 35mm.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00005LEN4/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Too bad it's $135 now. I bought mine for $100 way back when.

 

[teiresias]

18-55 and the 35 sound fine to me since it doesn't seem like you really need to zoom all that much.

You could even just forget about the 18-55 and go with the 35. On a recent vacation trip, I took a D40, the 18-200 VR, 30mm f1.4 Sigma and SB400 flash. I just used the 30mm Sigma prime lens 90% of the time.

Learn to zoom with your feet and get the fundamentals down. You can do that with just one prime lens.

When you're ready, I'd advise you to get a hotshoe flash and learn about the wonderful world of bounced flash and white ceilings.

Do you ever find yourself wishing for something wider when doing any kind of landscape photography or maybe just street photography of buildings when in a city when using the 30mm alone?

The main reason I was considering the 18-55 at all was to get something wider than the 35mm nikon prime, without buying another prime. I figured I should have at least one zoom.

I've been using a manual flash (Sunpak auto 383) on my Canon G9 for a little more than a year and love the results it gave me indoors. I've heard good things about the lowest end nikon flash, the SB400, so I think I'm going to go with that. It's alot smaller than my Sunpak too.

Oh, about the cheaper 50mm prime, since these are crop cameras the 50mm would act more like a 50x1.5 = 75mm, correct? I think that's going to be a bit too tele/tight for most of the indoor situation I have in mind for this prime. I want it to get some portrait-like photos, but I want the option to step back and get more than one person in frame without climbing into the corner of the room like a bat :lol. Speaking of using an AF-S lens on a D90, if you use a lens with a built in focus motor on a body with a motor which motor actually gets used during autofocus?

I'm thinking I might do as you suggested and get the prime first, actually. It will be interesting to go for a while with a prime with only one focal length and learn the discipline of that specific focal length and how to use it in different situations.

 

[Rentahamster]

Do you ever find yourself wishing for something wider when doing any kind of landscape photography or maybe just street photography of buildings when in a city when using the 30mm alone?

When I was on the trip? No. I just moved back. Alternatively, I shot a stitched panorama, like what BlueTsunami mentioned.

When you are "limited" to one focal length, it really helps to get you thinking about the fundamentals. Working within certain constraints really makes you use your brain to solve problems and helps you learn.

The main reason I was considering the 18-55 at all was to get something wider than the 35mm nikon prime, without buying another prime. I figured I should have at least one zoom.

Oh, about the cheaper 50mm prime, since these are crop cameras the 50mm would act more like a 50x1.5 = 75mm, correct? I think that's going to be a bit too tele/tight for most of the indoor situation I have in mind for this prime. I want it to get some portrait-like photos, but I want the option to step back and get more than one person in frame without climbing into the corner of the room like a bat :lol.

If you really find yourself in that "I can't fit everyone in the picture because it's not wide enough" situation enough times, then, sure go get the 18-55. There are easy solutions to make people fit in frame, though. Just position them somewhere else or have them line up in multiple rows. Part of the technique of photography comes in solving problems like that without having to resort to an "easy" solution, like zooming.

Speaking of using an AF-S lens on a D90, if you use a lens with a built in focus motor on a body with a motor which motor actually gets used during autofocus?

The in lens motor is always used since there's no way for it to connect to the in-body motor anyways.

I'm thinking I might do as you suggested and get the prime first, actually. It will be interesting to go for a while with a prime with only one focal length and learn the discipline of that specific focal length and how to use it in different situations.

Yeah, that seems like a good plan. There's really no need to buy both at the same time unless you are trying to save on shipping or something. Doesn't matter with Amazon, though, since they have free shipping anyway.

I've been using a manual flash (Sunpak auto 383) on my Canon G9 for a little more than a year and love the results it gave me indoors. I've heard good things about the lowest end nikon flash, the SB400, so I think I'm going to go with that. It's alot smaller than my Sunpak too.

Ah, I have like 5 of those flashes. It made for really cool Strobist-style off camera flash on the cheap.

You could use the 383 with the D90 for now and see how you like it.

 

[teiresias]

If you really find yourself in that "I can't fit everyone in the picture because it's not wide enough" situation enough times, then, sure go get the 18-55. There are easy solutions to make people fit in frame, though. Just position them somewhere else or have them line up in multiple rows. Part of the technique of photography comes in solving problems like that without having to resort to an "easy" solution, like zooming.

Well, that part of my post was mainly explaining why I was favoring the 35mm prime rather than the 50mm prime and wasn't referencing the 18-55. On the crop camera the 35 acts like a 52.5mm, which is close enough to an actual 50mm focal length for government work.

 

[Rentahamster]

Well, that part of my post was mainly explaining why I was favoring the 35mm prime rather than the 50mm prime and wasn't referencing the 18-55. On the crop camera the 35 acts like a 52.5mm, which is close enough to an actual 50mm focal length for government work.

Oh, hahaha, right. Nevermind, then.

 

[teiresias]

Actually, I may be stuck buying the zoom anyway because the 35mm prime is out of stock freaking everywhere! Apparently, this is a common problem with this lens.

 

[BlueTsunami]

To be fair, a long tele can do more than just save you from walking closer. The compression effect from standing faraway is a fun thing to play with, but to get any decent image from standing further away, you of course need a tele.

To get an idea of what I mean, people often take group photos by standing in front of mountain range. The result is an image with the mountains very, very small. "Oh they seemed a lot bigger when we there." To alleviate this, stand as far away as you can and use a tele. Because you stand further away the perspective is different, and the tele allows you to capture the image without having to crop.

It's a way to get the moon looking large in you images too. I've still waiting for that shot of the full moon near the horizon, and I'm faraway enough, and I also have my tele to make the moon look large.

Definitely. I've seen some amazing landscape shots with telephoto primes.

 

[Rentahamster]

Actually, I may be stuck buying the zoom anyway because the 35mm prime is out of stock freaking everywhere! Apparently, this is a common problem with this lens.

Doesn't say "out of stock" at Ritz, unless I'm missing something.

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541533725.htm
It does say "Ships when received from manufacturer", but I think it says that for everything. I dunno, I never bought anything from Ritz before.

 

[Prez]

Which sub-$500 camera takes the best pictures at night?

 

[SnakeXs]

Which sub-$500 camera takes the best pictures at night?

Whatever D-SLR you can get for 350~ bucks, a 50mm 1.8 lens, and a tripod.

 

[teiresias]

Well, put in my order (via Amazon) for the Nikon D90 kit yesterday!!!

That's the one with the 18-105 zoom. Just decided I'd get that and the 35mm and if the zoom is more than I need putz around with finding a different one.

Now, does anyone want to suggest a bag? I've been looking at either a regular Domke F-2 or F-6 or a Tamrac Velocity 7x. I like the sling design of the Tamrac, but I'm not a big fan of the Lowepro Slingshot line, before anyone recommends it, just because the bags are so stiff and I'd rather have something that collapses on itself a bit more.

 

[Prez]

Whatever D-SLR you can get for 350~ bucks, a 50mm 1.8 lens, and a tripod.

Does a Canon 1000D + Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II sound good?

 

[Zyzyxxz]

How much zoom do you get on a 300mm over a 200mm? Or more exactly how much zoom do I get on 200mm?

I'm thinking of getting either:
1. Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR
2. Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS
3. Tamron 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD

*eidit* forget the 28-300, the 18-250 from Tamron will autofocus with my D40 though so that will be fine

The Nikon is much cheaper and more widely available used but is slower

The Sigma and Tamron both are around the same price range but I'm not sure which one I would get.

 

[nitewulf]

thinking of going this route for travelling:

the panny lumix gf1, with the 20mm f/1.7 prime. pocket dslr. cant imagine carrying my 40D and 17-55 during foreign trips.

 

[Tf53]

How much zoom do you get on a 300mm over a 200mm? Or more exactly how much zoom do I get on 200mm?

I'm thinking of getting either:
1. Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR
2. Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS
3. Tamron 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD

*eidit* forget the 28-300, the 18-250 from Tamron will autofocus with my D40 though so that will be fine

The Nikon is much cheaper and more widely available used but is slower

The Sigma and Tamron both are around the same price range but I'm not sure which one I would get.

The Nikon is actually faster on the longer end. Is VR Nikon's IS? If so, I'd go for that.

 

[Zyzyxxz]

The Nikon is actually faster on the longer end. Is VR Nikon's IS? If so, I'd go for that.

Yup it is.

Am I gonna see a bif difference in sharpness with the nikon versus the other two lenses that cost twice as much?

 

[Tf53]

Yup it is.

Am I gonna see a bif difference in sharpness with the nikon versus the other two lenses that cost twice as much?

Actually, since the range of the Nikon is smaller, I'd imagine there would be less distortion. Take it with a grain of salt, since I don't know jack shit about Nikon. I just know that if you have a lens that ranges from 18 mm to 200 mm, you know you're trading off something. I'd rather get the 55-200, unless you absolutely need the full range.

Edit: based on these reviews, seems like a decent lens.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I say get the Nikon too, since after 100mm, you'll want the IS.

 

[nitewulf]

no one else is interested in micro-dslrs? some sample images from the 20mm pancake lens:

i'm itching to get a panny gf1 and this lens.

 

[BlueTsunami]

no one else is interested in micro-dslrs? some sample images from the 20mm pancake lens:

i'm itching to get a panny gf1 and this lens.

I'm very interested in them and those shots are fantastic examples of what that pancake lens can do. Apparently Cosina Voigtlander makes a very good 12mm Rangefinder lens (that should work on these systems), for those who want to hit 24mm.

 

[Memles]

After I got a request to "officially" photograph a number of events which will be indoors and with uncontrollable lighting conditions, deciding to break down and pick up an external flash. It wasn't something I had really wanted to purchase, but I realized that it's a good tool to have so long as it isn't overused (which considering my general distaste for flash is unlikely to be an issue).

So far, I'm impressed - sure, shooting straight on is about as much of a failure as the built-in (XSi), but when I start bouncing and playing around with the light I'm really happy with the effect. I would love to say that I'd be able to manage fine with my 50mm, but when the requested photos came back with some pretty specific "We want you to capture this so that we can put a photo of it in the Alumni Bulletin" I knew that the more I could control the lighting conditions the better.

Now, a week to figure out how to really use the thing. Any general pointers? (I'm using a Canon Speedlite 430).

 

[Rentahamster]

After I got a request to "officially" photograph a number of events which will be indoors and with uncontrollable lighting conditions, deciding to break down and pick up an external flash. It wasn't something I had really wanted to purchase, but I realized that it's a good tool to have so long as it isn't overused (which considering my general distaste for flash is unlikely to be an issue).

So far, I'm impressed - sure, shooting straight on is about as much of a failure as the built-in (XSi), but when I start bouncing and playing around with the light I'm really happy with the effect. I would love to say that I'd be able to manage fine with my 50mm, but when the requested photos came back with some pretty specific "We want you to capture this so that we can put a photo of it in the Alumni Bulletin" I knew that the more I could control the lighting conditions the better.

Now, a week to figure out how to really use the thing. Any general pointers? (I'm using a Canon Speedlite 430).

Learning how to balance the ambient light with the flash is a very important skill to have.

This site has a lot of good tips:

http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/


Don't be afraid to use a really long shutter speed since it can work well in some situations. For example, find an area where there is a lot of light in the background, but no ambient light in the foreground. Expose for the background - it will be adequately bright, but since there is hardly any foreground light, anybody in the foreground will still be dark. Use your flash (preferably bounced) to light the people in the front. Since they are only lit by the instantaneous burst of flash, they will be sharp.

Also, make sure you practice focusing properly in the dark. Hope your AF-assist lamp works okay.

 

[Zyzyxxz]

no one else is interested in micro-dslrs? some sample images from the 20mm pancake lens:

i'm itching to get a panny gf1 and this lens.

i definitely am but the price is scaring me. The compatible lenses are all north of $800!

 

[BlueTsunami]

i definitely am but the price is scaring me. The compatible lenses are all north of $800!

You can buy some amazing cheap alternative lenses. You need an adapter to mount them but these cameras are like Canon in that their mount type takes lots of different lenses. The only problem and is probably a huge niggling point is that they'll all be manual focusing.

 

[Totakeke]

Learning how to balance the ambient light with the flash is a very important skill to have.

This site has a lot of good tips:

http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/

Stupid question, how do you bounce the flash off the walls or whatever else if your flash is mounted on your camera?

 

[Zyzyxxz]

How do you guys feel about factory refurbished lenses?

I got my D40 for only $300 after Bing Cashback for a refurbished and its was practically new.

I'm thinking about picking up the Nikon 55-200 VR for only $170 shipped for a factory refurbished one.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Stupid question, how do you bounce the flash off the walls or whatever else if your flash is mounted on your camera?

I'll take this if Rentahamster doesn't mind. You can swivel the head of off body flashes (that attach to the hotshoe on the top of your camera) so they point to the ceiling or even behind you. The bounced light is considered indirect light which is a step above blasting a nuke at your subjects face.

 

[mrkgoo]

I guess I'd like a small dSLR-like camera, but mostly as a gadget freak. It's a little bit too in-between for me. I'd probably prefer something more portable/pocketable if I wanted to go small. I played with an Olympus e-pen1 or whatever it's called - it's a really nice design, but I found myself, out of habit, trying to bring the camera up to my eye :loll

Memles:

Here's a really good primer that I always have bookmarked. I don't 'do' flash, but I want to one day, and this will be the places I'll re-read:

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=171657

Also, thought I'd mention here, I received my EF 17-40 f/4 L as a replacement walkaround lens. It fails perhaps, on more counts when compared to the EF-s 17-55, but does have some pluses. My quick impressions of the 17-40L suggest that all the things about this lens are true. That is:
It has less sharpness than the 17-55, when wide open (the 17-55 at 2.8 smokes the 17-40 at f4). It's great stopped down.
It has slightly better colour and contrast, and has that 'L' pop, but not by a huge amount.
It is WAY WAY less versatile, losing a complete stop, IS, and 15mm on the long end. It loses both useful portrait capability and has a much more limited scope for lowlight photography (I'm hoping I can compensate with the high iso performance of the 7D - it would've been nice to have both and get some shots simply not capable with other gear, however).
In return, it gets superb build, and weather sealing. Slightly lighter too.
As a bonus, I can use the filters and hood I have for my 17-55. Although I haven't tried it, I'm hoping stacking the polariser won't cause the vignetting I get form the 17-44 wide open.

The lens in question - it looks really good mounted.

EF-S 60mm Macro, f/2.8, 1/160s, iso200

Colour rendition with only in-camera processing is really great. Nearly looks like I used a polariser!:

EF17-40 f/4 L, 17mm, f/8.0, 1/400s, iso200


EF17-40 f/4 L, 17mm, f/8.0, 1/400s, iso200


EF17-40 f/4 L, 17mm, f/8.0, 1/80s, iso200

More shots in the Photography thread.

 

[Memles]

Huge thanks to Rentahamster and mrkgoo - plenty of reading material for the week ahead!

 

[Rentahamster]

Huge thanks to Rentahamster and mrkgoo - plenty of reading material for the week ahead!

You're welcome. Good luck!

If you want to practice your technique, I would suggest gathering up some friends and heading out to a restaurant, bar, club, or some place that has similar lighting conditions as the venue at which you will be shooting.

If you're smooth, you can use this as an opportunity to get a date, too.

"Hey Molly, let's go hang out at the lounge for a bit, it would be awesome if you could help me practice my photography for an upcoming job I have"

It works.

 

[Instigator]

no one else is interested in micro-dslrs? some sample images from the 20mm pancake lens:

i'm itching to get a panny gf1 and this lens.

I like the potential of it, but I didn't like my experience with the E-P1. Nice gadget, but I find it too big still. Very limited selection of lenses too (unless you want to use bulkier 4/3 lenses).

I'd rather stick with a small-ish DSLR with more lenses. Or something more compact like the LX3.

 

[Zyzyxxz]

Nikon users the 35mm F1.8 AF-S is back in stock at B&H! I finally bought one!

Get it now while you still can! Otherwise you will have to either wait for it to come back in stock or pay over MSRP for it!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&sku=606792&is=USA&A=details&Q=

 

[Borman]

Any recommendations for a cheap-ish zoom lens for my Canon T1i? Cheap as in 200-300$.

 

[golem]

I have an E-P1.. very fun camera, but I would like the autofocus of the GF1. Going to hold out and see what Oly will announce and make a move from there.

 

[Rentahamster]

Well, we'll see what Nikon has in store for use at today's conference.

http://nikonrumors.com/

D3s?
Rumored specs:

* Anti-dust system.
* The max ISO is at 12 800 + an extra Hi3 mode (102 400 ISO)
* 9 fps (FX), 11 fps (DX)
* Video @ 720p 24 fps.
* Quiet mode.

ISO 102,400. Dayuuum. That's some hot shit right there.

 

[Zyzyxxz]

Well, we'll see what Nikon has in store for use at today's conference.

http://nikonrumors.com/

D3s?
Rumored specs:


ISO 102,400. Dayuuum. That's some hot shit right there.

102400 iso? Holy crap I guess its gonna be usable at almost any setting we would normally need

 

[BlueTsunami]

102,400 should just be relegated to an Easter Egg setting labeled under "UFO Catcher".

 

[Rentahamster]

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870000

Using a redesigned sensor, which maintains its predecessor's full frame 12 million pixel resolution and large pixel pitch but has a 'completely modified inner structure', the extended standard ISO range of the D3s gives photographers 'an incredible advantage when shooting indoor sports, stadium events at night, dimly-lit spot news or any other shooting application where light is limited and Speedlights are not applicable', claims Nikon. 'Shooting at ISOs as high as 12,800, the D3s can take commercial quality, tack-sharp images in low light at action-freezing shutter speeds - a capability that will open a new world of photographic possibilities.'

Nikon has also introduced a new vibrating image sensor cleaner, plus further improvements on correcting lateral chromatic aberrations. It uses 14-bit A/D conversion and then a 16-bit image-processing pipeline to handle difficult tonal gradations, plus automatic regulation of the dynamic range of high contrast scenes. Custom profiles are available, as is 9fps continuous shooting (or 11fps in cropped DX format), and the camera maintains the D3's 51-point autofocus, 3D II colour matrix metering and twin CF slots, plus an improved viewfinder.

Niiiice.

The D3s is expected to be supplied to UK stores in early December, priced around £4200 for the body only.

Boooo.

 

[BlueTsunami]

ISO6400 is already at "Candlelight capture" levels. Usable 12,800 would be ridunculous.

 

[Futureman]

Also, thought I'd mention here, I received my EF 17-40 f/4 L as a replacement walkaround lens. It fails perhaps, on more counts when compared to the EF-s 17-55, but does have some pluses. My quick impressions of the 17-40L suggest that all the things about this lens are true. That is:
It has less sharpness than the 17-55, when wide open (the 17-55 at 2.8 smokes the 17-40 at f4). It's great stopped down.
It has slightly better colour and contrast, and has that 'L' pop, but not by a huge amount.
It is WAY WAY less versatile, losing a complete stop, IS, and 15mm on the long end. It loses both useful portrait capability and has a much more limited scope for lowlight photography (I'm hoping I can compensate with the high iso performance of the 7D - it would've been nice to have both and get some shots simply not capable with other gear, however).
In return, it gets superb build, and weather sealing. Slightly lighter too.
As a bonus, I can use the filters and hood I have for my 17-55. Although I haven't tried it, I'm hoping stacking the polariser won't cause the vignetting I get form the 17-44 wide open.

Whoa, the EFS 17-55 is ~$1,000? I didn't even realize they made EF-S lenses that expensive. I guess since I haven't had an ASP-C camera for years, I never really looked into them. But that's what it comes down to, 17-55 is $1,000 while the 17-40 is only $600 or so.

I use my 17-40 like 80% of the time. Wides suit my shooting style. I love my 17-40. Would love to get the 16-35L, though it doesn't seem like it's worth the ~$800 more.

 

[aidan]

ISO 102,400. Dayuuum. That's some hot shit right there.

My camera can barely take photos at 1600 ISO....

 

[Rentahamster]

ISO6400 is already at "Candlelight capture" levels. Usable 12,800 would be ridunculous.

Yep, using ISO 6400 and f1.4 on my D700, I can pretty much see in the dark. If 12,800 is as good as they say it is (I'm still taking it with a grain of salt), then :O

 

[mrkgoo]

ISO6400 is already at "Candlelight capture" levels. Usable 12,800 would be ridunculous.

YOu can never have TOO MUCH useable high iso (well, I guess you can get limited by the shutter speed - lol, like 1/8000s still clips the highlights ).

Useable high iso just means you can always use a faster shutter speed - it just presents more and more options, like stopping motion in near darkness.

Whoa, the EFS 17-55 is ~$1,000? I didn't even realize they made EF-S lenses that expensive. I guess since I haven't had an ASP-C camera for years, I never really looked into them. But that's what it comes down to, 17-55 is $1,000 while the 17-40 is only $600 or so.

I use my 17-40 like 80% of the time. Wides suit my shooting style. I love my 17-40. Would love to get the 16-35L, though it doesn't seem like it's worth the ~$800 more.

Yup, the EF-S 17-55 is a somewhat controversial lens. It has most definitely has 'L' optics. Apart from flare, bokeh and perhaps the unquantifiable 'L' pop, it has sharpness, distortion, contrast, most of the colour, and CA control of any 'L' lens. It actually outperforms most standard 'L' zooms to my knowledge (including the 17-40, the 16-35, the 24-70, and the 24-105 Ls). So in that regard it's definitely worth the $1000 - has constant F/2.8 aperture and IS to boot, a combination that has not been seen in a standard zoom, especially with the IQ.

That said, the body design is very consumer grade. A stupid manual focus ring, non-damped zoom, and a prone-to-dust plastic housing. The IS-mechanism is also prone to failure if reports are true. That's where the controversy comes in - it's a $1,000 lens, easily worth that price for the optics, but not for the build. I have no doubt that if this had better construction, it would cost at least $1,500, and probably be worth it.

On that front, I have packaged up my naff EF-S 17-55 and sent it to canon, along with the previous 4 service reports (they should have the 5th), so this will be the 6th time this lens needs service. I've asked if I can just get rid of this lens, as it's nor worth repairing if it is going to break again (included in the previous breakdowns are two af mechanism failures and two IS failures).

Who knows what they will say.

 

[Futureman]

Anyone want to buy a Canon 50mm 1.8 MKII for $20 shipped?

I dropped the lens (actually my friend did). The casing popped open but I snapped it back together. I continued to use it and it seemed fine. I since bought a Sigma 50mm and I don't use the Canon anymore.

Let me know.

 

[mrkgoo]

Anyone want to buy a Canon 50mm 1.8 MKII for $20 shipped?

I dropped the lens (actually my friend did). The casing popped open but I snapped it back together. I continued to use it and it seemed fine. I since bought a Sigma 50mm and I don't use the Canon anymore.

Let me know.

Dammit, that's cheap. I would if I didn't have one already, and also don't use it that much, but any beginner out there should definitely chomp on this. I don't think the snapping back together would be a big deal, provided the AF still works.

This lens feels like a toy, but it's such a simple design, there's not much that could go wrong, and an excellent learning tool.